Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

Transportation System and 

Related Recreation 

Management Actions for the 

Upper Tellico Off-Highway 

Vehicle System 

Nantahala National Forest: Cherokee County, 

North Carolina

Responsible Official 

Marisue Hilliard 

Forest Supervisor 

National Forests in North Carolina 

For Information Contact: 

Candace Wyman 

Project Coordinator 

160 Zillicoa Street, Suite A 

Asheville NC 28801 

(828) 257-4816 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Predecisional 

February 2009 

Environmental 

Assessment 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

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, or 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 and TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ..................................................... 1 

1.1 Purpose and Need................................................................1 

1.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................4 

1.3 Scoping ...............................................................................5 

1.4 Significant Issues Related to the Proposed Action ...................5 

1.5 Other Issues ........................................................................7 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.............. 9 

2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...........................................9 

Alternative A ...................................................................9 

Alternative B....................................................................9 

Alternative C .................................................................10 

Alternative D .................................................................12 

Alternative E..................................................................12 

Alternative F..................................................................14 

2.2 Comparison of the Alternatives Considered in Detail..............16 

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and 

 Environmental Consequences ....................... 19 

3.1 Soil and Water .................................................................19 

3.2 Aquatic Wildlife ................................................................63 

3.3 Plants..............................................................................85 

3.4 Terrestrial Wildlife ..........................................................111 

3.5 Area Visitor Preferences..................................................125 

3.6 Recreation Opportunities................................................. 137 

3.7 Scenery .........................................................................149 

3.8 Wild and Scenic River Suitability ...................................... 155 

3.9 Heritage Resources ........................................................ 159 

3.10 Human Health and Safety ...............................................167 

3.11 Economics .....................................................................171 

List of Preparers and Agencies/Persons Consulted.................. 178 

References Cited ...................................................................... 179 

Appendix A – Condition Survey Findings.................................. 185 

Appendix B - Details of Other OHV Opportunities .................... 191 

Appendix C – Financial Model Information............................... 193 

[Graphics Supplement is a separate document due to electronic file size] 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

The Upper Tellico OHV System is located in Cherokee 

County, North Carolina near the Tennessee state line. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

1 

 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Purpose and Need

Background

The Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Road and Trail System (OHV System, or 

Tellico OHV System) is located in Cherokee County North Carolina, about 13 miles 

north of Murphy. The approximately 39.3 miles of existing roads and trails that comprise 

the OHV System are concentrated within an area approximately 8,000 acres in size. The 

area borders Monroe County, Tennessee, and the OHV System is accessible from both 

states. Most of the OHV System occurs within the Upper Tellico River watershed. The 

Tellico River flows from its headwaters in Cherokee County, North Carolina through the 

area that encompasses the OHV System and on into Tennessee. The North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission in 1991 classified the North Carolina segment of the 

Tellico River as “Wild Trout Waters.” This section contains self-sustaining wild trout 

populations, native brook trout in particular. 

The OHV System was established May 1, 1986 with an amendment of the Off-Road 

Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan for the National Forests in North Carolina. At the 

time, analysis of the 58 miles of roads lying within the upper watershed found “user 

conflict, user safety conditions, and damage to natural and cultural resources are at an 

unacceptable level. In order to improve these conditions and to meet the minimum 

criteria established for ORV management by Forest Service policy: 

1. The Upper Tellico River area will be closed to ORV use unless signed open. 

2. ORV use will be restricted to designated routes only.” 

The 1986 analysis called for using a range of 18-25 miles of the existing 58 miles of 

roads for ORV’s 

The analysis concluded that “It is within the Forest Supervisor’s authority to close areas 

where motorized vehicle use is causing or is likely to cause considerable adverse effects. 

However, these changes should be sufficient to meet Forest Service policy and still allow 

user enjoyment of the area.” 

In resource surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008, it became clear that damage to natural 

and cultural resources was ongoing. In accordance with the Travel Management Rule 

(Federal Register, November 9, 2005), the forest conducted an areawide Travel Analysis, 

concurrent with this OHV Trail System Analysis. The Travel Analysis addresses the 

general and specific criteria for designating roads and trails in the Upper Tellico 

watershed, including a wide range of resource and use considerations. The findings of the 

Travel Analysis are incorporated into this Environmental Analysis, and vice versa. 

There is a need to stem the flow of sediment that is entering the Upper Tellico River 

and its tributaries from the OHV System, and thereby improve habitat for native 

brook trout. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

2 

1) Forest Plan standards for soil and water are being violated. 

• The Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan 

or LRMP) standard for soil and water management states: “Prevent visible 

sediment from reaching perennial and intermittent stream channels...” 

• Comprehensive field surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 revealed 2000 sources 

of visible sediment along the 39-mile trail system. This is over 50 points of visible 

sediment for each mile of trail. 

• One third of the 2000 sources of visible sediment are reaching the Upper Tellico 

River and its tributaries. 

• Six miles of the trail are within 100 feet of streams and 1.7 miles are within 25 

feet of streams. 

2) Best management practices are currently failing. 

• Best management practices (BMPs) include 2000 trail drainage featureswaterbars, broad-based dips, grade sags, ditches, cross drain culverts, outsloping, 

and sediment traps. 

• Less than half of the trail drainage features are functioning properly. 

• Poorly designed, located, and maintained drainage features coupled with 

excessive use has resulted in significantly deteriorated travel-ways to the point 

that regular road or trail BMPs are no longer adequate to protect trails from 

erosion and stream channels from sedimentation. 

3) BMPs are not sustainable due to severely erosive soils and heavy rainfall. 

• The area receives greater than 80 inches of rainfall per year with the wettest 

period occurring during the winter months.

• All trails on the system are classified as severe hazard by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). A rating of severe indicates that erosion of the 

trail is expected, the trail requires frequent maintenance, and costly erosion 

control measures are needed. 

• The soil types in the watershed rate as poorly suited for using the natural soil 

surface for roads. Poorly suited ratings indicate that overcoming the risk of 

erosion would require special road designs, extra maintenance, and costly 

alteration

• About 75,000 tons of soil has eroded from the existing trail system since the old 

logging transportation system was put in place, beginning many years before the 

Forest Service acquired the land .

• The effectiveness of the BMPs is continuously compromised due to the sheer 

number of sediment control features (2000) that must receive very frequent 

maintenance due to the severe soils and heavy rainfall.

• It is virtually impossible to remove the water from deeply entrenched trail 

sections using standard road and trail engineering or drainage structures. If the 

trail becomes worn down to bedrock it may also expose springs that add to water 

flow and thus potential sedimentation. Several trail sections on the OHV System 

exhibit this deeply entrenched condition, making it difficult to manage the runoff 

without closure and rehabilitation. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

3 

• The trails are highly susceptible to damage from traffic during the winter months 

when the soils are moist and experience frequent freezing and thawing.

4) North Carolina standards for turbidity are being violated. 

• In 1991, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission classified the Tellico 

River as ‘Wild Trout Waters’.

• The state of North Carolina’s standard for turbidity states, “the turbidity in the 

receiving water shall not exceed...10 NTU in streams, lakes, or reservoirs 

designated as trout waters...Compliance with this turbidity standard can be met 

when land management activities employ BMPs...BMPs must be in full 

compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, 

operation and maintenance of such BMPs.”

• Turbidity measurements from the Tellico River have been recorded up to 370 

NTU at the state line during storm events.

• During a run-off event occurring on March 4, 2008, the 10 NTU state standard 

was exceeded in virtually all surveyed streams.

5) Brook trout reproduction is being negatively affected. 

• Improving brook trout habitat is a Forest Plan standard. All streams within the 

Upper Tellico River watershed are suitable for brook trout.

• There are elevated fine sediment deposits in the Tellico River and its tributaries 

compared to nearby reference streams that are not impacted by the trail system. 

Brook trout spawning is reduced by increases in fine sediment deposits.

• Toxicity tests near three high challenge areas show elevated levels of petroleum 

products. Research has shown that these toxic substances can inhibit reproduction 

and recruitment of fish populations.

• The Forest Service has no control over the effects of droughts, floods, geology, or 

acid deposition within the Upper Tellico River watershed that may affect brook 

trout. As land managers however, we can reduce the human induced 

sedimentation from the trail system and thus eliminate an environmental stressor 

and provide the highest likelihood of long-term persistence of brook trout within 

the watershed.

There is a need to have trail management be consistent with the Forest Plan.

1) Level of challenge is being exceeded. 

• The Forest Plan direction for all OHV trails on the National Forests in North 

Carolina calls for providing “easy to moderate levels of challenge.”

• Several trails on the Tellico OHV System provide a high degree of challenge and 

do not meet the Forest Plan direction.

2) Trail density is being exceeded. 

• The Forest Plan direction calls for providing approximately two miles per square 

mile of OHV trails.

• The current system is currently over four miles per square mile. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

4 

• Either some trails should be closed to meet the existing trail density standard, or 

the Forest Plan would need to be amended to allow higher density for the Upper 

Tellico OHV System. 

There is a need to comply with the Travel Management Rule and corresponding 

Directives.

In 2005 a Travel Management Rule was promulgated that addresses the administration of 

motorized vehicle use and travel on National Forest System lands. On January 8, 2009, 

directives which provide specific direction on implementation of the Rule went into 

effect. While directing that the agency provide “a variety of trail opportunities, settings, 

and modes of travel consistent with the applicable land management plan”, the directives 

also charge the agency with emphasizing long-term cost-effectiveness and need when 

developing or rehabilitating trails, and providing a trail system that is environmentally, 

socially and financially sustainable (FSM 2353.03). 

The current trail system is not in compliance with the Forest Plan, and is not financially 

or environmentally sustainable in its current configuration. A Travel Analysis has been 

completed and is available on the Forest web site. The Travel Analysis addresses broad 

scale concerns in the Upper Tellico watershed, and informs the travel management 

decision to be made on this project. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

The Tusquitee Ranger District is proposing to implement a series of road and trail 

modifications and other management actions for the Upper Tellico OHV System. The 

intent would be to greatly reduce the amount of soil and other material leaving the road 

and trail system and entering the Upper Tellico River and its tributaries and thereby 

improve the habitat for native brook trout. This outcome depends on three categories of 

activities: defining a road and trail system that can be maintained in the future without 

extraordinary maintenance costs; fixing existing problems with an initial intense period 

of heavy maintenance; and managing the conditions of OHV use so as to reduce the 

potential for future soil loss.

The proposed action would 

• Reduce the trail system from its current 39.3 miles (all mileage figures throughout 

this document are approximate) to 24 miles; 

• Implement seasonal and storm-event closures to reduce damage to the trail 

surfaces; 

• Pave Trail 1; 

• Remove Trail 2 from the system and redesignate a portion as a system road for 

high clearance vehicles; 

• Close Trails 9 and 12 completely; 

• Leave Trails 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 open at least in part; 

• Leave Trails 10A and 11 on the system conditionally, to be re-evaluated in two 

years. 

• Eliminate drive-in camping adjacent to the trail system to facilitate storm-event 

closures; 

• Require 4-wheel OHV’s to lock in 4-wheel drive. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

5 

 

This proposed action would require amending standards in the Forest Plan that specify 

approximate trail densities and difficulty levels for this OHV System. See Chapter 2 for 

details. 

Trail-by-trail details of findings from the condition surveys along with specific proposed 

actions for each trail based on these findings are in Appendix A. Photos related to the 

proposed action are located in the Graphics Supplement. 

1.3 Scoping 

A scoping letter describing the proposed action and soliciting comments was mailed 

and/or e-mailed to individuals, organizations, and agencies that had previously expressed 

interest in Upper Tellico OHV System management, or who were on the Tusquitee 

District or Nantahala/Pisgah mailing lists. In addition, a news release was faxed to 

numerous media outlets. Notices appeared in the Asheville Citizen-Times on June 9, 

2008 and the Cherokee Scout on June 11, 2008. On June 28, 2008 an open house was 

held in Murphy, North Carolina to provide additional information on the proposed action 

and the condition surveys, as well as resource information. This was also an opportunity 

for attendees to provide written comments, have their questions answered, and to 

contribute information to an economic impact survey being conducted by the University 

of Tennessee to assess the impacts of the OHV System on the local communities. 

The Forest Service received almost 1500 comment letters, form letters, and/or e-mails by 

the close of business on July 9, 2008. The comments were entered into a spreadsheet and 

organized by key phrases. The vast majority of responses to scoping were “form emails” that came through efforts of various special-interest organizations. Many of the 

individually generated responses contained helpful ideas and suggestions for ways to 

improve the OHV System and reduce sedimentation. The Interdisciplinary Team drew 

heavily on public comments received during scoping to identify issues and develop 

alternatives to the proposed action to address these issues. 

1.4 Significant Issues Related to the Proposed Action

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from a 

proposed action. Significant issues serve to drive the development of alternatives to the 

proposed action so that trade-offs become apparent to the public and the decision-maker. 

Eight significant issues were identified: 

1. Concern that state water quality standards be met in managing the OHV System. The 

North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines for Water Quality establish performance 

standards for the protection of water quality. These include: 

a. Streamside Management Zones sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion and 

prevent visible sediment from entering intermittent or perennial streams or 

perennial waterbodies; 

b. Minimizing stream crossings and constructing needed crossings and 

associated water control devices so as to: minimize the amount of sediment 

that enters the stream from the construction; not obstruct stream flow; restrain 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

6 

accelerated erosion and prevent visible sediment from entering intermittent or 

perennial streams or perennial waterbodies. 

While each action alternative is intended to meet state water quality standards, there 

are still questions as to their long term effectiveness. 

In response, each alternative will be evaluated in Chapter 3 based on the 

likelihood of restraining accelerated erosion and the amount of trail in close 

proximity to streams. 

2. Concern that the proposed action still has OHV trails near streams and on sensitive 

soils and that these should be removed from the system to better protect the Tellico 

River and its tributaries from sediment. Reducing sediment inputs would improve 

habitat for native brook trout. 

In response, each alternative will be evaluated in Chapter 3 based on the amount 

of trail miles near streams and the amount on “severe hazard” soils. Impacts to 

trout habitat will also be discussed in the analysis of effects. 

3. Concern that the OHV System should be closed until all the needed repairs are 

finished, in order to prevent additional accelerated erosion of the trails into the Tellico 

River and its tributaries and protect trout populations. 

In response, each alternative description will include whether or not the system 

remains open or closed during the repair period. 

4. Concern that the proposed OHV System may not meet Forest Plan standards in regard 

to OHV trail density and challenge level. 

All actions must comply with the Forest Plan or the Forest Plan must be 

amended. Each alternative either meets Forest Plan direction and standards, or 

a description of how the Forest Plan would be amended is included in the 

alternative description. 

5. Concern that the proposed action reduces the amount of OHV opportunity and access 

to public lands for a variety of recreational uses, thereby reducing the ability of the 

public, especially families and people with less mobility, to enjoy the national forests. 

In response, each alternative will be evaluated in Chapter 3 based on the types of 

forest access available, and on the impacts to the recreational opportunity. 

6. Concern that the proposed OHV System eliminates most of the very high challenge 

recreation opportunity that draws people to Upper Tellico. 

In response, each alternative will be evaluated in Chapter 3 based on how well it 

meets the desired experience of the OHV community. 

7. Concern that the proposed upgrading of Trail 1 would eliminate access for nonhighway-legal vehicles from the southern end of the system. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

7 

Alternatives vary as to whether or not non-highway-legal OHVs (including ATVs) 

could access the trail system from the southern end. This information is included 

in the descriptions of the alternatives in Chapter 2. 

8. Concern that the proposed storm-event closures and new camping restrictions would 

be burdensome on OHV trip planning, family experiences, and special event 

planning. Also, there are concerns as to how these might be implemented. 

Alternatives vary as to whether or not storm-event closures and/or additional 

camping restrictions are included. This information is included in the descriptions 

of the alternatives in Chapter 2. 

1.5 Other Issues

Other issues are those that do not drive the development of alternatives to the proposed 

action but that may be addressed in the environmental effects analysis or may be outside 

the scope of the project. 

1. Concern that the Forest Service should be building more trails, not closing trails. 

Response: The purpose and need for action is to reduce sediment coming from 

the existing system, not to provide more OHV opportunities. 

2. Concern that the proposed action should be to study what the real sources of 

sedimentation are and what the real threats to the trout are. 

Response: Extensive studies have already identified that numerous sources of 

sediment ARE from the OHV System (See Condition Survey data available in 

the project record). Also, threats to trout populations are well described in the 

scientific literature and sediment is recognized as a known threat. 

3. Concern that the “no visible sediment” standard is unrealistic and should be changed. 

Response: This standard comes directly from State of North Carolina water 

quality guidelines, and Section 313 of the Clean Water Act directs Federal 

agencies to comply with State requirements. 

4. Concern that the Forest Service should examine the cumulative effects on the OHV 

opportunity of the many closures across the region and the country. 

Response: The cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives are 

analyzed in the environmental assessment Chapter 3. This includes an 

analysis of cumulative effects to the OHV opportunity. 

5. Concern that the proposed action will impact the local economy. 

Response: The environmental assessment contains an analysis of the 

economic impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

8 

6. Concern about the cost of the proposed action. 

Response: Costs associated with the proposed action and alternatives are 

displayed in an appendix to the environmental assessment. 

7. Concern that a ban on fishing and/or fish stocking would more clearly address a threat 

to native trout populations than implementing the proposed action. 

Response: Such a ban would not address the purpose and need for the 

proposed action to reduce sediment entering the Tellico River and its 

tributaries. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

9 

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED 

ACTION 

This chapter presents a detailed description of the alternatives. These alternatives were 

developed by the interdisciplinary team in response to the purpose and need and the 

significant issues identified for this project. 

2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Maps depicting the alternatives are located in the Graphics Supplement. 

2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action

Alternative A is the “No Action” alternative. The OHV System would remain as is, 

with 39.3 miles of trails, existing high challenge opportunities, current use restrictions, 

current fees, current levels of maintenance and monitoring. 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION 

Trail # Trail Name Existing 

Trail 

Miles 

Challenge 

Area(s) on 

Trail? 

1 Tipton Creek 5.3 No 

2 Tipton Knob 3.2 Yes 

3 Bearpen 4.1 No 

4 Fain Ford – Fain Ford Bridge construction would move 

forward (previous decision) 

4.8 No 

5 Tellico River 1.6 No 

6 State Line Loop 2.2 No 

7 Peckerwood Connector 0.5 Yes 

8 Bob Creek (condemned bridges would be replaced) 5.8 No 

9 Mistletoe Connector 0.7 Yes 

10 Round Mountain (ATV only) 4.5 Yes 

10A Round Mountain Spur (ATV only) 2.7 No 

11 Chestnut Mountain 2.7 Yes 

12 Hawk Knob 1.2 Yes 

2.1.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action

Alternative B reduces the trail system from 39.3 miles to 24 miles. It: 

• Reduces the number of challenge areas; 

• Has a winter closure and storm-event closure; 

• Restricts camping adjacent to the trail system; 

• Requires 4WD vehicles to lock in 4WD. 

• A Forest Plan amendment would be issued to modify the OHV density standard and 

the OHV trail difficulty level standard. 

• Recommends an increase in user fees (amount unspecified). 

A more detailed trail by trail description is presented in Appendix A. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

10 

ALTERNATIVE B: PROPOSED ACTION 

Trail # Trail Name and Action OHV 

Miles 

Challenge 

Area(s) on 

Trail? 

1 Tipton Creek – Pave and remove from the OHV System but 

retain as an open through-road for highway-legal vehicles. 

0 No 

2 Tipton Knob – Remove from OHV System. Close and 

rehabilitate the Rock Garden segment. Remainder would be 

system road: closed in part and open in part. 

0 No 

3 Bearpen – Retain as part of OHV System. 4.1 No 

4 Fain Ford – Most remains part of the OHV System. Fain Ford 

Bridge construction would move forward (previous decision) 

3.9 No 

5 Tellico River – Retain as part of the OHV System within a 

partial reroute. 

1.7 No 

6 State Line Loop – Retain as part of the OHV System. 2.2 No 

6 To 5 New connector – to allow ATV access. 0.2 No 

7 Peckerwood Connector – Retain with a reroute to eliminate 

the challenge area. 

0.5 No 

8 Bob Creek – Retain in part and close in part. Condemned 

bridges would be replaced. 

5.0 No 

9 Mistletoe Connector – Remove from the OHV System. Close 

and rehabilitate. 

0 No 

10 Round Mountain (ATV only) Retain southernmost segment. 

Close and rehabilitate remainder. 

1 No 

10A Round Mountain Spur (ATV only) – Retain as open to ATV’s. 

Reevaluate in two years. 

2.7 No 

11 Chestnut Mountain – Retain as part of OHV System, to be 

reevaluated after two years. 

2.7 Yes 

12 Hawk Knob – Remove from the OHV System. Close and 

rehabilitate. 

0 No 

The table below describes the plan amendment associated with Alternative B: 

Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide easy to moderate 

levels of challenge;...” 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide “various levels of 

challenge:”

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit. 

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except 

for the Upper Tellico OHV System, 

where densities may be higher.

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit. 

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except 

for the Upper Tellico OHV System, 

where densities may be higher.

2.1.3 Alternative C 

Alternative C eliminates the OHV System. This alternative was developed to achieve a 

very low level of risk of sedimentation from the trail system and low long-term 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

11 

maintenance costs. Trails would be either converted for other use or closed and 

rehabilitated. The area remains completely open for foot travel. In this alternative: 

• Trail 1 would be paved and kept open as a through route for highway legal vehicles; 

• Most of Trail 2, all of Trail 6, and parts of Trails 4, 5, and 7 become forest roads for 

various uses; 

• Portions of Trails 4, 5, and 6 would be open seasonally for public access 

• Requires a Forest Plan amendment to de-list Tellico as one of the OHV trail systems. 

A trail by trail summary of this alternative is in the table below: 

ALTERNATIVE C: 

Trail # Trail Name and Action OHV 

Miles 

Challenge 

Areas on 

Trail as 

Proposed? 

1 Tipton Creek – Same as Alternative B. 0 NA 

2 Tipton Knob – Same as Alternative B 0 Closed 

3 Bearpen – Close and Rehabilitate (decommission). Remove 

culverts and bridges. Restore hydrology. Remove pressure 

treated material; leave native material. Seeding and mulching 

of bare soil. Minor recontouring to put fill slope back in road. 

Replant. 

0 NA 

4 Fain Ford – From intersection with Trail 1 to intersection with 

Trail 3 (2.63 miles), this portion would remain on the Forest 

Road System as a seasonally-open road available for 

resource management and public access. The road would be 

open to public access for up to four months each year, 

September-December. Improve and maintain for highclearance 4WD highway-legal vehicles. Cancel Fain Ford 

Bridge. Close and rehabilitate (decommission) remainder of 

road similar to Trail 3. 

0 NA 

5 Tellico River - Leave and fix portion through Rough Crossing 

Bridge (1.01 mile). Construct turn-around across bridge and 

leave this section available for motorized access, fishing 

access, and resource management access. Implement a 

winter seasonal closure. Eliminate fish passage barriers for 

this section. Close and rehabilitate (decommission) remainder 

of road similar to Trail 3. 

0 NA 

6 to 5 

connector 

New Connector would not be built 0 NA 

6 State Line Loop - Right-of-way prevents closeout. Gate. 

Retain on the Forest Road System as a seasonally-open road 

(2.25 miles) available for resource management, private and 

public access. The road would be open to public access for up 

to four months each year, September-December. Improve and 

maintain for high-clearance 4WD highway-legal vehicles 

Improve existing turnaround at intersection with Trail 7. 

Decommission (close and rehabilitate) parking area. 

0 NA 

7 Peckerwood Connector – A short section of 7 that connects 

Trail 6 to a closed road that provides access to private 

property would remain available to the private landowner. 

Gate. Minimally maintain and monitor. Close and rehabilitate 

(decommission) remainder of road similar to Trail 3. 

0 Closed 

8 Bob Creek – Close and rehabilitate (decommission). Remove 

culverts and bridges. Restore hydrology. Remove pressure 

treated material; leave native material. Seeding and mulch 

bare soil. Minor recontouring to put fill slope back in road. 

0 NA 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

12 

Replant. 

9 Mistletoe Connector - Same as Trail 8 0 Closed 

10 Round Mountain – Same as Trail 8 0 Closed 

10A Round Mountain Spur – Same as Trail 8 0 NA 

11 Chestnut Mountain – Same as Trail 8 0 Closed 

12 Hawk Knob – Close and rehabilitate (decommission). 

Intensive recontouring and intensive planting. 

0 Closed 

The table below describes the plan amendment associated with Alternative C: 

 

Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language 

Pg. III-11: General Direction #5. Provide 

recreational riding opportunities for use by 

vehicles commonly classified as off-road 

vehicles (ORV’s) on designated routes 

within established ORV areas. This 

includes Upper Tellico, Brown Mountain, 

and Wayehutta. Permit no cross-country 

travel in Management Areas 1 through 18. 

Pg. III-11: General Direction #5. Provide 

recreational riding opportunities for use by 

vehicles commonly classified as off-road 

vehicles (ORV’s) on designated routes 

within established ORV areas. This 

includes Brown Mountain and Wayehutta. 

Permit no cross-country travel in 

Management Areas 1 through 18. 

2.1.4 Alternative D

Alternative D reduces the trail system from 39.3 miles to 17.6 miles. This alternative was 

developed to meet the current OHV standards in the Forest Plan while still retaining an 

OHV system. It modifies Alternative B by: 

• Closing Trails 10A and 11; 

• Eliminating all the challenge areas; 

• Requiring the trail be closed until repairs are completed; 

• Not requiring a Forest Plan amendment. 

A trail by trail summary of this alternative is in the table below: 

ALTERNATIVE D: 

Trail 

# 

Trail Name and Action OHV 

Miles 

Challenge 

Areas on 

Trail as 

Proposed? 

1 Tipton Creek – Same as Alternative B 0 No 

2 Tipton Knob – Same as Alternative B 0 Closed 

3 Bearpen - Same as Alternative B 4.1 No 

4 Fain Ford – Same as Alternative B 3.9 No 

5 Tellico River - Same as Alternative B 1.7 No 

6 to 5 New Connector - Same as Alternative B .2 No 

6 State Line Loop - Same as Alternative B 2.2 No 

7 Peckerwood Connector - Same as Alternative B 0.5 Closed 

8 Bob Creek - Same as Alternative B. 5.0 No 

9 Mistletoe Connector - Same as Alternative B. Close and 

Rehabilitate (decommission). 

0 Closed 

10 Round Mountain - Close and Rehabilitate (decommission). 0 Closed 

10A Round Mountain Spur - Close and Rehabilitate (decommission). 0 No 

11 Chestnut Mountain - Close and Rehabilitate (decommission). 0 Closed 

12 Hawk Knob – Same as Alternative B. Close and Rehabilitate 

(decommission). 

0 Closed 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

13 

2.1.5 Alternative E

Alternative E reduces the trail system from 39.3 miles to 30.2 miles. It was developed to 

better meet the demand for OHV opportunities than does the Proposed Action, while still 

reducing sediment from the trail system. It modifies Alternative B by: 

• Rerouting Trail 9 while retaining access to the challenge area (Slickrock); 

• Constructing an additional challenge area on Trail 11; 

• Reconstructing Trail 10 (including a partial reroute) for full-sized OHV use; 

• Adding a new parking lot at the intersection of Trails 4 and 11 and reconstructing a 

piece of Trail 4 from its intersection with Trail 1 to this new parking lot (to provide 

OHV and ATV-UTV access from the southern end of the trail system); 

• Eliminating the storm-event closure; 

• Eliminating new camping restrictions; 

• Eliminating 4WD lock-in. 

A trail by trail summary of this alternative is in the table below: 

ALTERNATIVE E: 

Trail # Trail Name and Action OHV 

Miles 

Challenge 

Areas on 

Trail as 

Proposed? 

1 Tipton Creek – Same as Alternative B 0 No 

2 Tipton Knob – Same as Alternative B 0 Closed 

3 Bearpen - Same as Alternative B 4.1 No 

4 Fain Ford – All of Trail 4 is retained as part of the OHV 

System with heavy maintenance, minor realignments, and 

some reconstruction. 

4.8 No 

5 Tellico River - Same as Alternative B 1.7 No 

6 to 5 New Connector - Same as Alternative B .2 No 

6 State Line Loop - Same as Alternative B 2.2 No 

7 Peckerwood Connector - Same as Alternative B 0.5 Closed 

8 Bob Creek - Same as Alternative B. 5.0 No 

9 Mistletoe Connector – Reroute trail to retain access to 

Slickrock while allowing closeout and rehabilitation of 

existing deeply entrenched trail sections. 

2.0 Yes 

10 Round Mountain – Reroute north end of trail to avoid 

existing problem area. Design reroute to accommodate 

full-size OHVs. Reconstruct remainder of trail to 

accommodate full-size OHVs. Close and rehabilitate 

(decommission) that portion of the current trail that would 

be rerouted. 

4.3 Closed 

10A Round Mountain Spur – Remains open with heavy, 

frequent maintenance. 

2.7 No 

11 Chestnut Mountain – Reconstruct to include an additional 

challenge area along the western part of the trail. [NOTE: 

This new challenge area is not shown on the map.] 

2.7 Yes 

12 Hawk Knob – Same as Alternative B. Close and 

Rehabilitate (decommission). 

0 Closed 

The table below describes the plan amendment associated with Alternative E: 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

14 

Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide easy to moderate 

levels of challenge;...” 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide “various levels 

of challenge:”

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit. 

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except 

for the Upper Tellico OHV System, 

where densities may be higher. 

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit. 

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except 

for the Upper Tellico OHV System, 

where densities may be higher.

2.1.6 Alternative F

In Alternative F the miles of trail change from 39.5 to 37.5, but it actually provides new 

trail opportunities for all types of OHVs. It was developed to provide a trail system with 

opportunities similar to what they are today, but with repairs, relocations, and with new 

or replacement construction that would alleviate many of the current sedimentation 

concerns. It is similar to Alternative E, except with the addition of a new ATV trail at the 

southern end of the system. It modifies Alternative B by: 

• Constructing 7.3 miles of new ATV-UTV trail (Trail 13); 

• Rerouting Trail 9 while retaining access to the challenge area (Slickrock); 

• Adding an additional challenge area on Trail 11; 

• Reconstructing Trail 10 (including a partial reroute) for full-sized OHV use; 

• Adding a new parking lot at the intersection of Trails 4 and 11 and reconstructing a 

piece of Trail 4 from its intersection with Trail 1 to this new parking lot (to provide 

OHV and ATV-UTV access from the southern end of the trail system); 

• Eliminating the storm-event closure; 

• Eliminating additional camping restrictions; 

• Eliminating 4WD lock-in. 

A trail by trail summary of this alternative is in the table below: 

 

ALTERNATIVE F: 

Trail # Trail Name and Action OHV 

Miles 

Challenge 

Areas on 

Trail as 

Proposed? 

1 Tipton Creek – Same as B 0 No 

2 Tipton Knob – Same as Alternative B 0 Closed 

3 Bearpen - Same as Alternative B 4.1 No 

4 Fain Ford – Same as Alternative E 4.8 No 

5 Tellico River – Same as Alternative B 1.7 No 

6 to 5 New Connector - Same as Alternative B 0.2 No 

6 State Line Loop - Same as Alternative B 2.2 No 

7 Peckerwood Connector - Same as Alternative B 0.5 Closed 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

15 

Trail # Trail Name and Action OHV 

Miles 

Challenge 

Areas on 

Trail as 

Proposed? 

8 Bob Creek - Same as in Alternative B 5.0 No 

9 Mistletoe Connector – Same as Alternative E 2.0 Yes 

10 Round Mountain – Same as Alternative E 4.3 No 

10A Round Mountain Spur – Same as Alternative E 2.7 No 

11 Chestnut Mountain – Same as Alternative E 2.7 Yes 

12 Hawk Knob – Same as Alternative B 0 Closed 

13 New ATV-Only Trail 7.3 No 

The table below describes the plan amendment associated with Alternative F: 

Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide easy to moderate 

levels of challenge;...” 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide “various levels of 

challenge:”

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit. 

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except 

for the Upper Tellico OHV System, 

where densities may be higher.

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit. 

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except 

for the Upper Tellico OHV System, 

where densities may be higher.

2.1.7 Additional Actions:

The following actions would be included as appropriate as part of whatever alternative is 

selected: 

1. To reduce impacts to Heritage Resources, complete surveys of all trails with high and 

moderate probability of sites to determine the specific locations of significant or 

potentially significant sites. Implement measures to eliminate damage at significant or 

potentially significant sites that appear to be impacted or are likely to be impacted by 

OHV use. This may include covering or hardening sites with protective fabric, gravel 

and soil, erecting physical barriers, or other appropriate measures. Include inspection of 

these sites in the OHV System monitoring plan. Avoid adverse impacts to all significant 

sites from trail decommissioning. 

2. All standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 10 

of the LRMP, would be followed. No suitable snags would be cut between April 15 and 

October 15. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

16 

2.2 Comparison of the Alternatives 

Table 2.2.1. Actions by alternative

Trail # Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Road.  Miles 39.3 24.6 13.3 24.9 34.8 

OHV Trail 

Miles 39.3 24.0 0 17.6 30.2 

1 

5.3 mi 

road/trail no 

change 

5.3 mi. 

paved road only 

5.3 mi. 

paved road only 

5.3 mi. 

paved road 

only 

5.3 mi. 

paved road only 

2 

3.2 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

0.8 mi open road, 

1.4 mi. closed 

road for pvt 

access 

0.8 mi open road, 1.4 mi. 

closed road for pvt 

access 

0.8 mi open 

road, 1.4 mi. 

closed road 

for pvt access 

0.8 mi open road, 1.4 mi. 

closed road for pvt 

access 

3 

4.1 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

4.1 mi. road/trail 

no change 

0 mi. trail 

decommission 

4.1 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

4.1 mi. road/trail 

no change 

4 

4.8 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

3.9 mi road/trailpartial closure 

0 mi. trail, 2.6 mi.road 

open seasonally 

(decommission 

remainder) 

3.9 mi 

road/trailpartial closure 

4.8 mi. road/trail 

improve southern end 

from Trail 1 to a new 

parking lot at intersection 

with 11 

5 

1.6 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

1.7 mi. road/trail 

partial reroute 

0 mi. trail, 

1.0 miles road open 

1.7 mi. 

road/trail 

partial reroute 

1.7 mi. road/trail 

partial reroute 

6-5 connector n.a. 0.2 ATV trail construct n.a. 0.2 ATV trail construct 0.2 ATV trail construct 

6 

2.2 mi 

road/trail 

no change 

2.2 mi. road/trail 

heavy 

maintenance 

0 mi. trail, 2.2 mi. road 

open seasonallyheavy maintenance 

2.2 mi. 

road/trail 

heavy 

maintenance 

2.2 mi. road/trail 

heavy maintenance 

7 

0.5 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

0.5 mi. road/trail partial closure & 

reroute 

0 mi. trail/ 0.1 mi closed 

road for pvt access 

(decommission 

remainder) 

0.5 mi. 

road/trail 

partial closure 

& reroute 

0.5 mi. road/trail 

partial closure & reroute 

p

8 

5.8 mi 

road/trail 

no change 

5.0 mi. road/trail 

reconstruction/ 

partial closure 

0 mi. 

decommission 

5.0 mi. 

road/trail 

reconstruction/ 

partial closure 

5.0 mi. road/trail 

reconstruction/ partial 

closure 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

17 

Trail # Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Road.  Miles 39.3 24.6 13.3 24.9 34.8 

OHV Trail 

Miles 39.3 24.0 0 17.6 30.2 

9 

0.7 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

0 mi. 

decommission 

0 mi. 

decommission 

0 mi. 

decommission 

2.0 mi. road/trail 

reroute 

10 

4.5 mi ATV 

trail 

no change 

1.0 mi. ATV trail 

partial closure 

0 mi. 

decommission decommission 4.3 mi. road/trail reroute/reconstruct 

10A 

2.7 mi. ATV 

trail 

no change 

2.7 mi. ATV trail 

no change 

0 mi. 

decommission decommission 2.7 mi. ATV trail no change 

11 

2.7 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

2.7 mi. road/trail 

construct 

bypasses 

0 mi. 

decommission decommission 

2.7 mi. road/trail 

reconstruct/add challenge 

area 

12 

1.2 mi. 

road/trail 

no change 

0 mi. 

decommission 

0 mi. 

decommission 

0 mi. 

decommission 

0 mi. 

decommission 

13 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Seasonal 

closure No Yes Applies to 1 mi. of Trail 5 Yes Yes 

Storm-event 

closure No Yes n.a. Yes No 

New camping 

restrictions No Yes No Yes No 

4WD lock-in No Yes n.a. Yes No 

Plan 

Amendment n.a. Yes Yes No Yes 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

18 

In the table below, those alternatives that best address each significant issue are displayed to the 

right, while those that address the issue less or not at all are on the left. 

 Table 2.2.2. Relative Ranking of How Well the Alternatives Address the Significant 

Issues 

1. Concern about meeting State water quality standards – Likelihood of 

effectiveness in meeting the standards. 

Alt. A → → Alt. F → → Alt. E → → Alt. B → → Alt. D → → Alt. C 

Less likely →→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→ More likely 

2. Concern that OHV trails near streams and on sensitive soils should be closed. 

Alt. A → → Alt. F → → Alt. E → → Alt. B → → Alt. D → → Alt. C 

More such miles remain open →→→→→→→→→→Fewer such miles remain open 

3. Concern that the system should be closed until all repairs are completed. 

Alts. A, B, E, F Alt. D Alt. C 

Only closed January through March Closed for 

repairs 

Closed 

completely 

4. Concern that the OHV System should comply with current Forest Plan direction 

and standards in regard to OHV opportunities. 

Alts. B, C, E, F Alt. D 

Would require a Forest Plan amendment* Would not 

require an 

amendment 

5. Concern that the Forest Service should not reduce the OHV opportunity and 

access to public land. 

Alt. C → → Alt. D → → Alt. B → → Alt. E → → Alt. F → → Alt. A 

More reduction →→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→ Less reduction 

6. Concern that the Forest Service should retain the high challenge areas. 

Alt. C → → Alt. D → → Alt. B → → Alts. E and F → → Alt. A 

No challenge areas →→ Fewer challenge areas →→→More challenge areas 

7. Concern that ATV access should be provided from the southern end of the 

system. 

Alts. B, C, D Alts. A, E, F 

No such access provided Access is provided 

8. Concern that storm-event closures and camping closures would be burdensome 

for trip planning. 

Alts. B, D ** Alts. A, E, F 

These closures apply These closures do not apply 

*Not applicable to the “no action” Alternative A, that by definition maintains the status quo. 

**Not applicable to Alternative C that closes the whole system. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

19 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Chapter 3 describes the environmental components of the area that would be affected by the 

alternatives under consideration. It provides the analytic basis for comparison of the 

alternatives, and describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the alternatives. 

Chapter 3 is organized around each potentially affected resource. 

3.1 Soil and Water 

3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Almost all of the Upper Tellico OHV System is within the 6,848 acre Upper Tellico River 

drainage, a sixth level sub-watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code: 06010204030010). It is 

located approximately 22 miles east of Tellico Plains, Tennessee and 13 miles northwest of 

Murphy, North Carolina in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Southern Metasedimentary Mountain 

Eco-region. The analysis area lies in the North Carolina portion of the Tellico River 

watershed which flows west into Tennessee in the Little Tennessee River Basin. Elevation in 

the area ranges from 4,979 feet on Grassy Top Mountain to 2,500 feet on the Tellico River at 

the North Carolina-Tennessee state line. 

According to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) weather station 

at Andrews, NC, the area has an average annual temperature of 55.7 degrees Fahrenheit. 

January is usually the coldest month with an average temperature of 37.0 degrees Fahrenheit, 

while July is usually the hottest month with an average temperature of 73.8 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The Andrews area averages about 66 inches of precipitation annually, while the 

Upper Tellico area receives on average greater than 80 inches per year (USDA-NRCS 1997), 

with the wettest period occurring in the months of December to March (Figure 3.1.1.1). 

Prevailing winds and rainfall in western North Carolina are predominantly from the 

southwest. 

Streams in the area include the Tellico River, and its tributaries of Round Mountain Branch, 

Bob Creek, Mistletoe Creek, Peckerwood Creek, Bearpen Branch, Jenks Branch, Tipton 

Creek, and numerous, smaller unnamed streams. Small first order streams, springs, and 

seeps are common because of shallow depths to bedrock. 

While most of the OHV trails are in the Upper Tellico drainage, sections of Trail 1 (from 

Allen Gap to Harshaw Gap) and Trail 2 are located in the headwaters of the Davis Creek 

drainage. This drainage flows into Hanging Dog Creek within the Hiwassee River Basin. 

Trail 1 crosses several streams in this drainage while Trail 2 is at a high elevation in the 

drainage with no stream crossings. 

A high percentage (> 70 %) of the watershed is currently in public ownership (Nantahala 

National Forest), however the area has had many historical landowners, including private 

timber companies. 

Between 1950 and 1969, before Forest Service acquisition, extensive ground-based logging 

with skidders took place in the area, requiring construction of numerous roads and skid trails. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

20 

Many of these routes were poorly located on the contour and some located near streams, with 

steep grades and little drainage control. Routes constructed pushed the capabilities of the 

logging equipment producing extremely steep routes. Compared to current North Carolina 

industry practices these routes would have never been constructed. As these roads were 

abandoned, some restored naturally to a stable condition, while others were never completely 

closed or decommissioned, and continued to be used by four-wheel drive vehicles. Due to 

the location, grade, soil type, concentrated flow and erosion over extended periods of time, 

many roads became deeply rutted and eroded leaving a permanent scar on the landscape. 

After the bulk of the land became part of the National Forest System in the early 1980’s, 

numerous trails were closed while those remaining open became an official OHV trail 

system. Private inholdings remained in the headwaters of Peckerwood Creek and Tellico 

River, and on Tipton Creek. Since then funds for maintenance and improvements have been 

limited and the popularity of the area has grown. This resulted in a steady decline in trail 

conditions. With the increased public interest in off road vehicle use of high-powered 

vehicles, designed to negotiate steep and rugged terrain, use continued on otherwise 

impassable conditions and the erosion of the trail surface continue to increase beyond levels 

that used to limit traffic. 

For parts of the analysis of environmental effects it was necessary to put Upper Tellico 

condition data in context with similar sites away from the trail system. Reference sites were 

established in Citico Creek and Sycamore Creek. Citico and Sycamore Creeks drain 11,519 

and 3,678 acres, respectively, and are from similar geology and maintain similar forested 

landcover as the Upper Tellico River. Both streams are located in Tennessee. Citico Creek 

drains north into the Little Tennessee River, at the upper end of Tellico Lake. Sycamore 

Creek is a tributary to the Tellico River, approximately 3 miles from the state line. Old roads 

exist in these drainages from the early logging days, but these have become largely vegetated 

and stable. A hiking trail network is present within each drainage, which may be a source of 

sediment to streams. In addition to Citico Creek and Sycamore Creek, a third site, Tipton 

Creek-3 (613 acre drainage area), also serves as a reference site for comparison since it is in 

the Upper Tellico but not subjected to sediment input from the current trail system. 

Stream Flow, Stream Channels, and Water Quality 

Stream Flow:

Streams within the analysis area have an estimated, average annual discharge of about 2.42 

cfs (cubic feet per second) per square mile of watershed; a value similar to other watersheds 

in the region. Figure 3.1.1.1 displays the mean monthly streamflow for the Tellico River 

(drainage area = 118 sq miles) downstream from the analysis area near Tellico Plains, 

Tennessee for the 1925 to 2007 period of record, and mean monthly precipitation at 

Andrews, NC. Stream flow varies seasonally with rainfall and the effects of evapotranspiration. January is usually the wettest month with an average of 7.2 inches of 

precipitation, while October is usually the driest with an average of 3.5 inches of 

precipitation. In an average year, stream discharge will be highest during the winter months 

when precipitation is high and most vegetation is dormant. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

21 

Figure 3.1.1.1. Mean monthly streamflow of the Tellico River at Tellico Plains, TN 

(data from 1925 – 2007) and mean monthly precipitation, Andrews, NC (data from 

1971 – 2000). 

MONTHLY NORMALS FOR TELLICO RIVER STREAMFLOW (@ Tellico Plains, TN) & 

PRECIPITATION (@ Andrews, NC)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT

Month

Streamflow (cfs)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

Precipitation (inches)

STREAMFLOW

During the winter months, soils are moist and experience frequent freezing and thawing 

where freezing temperatures penetrate into the soil. Roads and trails subjected to freezing 

and subsequent thawing are highly susceptible to damage from traffic during those periods 

(Kestler, et. al. 2000). 

Stream Channels:

Stream gradients are generally steep in the watershed with channel materials dominated by 

boulder size rock, but with a mixture of bedrock, cobble, gravel, and sand sizes as well. 

Stream types are predominantly A2 and B2/3 stream types as defined by Rosgen stream 

classification (Rosgen 1996). These stream types are defined as having a low sensitivity to 

increases in flow and sediment, and low bank erosion potential. These stream reaches are 

considered to be high energy reaches that can transport a large load of stream materials (both 

bedload and suspended load) and sediment from outside the channel. Therefore, under 

natural conditions channel habitat features, such as pools, are expected to maintain 

themselves without filling with fine sediments such as silt and sand size particles. 

Water Quality:

The water quality of the Tellico River can generally be characterized as low in conductivity, 

low in alkalinity, and slightly acidic. Water in the assessment area is currently characterized 

by the State of North Carolina as being of adequate quality to support all protected uses (NC 

DWQ 2006). Protected uses for the Upper Tellico River include: secondary recreation, 

fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. Additionally, the 

Tellico River is classified as trout waters. This classification adds further protection for 

natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. Water quality in the Tellico River 

Precipitation 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

22 

downstream from the assessment area fully supports protected uses as of the 2006 State of 

Tennessee water quality assessment of the Little Tennessee River Watershed (Tennessee 

Department of Environment and Conservation 2006). 

Existing Condition 

Understanding Erosion

The process of erosion is natural and occurs on all landscapes. The current landscape is a 

result of numerous processes, the most recent being erosion. In the southeastern U.S., 

erosion occurs predominantly as a result of the interaction of water with soil. Water erosion 

is a common geologic process that is responsible for the leveling of mountains and the other 

land features. Natural rates of erosion are often very slow and occur frequently whenever 

soils interact with moving water. This type of chronic erosion occurs across the landscape. 

Occurring less frequently is a catastrophic type of erosion associated with large storm events 

and mass failure of soils. These two types of erosion are natural and it is only when the rate 

and extent of erosion exceeds a natural rate it is called accelerated erosion. Accelerated 

erosion is often caused by human disturbance of a stable soil. It is this type of erosion that 

should be controlled (NC DFR 2006). 

Erosion is the process of soil particle detachment and movement. When the soil particles are 

detached from the soil aggregate particles can be carried away by the action of falling 

raindrops, flowing water, or freezing and thawing. On bare soil, such as a native surfaced 

road, the force of a raindrop hitting the ground (raindrop splash) can transport soil particles 

several feet under a heavy rainfall. The action of flowing water can transport soil particles 

for great distances where the flow is concentrated in gullies and rills (small gullies), 

depending on the gradient and length of the slope (NC DFR 2006). Steep slopes allow water 

to flow at higher velocity thus it can transport more soil, and detach more particles along the 

way. The erosion process of freezing and thawing is largely a detachment mechanism caused 

by the influence of moisture is the soil and soil temperatures that fluctuate between freezing 

and thawing. As water freezes in the soil, often within the upper few inches, it expands, 

carrying soil particles with it. When thawing occurs, soil particles are deposited in a new 

location. These detached particles, now separated from the soil aggregate, are susceptible to 

further erosion. 

Soils and the Erosion Hazard

Soils in the watershed consist primarily of Soco and Stecoah soils on the warmer side slopes 

and most ridges. Of somewhat lesser extent are Cheoah and Jeffrey soils that occur on the 

cooler side slopes and some higher ridges. All these types are typically deep, well-drained, 

acidic, loamy soils derived from weathered metasedimentary rock. Although Ditney-UnicoiRock outcrop complexes are of relatively limited extent overall, significant acreages occur on 

southerly aspects within the Mistletoe Creek and Bob Creek drainages and on the very steep 

side slopes and narrow ridges along the Tellico River. Riparian areas are predominantly 

Spivey soils that commonly occur in complex with fine-loamy Whiteoak soils or, in the 

steeper coves with slopes of greater than 30 percent, coarse-loamy Santeetlah. All map units 

of these “riparian” soils are described as bouldery or very bouldery. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

23 

The geology and climate of the area has formed a landscape characterized by steep, dissected 

mountains and narrow V-shaped valleys. The watershed geology is in part covered with 

deposits of loose, poorly sorted rock in a medium known as colluvium. Colluvium is the 

deposited material that has failed from steeper upper slopes and accumulates on lower 

gradient slopes and in valley bottoms. This gravity transported material is the main geologic 

hazard in the mountains of North Carolina (NC Geological Survey (unpublished)) and the 

analysis area. On steep terrain, these deposits are potential landslides if set in motion by 

abundant rainfall and/or man-made activities, such as roads. 

Currently, landslides and other forms of mass wasting events are not apparent on the 

landscape. Undisturbed forested areas in the watershed appear to generate little sediment 

because infiltration rates are high and overland flow is rare. The primary source of erosion in 

the area is from soil disturbance, particularly the existing road and trail network. Sections of 

trail considered “high challenge”, such as the “Rock Garden” on Trail 2 and “Slick Rock” on 

Trail 9, have lost all soil and are eroded to bedrock and boulders, while sidewalls of the 

entrenched areas continue to erode. It is estimated that 74,550 tons of soil has been eroded 

from the current trail system (38.48 miles) since the establishment of the old logging 

transportation system more than 50 years ago (based on the depth and length of 

entrenchments). Much of the displaced soil was deposited on the uplands, while some was 

transported to the stream network. The current trail system occupies many of these old 

routes, and erosion of the trail system persists. Sections of trail considered “high challenge”, 

because of difficult driving conditions, such as the “Rock Garden” on Trail 2 and “Slick 

Rock” on Trail 9, have lost a great deal of soil and are eroded down to bedrock and boulders. 

Excessive erosion persists on trail sections such as these as the steep sidewalls continue to 

erode. 

Erosion of soils from stream banks occurs infrequently in the watershed. Several sites have 

been observed where the stream channel scours the toe of the adjacent side slope. Although 

infrequent, these sites add to sources of sediment in the watershed. On private lands in the 

Tipton Creek and Peckerwood Creek drainages, development and roads are likely to be other 

sources that add to the sediment load in the Tellico River. 

An analysis of the Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data and mapping identifies a 

severe hazard of erosion on most trails in the Upper Tellico OHV System. Exceptions occur 

on short segments of Trail 1, 5, and 6, where the hazard is identified as slight or moderate. 

Hazard of erosion is defined as the hazard or risk of soil loss from unsurfaced roads or trails 

and is based on inherent erodibility of the parent material, steepness of slope, and content of 

rock in the soil. A rating of severe indicates that erosion of the trail is expected, the trail 

requires frequent maintenance, and costly erosion control measures are needed (NRCS 

1998). 

Additionally, the soil types in the watershed rate as poorly suited for using the natural soil 

surface for roads. Poorly suited ratings indicate that overcoming the risk of erosion would 

require special road designs, extra maintenance, and costly alteration (NRCS 1998). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

24 

Soil Contamination Hazard

In addition to the concern of trail erosion in “high challenge” areas is the concern of 

vehicle derived pollutants. Table 3.1.1.1 displays results of testing for soil contamination 

from petroleum products at the challenge areas on Trails 2, 7, and 9 (Mahan 2008). 

Other sections of trail have not yet been tested. Even with the limited extent of testing 

completed to date, ten sites were found to exceeded NCDENR action levels. 

Table 3.1.1.1. Results from Soil Contamination Testing 

Description 

NCDENR 

Action 

Level 

Location 

Trail 2 - Rock Garden T2-1 (3-4') T2-2 (3-4') T2-3 (3-4') T2-4 (3-4') 

T2-5 

(surface) 

petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel 40 61.8 21.8 ND 23.3 152 

petroleum hydrocarbons as 

gasoline 10 ND ND ND ND ND 

oil & grease 250 ND ND ND ND 439 

Trail 7 - The Cliff T7-1 (3-4') 

T7-2 

(surface) T7-3 (surface) 

petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel 40 77.6 121 6,270 

petroleum hydrocarbons as 

gasoline 10 ND ND ND 

oil & grease 250 248 1,230 9,870 

Trail 9 - Slickrock T9-1 (3-4') 

T9-2 

(surface) 

petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel 40 24.3 61 

petroleum hydrocarbons as 

gasoline 10 ND ND 

oil & grease 250 ND 708 

Notes: 

NCDENR Action Level = The level that triggers treatment or other requirements by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources 

ND = None Detected 

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources recognizes that: “solid waste, oils, and 

other fluids can be potential pollution risks to water quality if not managed and controlled. 

This includes surface water and groundwater” (NC DFR 2006). The Forest Service has 

responsibility to control vehicle fluids to prevent them from entering the ground and water. 

For forestry activities, this includes maintaining equipment, preparing for spills, and properly 

disposing of used materials. On the Upper Tellico OHV System, the Forest Service has 

limited control over recreational OHV equipment maintenance, but still must prepare for 

spills and act quickly to cleanup spills of any amount (NC DFR 2006). 

Trail Condition Surveys

Trail condition surveys and turbidity data clearly indicate that State and Forest Plan standards 

for water quality are not being met in the area impacted by the Tellico OHV System. Visible 

sediment from the OHV trails is reaching area streams; turbidity is higher than reference 

streams, and pools within streams are filled with fine sediments. Details regarding these 

findings are discussed below. 

Trail surveys conducted during 2007 and 2008 assessed trail conditions and sediment 

delivery to analysis area waters from the OHV System. The system is predominantly native 

surfaced. Exceptions include Trail 1 and sections of Trails 4 and 5 which have surfaces of 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

25 

gravel or larger stone. Most trail segments were originally outsloped, but have become rutted 

and entrenched (downcut) over many years. Currently, water drainage from the trail system 

is by means of waterbars, broad-based dips, rolling dips, grade sags or reverse grades, 

ditches, cross drain culverts, outsloping, sediment traps, or a combination of these. The 

effectiveness of these drainage control features is compromised in places where trail use is 

high and trail conditions are not maintainable or maintenance has not been adequate (Figure 

3.1.1.2). The survey determined that 53 percent of the 2,003 drainage features on the trail 

system were not properly functioning (Table 3.1.1.2). And as a result, erosion control 

measures put in place were commonly not adequate to prevent erosion and sediment 

movement from the road prism. 

Figure 3.1.1.2. Example of entrenchment depth and failed waterbar/dip on Trail 11. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

26 

Table 3.1.1.2. Summary of Trail Survey Data. 

On many miles of trail, poor location in combination with excessive use have resulted in 

deteriorated travelways to the point that regular road or trail Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) are damaged to the extent that even if they were rebuilt, they may be no longer 

adequate to protect trails from erosion and stream channels from sedimentation. Intensive 

reconstruction, drainage, armoring, and/or relocation methods would be needed to bring most 

of these trails back to a functional standard where they could be maintained and water quality 

could be protected. Some trails have entrenched several feet and have lost their cushioning 

material (gravel and native surfacing); exposing large rock and bedrock (see Figure 3.1.1.3). 

In these areas, diverting water off the trail is no longer possible with standard practices and 

the road becomes the conduit for flow for long distances, often directly to stream channels. 

Without frequent and routine maintenance, even minor rutting within the travelway provides, 

on a smaller scale, a conduit for runoff. All of the surveyed OHV trails were heavily used 

and had at least 85% bare soil on the open and active trail system. Trails 7 and 9 are two 

examples of this. 

Figure 3.1.1.3. Example of trail entrenchment in the Upper Tellico OHV Area, where 

approximately 10 feet of soil has been lost, exposing large rock and bedrock. 

Trail Miles Road Road Surface Drainage % Non Functioning 

Number Surveyed Template Type Dips Drainage Dips

1 3.61 Outsloped Aggregate Surface 49 14

2 3.17 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 110 71

3 4.15 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 223 75

4 4.97 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 358 34

5 1.51 Outsloped/Entrenched Agg. & Riprap Surface 67 36

6 2.25 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 143 61

7 0.59 Entrenched Native Surface 23 22

8 5.97 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 242 49

9 0.73 Entrenched Native Surface 36 33

10 4.79 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 43 100

10a 2.74 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 123 38

11 2.74 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 86 77

12 1.27 Outsloped/Entrenched Native Surface 46 85

Total: 38.5 1,549 53
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

27 

Due to the large amounts of soil that have been displaced by erosion and the relatively high 

rates of erosion, large modifications have been made on the Forest landscape. During 

condition surveys engineers conducted field measurements to determine the amount of soil 

that has been displaced within each entrenchment. Field measurements included the width 

and length of the entrenchment trail section to determine the soil loss volume. An example of 

the field measurements can be seen below in Figure 3.1.1.4. 

Figure 3.1.1.4. Example of field measurements of trail entrenchment (downcut). 

An estimated 74,550 tons of soil eroded from the current trail system since the establishment 

of the old logging transportation system, approximately 50 years ago. To put this into 

perspective, this volume of sediment would fill 5,000 – 15 ton dump truck loads or 26 

football fields one foot deep. Trails 6 and 10 have the longest lengths of entrenched trail; 

these sections occur over 96.4 and 50.1 percent of the total trail length, respectively (Table 

3.1.1.3). Trails 9 and 12 also have a relatively high percent of trail length that has eroded to 

an entrenched condition, 56.2 and 55.1 percent respectively. Some of the greatest volumes of 

soil erosion occurred on Trails 6, 12, 11, 2, and 9. Trail 1 did not have sections of 

entrenchment and the other trails had relatively short sections of entrenchment. However, 

regardless of length, where entrenched trail conditions lead directly to stream channels, for 

example on Trail 7, sediment delivery to streams has been high. 

Table 3.1.1.3. Soil erosion quantities from entrenched sections of the Upper Tellico 

OHV System. 

Trail # 

Trail 

Length 

(miles) 

Entrenched 

Trail Length 

(miles) 

Percent Trail 

Length 

Entrenched 

Soil Loss 

Entrenched Sections 

(tons/mile) 

Soil Loss 

Entrenched Sections 

(tons) 

1 3.61 0 0 0 0 

2 3.17 0.33 10.4 2,030 6,431 

3 4.15 0.36 8.7 596 2,473 

4 4.97 0.02 0.4 622 3,090 

5 1.51 0.39 25.8 1,539 2,317 

6 2.25 2.17 96.4 9,051 20,386 

7 0.59 0.09 15.2 4,113 2,426 

8 5.97 0.61 10.2 1,185 7,081 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

28 

Trail # 

Trail 

Length 

(miles) 

Entrenched 

Trail Length 

(miles) 

Percent Trail 

Length 

Entrenched 

Soil Loss 

Entrenched Sections 

(tons/mile) 

Soil Loss 

Entrenched Sections 

(tons) 

9 0.73 0.41 56.2 8,487 6,173 

10 4.79 2.44 50.9 1,186 5,676 

10a 2.74 0.35 12.8 692 1,894 

11 2.74 0.56 20.4 2,531 6,925 

12 1.27 0.70 55.1 7,615 9,677 

Total: 38.5 8.43 21.9 1,937 74,550

 

Effectiveness of Best Management Practices 

Best Management Practices or “BMPs” are those principles and engineering design practices 

that will protect water quality as well as the function of the road/trail when properly applied 

and maintained. Meeting BMPs is an important element in our attempts for consistency with 

Clean Water Act responsibility. BMPs are defined by the North Carolina Forest Practices 

Guidelines Related to Water Quality as follows “A practice or combination of practices, that 

is determined to be an effective and practicable (including technological, economic, and 

institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution 

generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals” (NC DFR 

2007). 

The road and trail system was already in place when the Forest Service acquired ownership 

of the Upper Tellico River watershed, and current BMPs were not used in the system’s 

location and construction. Trail locations and construction was not in conformance with 

current State and Forest Service standards. Applying BMPs that are designed for constructing 

and maintaining trails constructed to today’s standards are not sufficient to correct for the 

deteriorated conditions identified by conditions surveys of the Upper Tellico OHV System. 

Figure 3.1.1.4 Photograph of a Constructed Sediment Trap Full of Sediment 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

29 

Figure 3.1.1.5. Photograph of a sediment plume in the Tellico River during a small rain 

event. 

Factors limiting the effectiveness of BMPs in the Upper Tellico OHV Area include: soils 

sensitive to erosion, high precipitation amounts and intensity, a dense stream network, 

shallow groundwater, trails not within a design standard, native surfaced trails, a high level 

of use, year round use, modified vehicle types, inadequate maintenance and long-term severe 

erosion that transcends our ability to employ normal BMPs. The first four of these factors - 

sensitive soils, high precipitation amounts and intensity, a dense stream network, and shallow 

groundwater - set up any land disturbing activity for failure unless erosion control measures 

are forefront in the design and even then, regular and frequent maintenance is needed and 

perhaps some wet weather closures. In many cases, retrofitting the trails with functional 

BMPs would require reconstruction or relocation – not just minor reshaping. Therefore, 

normal BMPs are limited in their effectiveness and meeting State Water Quality standards 

under these conditions would not occur as long as the trail system remains in its current state. 

Monitoring trail BMPs shows that gravel surfacing on the trail system is partially effective at 

reducing sediment production, but not eliminating it. Runoff from segments of Trails 1, 4, 5 

and 6 was measured from six rainfall events occurring between July and October 2008 to 

assess the amount of suspended solids (sediment) present. All of these trail segments had 

received maintenance in the spring of 2008, including reconstruction of waterbars and 

sediment traps. Trails 1 and 5 were graveled as well. The improved gravel segments of 

Trails 1 and 5 had an average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration of 3,262 mg/L per 

centimeter of rainfall. The improved native surface segments on Trails 4 and 6 had an 

average concentration of 5,467 mg/L/cm. These values indicate that the gravel surfaced trail 

segments produced 40 percent less sediment than the native surfaced segments. 

Sediment production from OHV trails is higher than from typical forest roads (Welsh 2008). 

Runoff from trails with gravel surfacing in Tellico produced much higher concentrations of 

sediment than average values from forest roads with gravel surfacing found in a study by the 

Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory on the Chattooga River Watershed in Georgia and South 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

30 

Carolina. Runoff from gravel surfaced roads in the Coweeta study had average sediment 

concentrations of 789.7 and 2,761.1 mg/L/cm depending on the level of road maintenance 

and improvements (Personal communication with Barry Clinton Nov. 7, 2008 and Clinton 

and Vose 2003). 

Runoff was also measured below sediment traps and below waterbars – two of the most 

frequently used drainage control devices. The data collected shows that sediment traps 

improved the efficiency of waterbars; by reducing sediment runoff 74 percent from gravel 

surfaces and 60 percent native surfaces. Still, sediment traps are not 100 percent effective at 

retaining sediment. 

Two major factors essential for full sediment trap efficiency are proper design and adequate 

maintenance. The state of North Carolina Forestry Sediment BMP Manual to Protect Water 

Quality (NC Division of Forest Resources 2006) states that sediment traps should be 

designed to contain the expected sediment runoff while minimizing soil disturbance. Sizing 

of the trap is based on the volume of water drained from the contributing area of trail (length 

x width of trail surface) and a given storm event, e.g., 1 inch storm. The smaller the storm 

used for design the smaller the trap and ultimately the more frequent the maintenance. Along 

many trails in the analysis area sediment traps have not been designed to standard, and often 

are not even capable of retaining the flow and sediment from a 1 inch storm. Often where 

trails are close to streams or on relatively steep slopes, site conditions limit the size of 

sediment traps. As a result, the frequency of maintenance is high to maintain their 

effectiveness. The North Carolina Forestry Sediment BMP Manual to Protect Water Quality 

(NC Division of Forest Resources 2006) recommends that sediment traps be cleaned out 

whenever the trap is half full. 

Sediment runoff data from July through October 2008 shows that after 2 months following 

sediment trap cleaning, 14 percent of sediment traps surveyed were half full or more for both 

gravel and native surface trails. After almost four months 21 percent of gravel surfaced trails 

and 41 percent of native surfaced trails needed cleaning. After approximately five months, 

57 percent of sediment traps on gravel surfaced trails and 91 percent on native surfaced trails 

needed cleaning. Since this data was taken during a period experiencing only 60 percent of 

normal precipitation (based on Andrews, NC weather data), runoff from the trail would be 

higher in a normal year, resulting in a higher rate of sediment trap filling. Therefore, 

sediment traps on trails in the Tellico OHV area need to be cleaned every three months, and 

all sites within 100 feet of a stream channel should be surveyed following a 1 inch storm. 

Where traps are found to be one half or more full maintenance would be required. 

Compared to the current level of trail maintenance this would increase maintenance 

frequency considerably, at a minimum four times per year for the entire trail system, 

and an estimated 12 times, minimum, for trails within 100 feet of streams. 

BMP Effectiveness Summary

• Sensitive soils, high precipitation amounts and intensity, a dense stream network, and 

shallow groundwater set up any land disturbing activity for failure unless erosion 

control measures are forefront in the design of the activity. This concern is even 

greater for an ongoing activity that continues to damage erosion control and surface 

drainage features on a regular basis. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

31 

• The gravel surfaced trail segments produced 40 percent less sediment than the native 

surfaced segments. Perhaps with employing improved engineering techniques such as 

layering and compacting materials, and adjusting the types of aggregate materials 

used, this could be improved. 

• Sediment traps improved the efficiency of waterbars by reducing sediment runoff 74 

percent from gravel surfaces and 60 percent native surfaces. Still, sediment traps are 

not 100 percent effective at retaining sediment even under normal to dry conditions. 

• Along many trails in the analysis area sediment traps have not been designed to 

standards, and often are not even capable of retaining the flow and sediment from a 1 

inch storm. 

• Sediment traps on trails in the Tellico OHV area need to be cleaned every three 

months, and all sites within 100 feet of a stream channel should be surveyed 

following a 1 inch storm. 

• The frequency of rolling dips, water diversions and reverse grades may not be 

sufficient to limit the amount of concentrated flow and sediment delivery. Nonstandard BMPs may need to be employed to either armor the trail surfaces or provide 

for ample drainage of concentrated flow. 

• Where the trail is located within 100 feet of a stream channel, preventing sediment 

delivery to streams is unlikely. 

Table 3.1.1.4 lists BMPs (NC DFR 2006) designed by the State of North Carolina to 

protect water quality during forestry activities. Implementation of these BMPs is intended 

to help achieve compliance of such activities with requirements of the North Carolina 

Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality and ultimately the Clean Water Act. 

Although forestry BMPs are designed for skid trails and temporary roads and are not 

fully suitable benchmarks for the permanent use that occurs on OHV trails, they are used 

in the absence of specific trail BMPs as a starting point to measure success of the OHV 

trail system. In addition to forestry BMPs, existing road and trail design criteria are used. 

For example, where forestry BMPs recommend the use of waterbars to control runoff 

from temporary roads and trails, rolling dips are recommended on the OHV System. 

Table 3.1.1.4. Summary of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

discussion of effectiveness on the Upper Tellico OHV System. 

Forestry BMPs (Where and how 

they work) 

Existing Trail Conditions (Why BMPs fail in Tellico 

OHV) 

Road prism should have an even 

contour to disperse runoff evenly 

(no ruts) 

- The original road and skid trail prism is damaged and 

trails are scoured, exposing bedrock and boulders. This 

rock channelizes runoff and concentrates erosive force of 

runoff. 

-Trails have scoured so deeply that they now form 

ephemeral channels and the surface and subsurface 

hydrology if these areas are affected. 

Roads should be constructed at 

least 1 year prior to usage to allow 

the road bed to stabilize prior to 

use. (Emphasizes potential for 

sedimentation from newly 

disturbed soils) 

-Trails are continuously changing (existing in a state of 

constant soil disturbance) due to high trail usage and 

aggressive vehicle types. 

-Trails that receive heavy maintenance are immediately reopened for traffic and compaction and other methods to 

stabilize materials are typically not used. 

Forest roads should be 

“daylighted” to encourage drying of 

the road surface. 

-Daylighting of trails has not been done. 

-Maintaining trails to allow sunlight to reach the trails would 

be virtually impossible because mowers cannot access 

most of the trails to mow cut banks and fill slopes. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

32 

Forestry BMPs (Where and how 

they work) 

Existing Trail Conditions (Why BMPs fail in Tellico 

OHV) 

-Forest roads (and associated 

BMPs) are designed for logging 

trucks, skidders, and standard 4-

wheel drive pick-ups. 

-Forest roads are designed to 

allow efficient means of 

transporting timber from forest. 

-Forest roads are hardened to 

minimize erosion. 

-Trails carry highly modified 4-wheel drive vehicles and 

ATV’s designed for enhanced traction. 

-Trails are intended to provide a challenge to recreational 

users. 

-Poorly designed and maintained roads provide greater 

recreational opportunity in the form of challenge. 

-Few trails have been hardened. Those that have been 

hardened require frequent replenishment of stone because 

the OHV/ATV use dislodges the stone. 

-Intensive soil disturbance should 

be minimized. 

-Close roads when suitable to 

minimize unnecessary use. 

-Trails are open to vehicle traffic most of the year 

regardless of rainfall or trail conditions. Trails receive high 

degree of soil disturbance. (It is the Forest Service’s 

responsibility to close these type uses if facilities and 

resources are being damaged.) 

Skid trails are used for temporary 

access. These skid trails disturb 

soil yet seldom result in 

sedimentation in National Forest 

streams because the soil 

disturbance only occurs during the 

logging operation since BMPs 

stabilize soils and prevent the site 

from developing into a chronic 

sediment source. BMPs for 

forestry operations have been 

designed to minimize the shortterm effects of soil disturbance. 

-Trails are permanent routes in which vehicles continuously 

disturb new soil, resulting in sedimentation of streams. 

- BMPs on trails converted from other uses may temporarily 

minimize sedimentation but eventually fail due to a lack of 

maintenance and often poor design because they were 

never reconstructed to handle this use. 

-Waterbars, dips, and silt traps are 

only functional if maintained 

-Roads are carefully planned and 

designed with water control 

structures. 

-Silt traps are cleaned when they 

are approximately half-full of 

sediment. 

-Silt traps are sized according to 

the road length, width, and the 

expected storm rainfall amount. 

-Runoff control structures receive inadequate maintenance 

because the trails are difficult to access for maintenance 

equipment and District personnel. 

-Silt traps on trails have been installed as an afterthought; 

therefore, they are often in locations where there is 

inadequate space to properly size and locate the traps. 

-Silt traps have been cleaned usually when the trap fails 

(breached by runoff). This delay occurs because of the 

excessive number of silt traps necessary to capture storm 

water from the channelized trails and the inaccessibility of 

the traps. 

-Silt traps are sized according to the physical constraints of 

the terrain. Expanding the silt traps is often not possible 

because no additional space is available. 

-Storm events in the Tellico River watershed exceed the 

capacity of the silt traps. 

Culverts are sized in proportion to 

the watershed area and the 

duration of use – temporary uses 

often use smaller culverts 

recognizing that the road surfaces 

will be revegetated and culverts 

removed within a few years. 

-Trails contain inadequate number and sizes of culverts 

since they often were not designed for this permanent use. 

Lack of maintenance of drainage features puts added 

stress on other structures that can add to failure rate. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

33 

Forestry BMPs (Where and how 

they work) 

Existing Trail Conditions (Why BMPs fail in Tellico 

OHV) 

Silt fence, hay bales, and brush 

barriers are used to control runoff 

from areas of active soil 

disturbance (These are typically 

used to reduce 

erosion/sedimentation at 

construction sites – temporary 

mitigation measures) 

-Silt fence has been sparsely used (and not maintained) 

and no hay bales or brush barriers are used. Brush 

barriers are impractical for these trails because there is no 

continuous supply of brush to construct the barriers. Brush 

barriers are impractical for long-term erosion control. 

-Silt fence requires maintenance and hay bales must be 

replaced periodically. 

Open road densities are minimized 

in most watersheds on National 

Forests to reduce sedimentation 

potential 

-Approximately 39 miles of open roads/trails exist within the 

Upper Tellico River watershed with inadequately 

maintained BMPs 

Road design, BMP implementation 

and maintenance, and road 

operations (road closures) are all 

coordinated to minimize erosion 

and sedimentation. 

-Trails have not been properly designed, BMPs have not 

been properly designed, implemented and/or maintained, 

and the OHV System operations are not coordinated to 

enhance the effectiveness of the BMPs and trail 

maintenance. 

Reducing erosion and sediment yield from the trail system is important; however 

effectiveness is tested by whether or not the applied BMPs meet the State and Federal 

standard of preventing sediment delivery to streams. For example, the trail condition surveys 

of 2007 and 2008 showed that existing improvements on Trail 1 (conditions survey stations 

24+30 to 65+40), including gravel surfacing, rolling dips, and sediment traps, were only 49 

percent effective at preventing trail-derived sediment from entering the stream. 

This information is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of BMPs that have been 

applied on the trail system to date. Typical forestry BMPs are useful in most situations, 

however, in the deteriorated circumstances found in the OHV System, normal forestry and 

road BMPs are not going to be effective in preventing visible sediment from reaching the 

stream channel (the State and Forest Plan standard). Trail 1 is an example of where intense 

maintenance efforts have taken place (short of paving) and visible sediment is still reaching 

the stream (Note: 1 mile of Trail 1 is within 100 feet of a stream). Sediment production from 

the trail can be reduced by implementing BMPs, but where the trail is located within 100 feet 

of a stream channel, preventing sediment delivery to streams is unlikely considering all the 

work that is needed. Improvements applied to trail segments located away from streams are 

more likely to be effective at preventing sediment from reaching streams because the greater 

vegetative buffer widths would filter storm runoff. 

Trail condition surveys indicate that trails within 100 feet of a stream require special 

attention to reduce sediment traveling to the stream, such as additional design and 

maintenance practices. Within the 100-foot zone, trail segments within 25 feet of water are 

at the very highest risk for contributing sediment, especially after storm events. Table 3.1.1.3 

displays the amount of each trail within the 100-foot zone and 25-foot zone. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

34 

Table 3.1.1.3. Miles of trail within 100 feet and within 25 feet of mapped stream 

(streams located on a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map). 

Trail # Miles within 100 feet of streams Miles within 25 feet of streams 

Trail 1 1.00 0.72 

Trail 2 0.60 0.24 

Trail 3 0.48 0.06 

Trail 4 0.69 0.06 

Trail 5 0.80 0.13 

Trail 6 0.00 0.00 

Trail 7 0.07 0.02 

Trail 8 0.97 0.21 

Trail 9 0.09 0.02 

Trail 10 0.26 0.05 

Trail 10A 1.09 0.16 

Trail 11 0.00 0.00 

Trail 12 0.00 0.00 

TOTAL 6.05 1.67 

Approximately six miles of trail is located within 100 feet of mapped streams. Trails 

paralleling stream channels within 100 feet occur along Tellico River, Tipton Creek, Jenks 

Branch, and Peckerwood Creek. The surveys identified 643 locations where sediment was 

tracked from the OHV System to the stream network. In 558 of these locations the sediment 

was coming from a trail segment within 100 feet of the stream. Distances between trail and 

stream of 100 feet or greater allows more opportunity for vegetative filtering and trapping of 

sediment before it reaches water.

Hydrologic Connectivity 

Table 3.1.1.2 shows the miles of each trail that are connected to the stream channel network. 

Hydrologic connectivity occurs when storm water runoff from the trail enters a stream 

channel having perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral flow. Wherever a hydrologic 

connection exists, rapid runoff, sediments, and road-associated chemicals (for example, 

spills, oil) generated on the road surface and cut-slopes are provided an efficient route into 

the streams (Forest Service, USDA 1999). 

Overall, 31 percent of the trail system is hydrologically connected, and in many of these 

cases sediment could be tracked directly from the trail to a waterbody. Trails 5, 7, and 9 

have the highest connectivity values per mile of trail, and potentially impact Tellico River 

and Peckerwood Creek. Trails 1, 2, 6, 8, and 12 have the lowest connectivity values per mile 

of trail over the entire trail length. Connectivity per mile doesn’t tell the complete story, 

however. Trail 12, for example, is a unique case where there is a low incidence of hydrologic 

connection, but the connectivity that does occur is contributing an inordinate amount of 

sediment, due to the nature of the trail and its position on the landscape (see Graphics 

Supplement – Trail 12). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

35 

Table 3.1.1.2. Miles of Trail Hydrologically Connected to the Stream System. 

Trail # Miles of HC Trail miles Percent of trail HC 

Trail 1 1.40 5.3 26 

Trail 2 0.42 3.2 13 

Trail 3 1.60 4.1 39 

Trail 4 1.85 4.8 39 

Trail 5 1.00 1.6 63 

Trail 6 0.32 2.2 14 

Trail 7 0.41 0.5 82 

Trail 8 1.51 5.8 26 

Trail 9 0.34 0.7 49 

Trail 10 1.58 4.5 35 

Trail 10a 0.97 2.7 36 

Trail 11 0.73 2.7 27 

Trail 12 0.08 1.2 6 

TOTAL 12.21 39.3 

Suspended Sediment 

Sediment measured as total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity represents the fine-grained 

materials that are caught up in suspension and carried by water during runoff events. This is 

the suspended sediment load and is differentiated from the load that moves along the stream 

bottom called bed load. The suspended load consists of very small-sized particles of sand, 

silt, and clay. These very small particles in suspension affect the clarity of the water 

(turbidity). Turbidity is a measure of the amount of light reflected from particles and 

reflected through the water, and is often measured in Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU). 

In comparison, TSS is the concentration of particles in a given volume of water, often 

measured as milligrams per liter (mg/L) of water. Measuring total suspended solids helps us 

understand the amount of material transported out of the stream reach while turbidity gives 

us an indication of how cloudy or hazy the suspended material makes the water. Increases in 

suspended sediment can affect the behavior and survivability of aquatic life (see section 3.2 – 

Aquatic Wildlife). 

The clarity of stream flow of the Tellico River has been brought up as a concern by the 

public, and whether or not the river meets the State of North Carolina standard for turbidity. 

The standard states:

 

“the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed...10 NTU in streams, lakes or 

reservoirs designated as trout waters... if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural 

background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. Compliance 

with this turbidity standard can be met when land management activities employ Best 

Management Practices (BMPs)... recommended by the Designated Nonpoint Source 

Agency... BMPs must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper 

design, installation, operation and maintenance of such BMPs” (NC DENR 2007).

The standard for turbidity, as well as other standards, is designed to ensure the support of 

protected uses, in particular aquatic life propagation and survival. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

36 

Surveys conducted during 2007 and 2008 assessed trail conditions and sediment delivery 

from the OHV System. These surveys have identified elevated levels of erosion and 

sediment delivery to stream channels in the watershed as a result of failed BMPs. Therefore, 

the turbidity standard is not being met in the Upper Tellico River watershed. Monitoring of 

suspended sediment (total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity) and sediment deposition 

(streambed composition and pool filling) identified adverse affects to the aquatic ecosystem 

(see section 3.2 – Aquatic Wildlife). 

The NFsNC and TVA have monitored the suspended portion of the sediment load since 1999 

using single stage samplers in the Tellico River and Citico Creek Sub-basins. Table 3.1.1.4 

summarizes TSS and turbidity data for the period between 2002 and 2004 when a turbidity 

analysis was completed for that data set. None of the streams listed in the table are on the 

appropriate state’s water quality impaired waters list. Bald River drains federal ownership 

and is partly in the Bald River Gorge Wilderness. The North River also drains federal 

ownership, while Turkey Creek drains both federal and private lands. Each of these drainages 

are in the Tellico River Sub-basin and have a road and trail network to facilitate active 

management. Citico Creek, north of the Tellico River Sub-basin, drains the Citico 

Wilderness, an area occupied by a hiking trail network. All of these drainages are occupied 

by an old logging road and trail network, a legacy of early logging activity. The Tellico River 

Stateline site is the only one affected by the OHV System. Although this site did not have the 

highest average (mean) or median TSS concentrations, it did have the highest turbidity levels 

compared to the other sites. 

Table 3.1.1.4. Mean and Median values of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Turbidity 

data for five watersheds in the Tellico River sub-basin and Citico Creek for storm 

runoff events occurring between September 2002 and February 2004.

Stream 

Total Suspended Solids 

(TSS) (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) 

Mean Median Mean Median 

Bald River 662.6 295.0 36.4 23.0 

Citico Creek (Wilderness)* 98.6 39.0 15.1 8.5 

North River 89.7 58.0 24.9 10.0 

Tellico River Stateline 309.9 140.0 81.5 32.5 

Turkey Creek 517.1 53.0 70.5 17.0 

* Citico Creek Wilderness is outside of Tellico River Sub-basin, and is a reference stream. 

Focusing in on streams in the Upper Tellico River watershed during this same period shows 

higher turbidity (mean and median) values in streams where trails occupy the drainage 

(Figure 3.1.1.2). Some of the highest turbidity values came from Jenks Branch, Tipton 

Creek at the mouth, and Tellico River above Tipton Creek and at the state line. The 

reference stream reaches of Tipton Creek (TC-3) above the 420-1 trail crossing and Citico 

Creek (CC-3) at the wilderness boundary had the lowest turbidity values. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

37 

Figure 3.1.1.2. Statistical summary of Turbidity in the Upper Tellico River watershed 

and Citico Creek Wilderness (data from storms occurring during 2002 - 2004). 

Reference reaches, without an active OHV trail, include Tipton Creek above 420-1 

crossing (TC-3) and Citico Creek Wilderness (CC-3). 

65

412

48 41

74

133

68 82

178

17

77

19 15

175

28 25

47 61

38 33

75

13

43

9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

BOB BRANCH

JENKS BRANCH

PECKERWOOD

CREEK

TELLICO R. @ BOB

BR.

TELLICO R. @ FAIN

FORD

TELLICO R. ABV

TIPTON CR.

TELLICO R. @

ROUGH XING

TELLICO R.

STATELINE

TIPTON CR. @

MOUTH

TIPTON CR. ABV.

420-1 CROSSING (TC3) (reference)

TIPTON CR. BLW

PRIVATE/ABV. JENKS

BR

CITICO CR.

WILDERNESS (CC-3)

(reference)

Turbidity (NTU)

Mean Turbidity Median Turbidity

10 NTU 

Turbidity 

Standard

As discussed earlier, turbidity values greater than 10 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) 

do not meet North Carolina water quality standards for trout waters. Turbidity measurements 

from the Tellico River have been recorded up to 370 NTUs at the state line site during storm 

events, while the reference sites on Citico Creek and Upper Tipton Creek had turbidity 

values of 50 and 29 NTUs, respectively for the same storm event occurring on 9/24/2002. 

During a runoff event occurring on March 4, 2008 (producing streamflow with a return 

period of about 2 years) the 10 NTU standard was exceeded in all streams surveyed except 

Tipton Creek above FSR 420-1 (Tipton Cr – 3 site, a reference site) and a small tributary to 

Tellico River at Trail 5 (Figure 3.1.1.3). Sycamore Creek (a reference site) had a turbidity 

value of 13.3 compared to Tipton Creek (at the mouth) and Tellico River (at Rough 

Crossing) values of 33.7 and 32.6, respectively. These three sites represent similar drainage 

areas. Citico Creek was not measured during this event. 

Thus it is recognized that the state turbidity standard can be exceeded in all streams during 

notable storm runoff events, regardless of watershed management. Although streams have 

natural background levels of turbidity that commonly exceed the standard, streams that 

exceed the standard by a larger degree than a reference stream are a concern for watershed 

managers desiring to maintain protected uses. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

38 

Figure 3.1.1.3. Turbidity measurements from the March 4, 2008 storm runoff event. 

Reference streams represented by Tipton Creek above FSR 420-1 and Sycamore Creek 

@ mouth.

Water Quality Rapid Assessment in Tellico River during the March 4, 2008 storm event

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

Tipton Creek

abv FSR

420-1

(reference)

Tipton Creek

blw Private

Jenks

Branch @

mouth

Tipton Creek

abv Jenks

Tipton Creek

@ mouth

Trib to Tellico

#1 @ trail 5

Trib to Tellico

#2 @ trail 5

Tellico R. @

Rough xing

Tellico R.

abv Tipton

Tellico R.

Stateline abv

Rough Ridge

Cr.

Sycamore

Creek @

mouth

(reference)

Rough Ridge

Creek @

mouth

Turbidity (NTU)

10 NTU Turbidity Standard

Additionally, both TSS and turbidity data indicates an increase in suspended sediment 

loading from the private inholding on Tipton Creek. Table 3.1.1.5 shows that median TSS 

values nearly double from the Tipton Creek-3 site above the private to the Tipton Creek-2 

site just below the private. Turbidity measurements taken on March 4, 2008 at these same 

sites showed an almost 80 percent increase in turbidity below the private inholding (Figure 

3.1.1.3). 

Overall, streams having OHV trails nearby have notably higher median concentrations of 

suspended sediment in comparison to reference sites, particularly Jenks Branch, Tellico 

River above the Tipton Creek confluence, and Tellico River above Bob Branch (850 mg/L, 

495 mg/L, and 580 mg/L, respectively). This data gives evidence to higher levels of erosion 

and sediment delivery to streams occurring within the Upper Tellico watershed where the 

trail system is present on the landscape. Table 3.1.1.5 represents a summary of TSS data. 

The locations of the monitoring sites are displayed on a map in the Graphics Supplement. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

39 

Table 3.1.1.5. Summary of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) data storm runoff events 

between 1999 to 2006. Sites with trails upstream have higher median TSS values than 

reference sites. 

Site Number of samples Median TSS – mg/L 

Reference Sites

Citico Creek-3 (Wilderness) 40 39 

Tipton Creek-3 (above FSR 420-1) 54 105 

Trail System Sites 

Tellico River Stateline 61 190 

Jenks Branch at mouth 27 850 

Tipton Creek at mouth 43 330 

Tipton Creek below private 48 205 

Tellico above Tipton Creek 52 495 

Tellico at Rough Crossing 45 360 

Peckerwood Creek at mouth 41 250 

Tellico at Fain Ford 49 320 

Bob Branch at mouth 43 150 

Tellico above Bob Branch 41 580 

 

Sediment Deposition 

In addition to the suspended portion of the sediment load, sediment deposition on the 

streambed is important to consider for meeting protected uses since aquatic organisms in 

mountain streams require open spaces between rocks for survival (see section 3.2 – Aquatic 

Wildlife). When minor amounts of sediment exist from temporary sources, temporary pool 

filling can be flushed during storms. When larger amounts of continuing sediment occur, 

pool filling and particle compaction can reduce the natural ability of the stream to recover. 

Increased and continuing streambed sedimentation fills these spaces and eliminates this 

habitat. Two measures were used to help understand the effects of sediment deposition on 

streams in the area of the Upper Tellico OHV System - pebble count over the riffle habitat 

feature and pool filling. 

Riffle Pebble Counts

The pebble count is a means of characterizing the sizes of the material on the streambed. The 

deposition of fine sediments on larger substrate reduces habitat for young fish and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and can adversely affect gravel permeability and the suitability of gravel 

for spawning (MacDonald, et.al. 1991). Streambed material is composed of sizes ranging 

from silt/clay to bedrock. 

Pebble counts took place on riffle habitat units in the Upper Tellico River and several of its 

tributaries and in Citico and Sycamore Creeks, both reference streams surveyed for 

comparison. Within the Upper Tellico River watershed, the Tipton Creek Upper site (same 

site as Tipton Creek-3) is also considered a reference stream due to the absence of an active 

trail in the drainage. 

The pebble counts indicate that the median particle sizes (D50) range from large gravel to 

boulder sizes (Figure 3.1.1.3, Plot A). Focusing in on the fine sediment portion (<2 

millimeters) of the stream bed, there is more fine sediment incorporated into the larger 

streambed material at sites affected by the trail system than in the three reference streams 

(Figure 3.1.1.3, Plot B). Jenks Branch and Tipton Creek (just above the Jenks Branch 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

40 

confluence) had the largest fine sediment composition with values of 15 and 12 percent, 

respectively. The reference streams, Citico, Sycamore, and Upper Tipton Creeks had fine 

sediment values of 1, 1, and 6 percent, respectively. Pebble counts also indicate an increase 

in fine sediment deposition below the private inholding on Tipton Creek (from 6 percent at 

Tipton Creek Upper (same site as Tipton Creek-3) to 12.4 percent at Tipton Creek (just 

above the Jenks Branch confluence and below the private). 

Figure 3.1.1.3. Comparison of pebble count data from streams in the Upper Tellico 

River drainage, Citico Creek and Sycamore Creek, 2008. Plot A is the full data set and 

Plot B is a sub-set of Plot A data to focus in on the fine sediment (<2 millimeters) 

portion of the data. Fine sediments are higher in streams influenced by the OVH 

System. 

Plot A

Comparison of Tellico River Monitoring Riffle Pebble Count Data 2008

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Particle Size (Millimeters)

% Cumulative (Finer Than) 

Sycamore Cr Jenks Br Peckerwood Cr Tellico R Upper Tellico R Lower Tipton Cr Upper Tipton Cr Citico Cr

Silt/Clay Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock Sands

2 mm

FINE

SEDIMENT

(SAND, SILT, & CLAY)

D50
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

41 

Plot B

Comparison of Tellico River Monitoring Riffle Pebble Count Data 2008

PLOT OF FINE SEDIMENTS

Sycamore Cr. (REFERENCE)

Peckerwood Cr.

Tellico R. Upper

Tellico R. Lower

Tipton Cr Upper 

(REFERENCE)

Tipton Cr.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle Size (Millimeters)

% Cumulative (Finer Than) 

Sycamore Cr Jenks Br Peckerwood Cr Tellico R Upper

Tellico R Lower Tipton Cr Upper Tipton Cr Citico Cr

Silt/Clay Sands Gravels

2 mm

FINE

SEDIMENT

(SAND, SILT, & CLAY)

Jenks Br.

Citico Cr. (REFERENCE)

 

Pool Filling

The pool filling analysis is based on methodology developed by Hilton and Lisle (1993), and 

is a procedure to measure the fraction of pool volume filled with fine sediment. The fraction 

of pool volume filled with fine sediment can be a useful index of sediment supply. 

The pool filling analysis, conducted during 2005, 2007, and 2008, indicates that more fine 

sediment has accumulated in pools within the Upper Tellico River drainage than in reference 

streams (Figure 3.1.1.4). Trends in pool filling from fine sediment since the 2005 baseline 

data seem to fluctuate generally with a decrease in 2007 and an increase in 2008. The Tellico 

River at Rough Crossing site is an exception, showing a small increase in pool filling from 

2005 to 2008. Fine sediment in pools at the Sycamore Creek reference site remains relatively 

small with a reduction since 2005. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

42 

Figure 3.1.1.4. Summary of 2005, 2007, and 2008 pool filling analysis for streams in the 

Upper Tellico River watershed, Sycamore Creek, and Citico Creek. 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Sycamore Cr.

(reference)

Citico Cr.

(reference)

Peckerwood Cr. Jenks Br. Tipton Cr. above

Jenks Br.

Tellico R. above

Ruff Crossing

Tellico R. @

stateline

Surveyed Streams

Percent Pool Filling from Fine Sediment

2005 % Pool Filling 2007 % Pool Filling 2008 % Pool Filling

no data for 2007 & 2008

With average pool filling values, suspended sediment data (presented as median TSS) are 

presented in Figure 3.1.1.5 for the same sites as the pool filling analysis, with the exception 

of Sycamore Creek. A comparison of these two data sets indicates that generally as TSS 

increases pool filling increases as well. In streams where the suspended load is high, e.g., 

Jenks Branch (850 mg/L), pool filling from fine sediment is also high. Where excessive pool 

filling is occurring, the amount of sediment in suspension in the water during storm runoff 

events is more than the stream can efficiently transport, and therefore it is deposited onto the 

streambed, in this case on pool habitat. An exception to this generalization is the Upper 

Tellico River site above the Rough Crossing Bridge on Trail 5 where moderate to high 

concentrations of suspended sediments (360 mg/L) are transported more efficiently through 

the reach.
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

43 

Figure 3.1.1.5. Average pool filling from 2005, 2007, and 2008 data compared to 

median Total Suspended Solids (TSS) data from 1999 to 2006 for streams in the Upper 

Tellico River watershed, Sycamore Creek, and Citico Creek. TSS data does not exist for 

Sycamore Creek. 

Average Pool Filling (2005, 2007, & 2008) & 

Median Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (1999-2006) Data Summary

39

250

850

205

360

190

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Sycamore Cr.

(reference)

Citico Cr.

(reference)

Peckerwood Cr. Jenks Br. Tipton Cr. above

Jenks Br.

Tellico R. above

Ruff Crossing

Tellico R. @

stateline

Surveyed Streams

Percent Pool Filling From Fine Sediment

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

TSS Concentration (mg/L)

Average Pool Filling Median TSS

(no TSS data)

3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - SOILS & WATER RESOURCES

3.1.2.1 Best Management Practices by Alternative 

During trail assessments Best Management Practices (BMPs) were noted including features such 

as rolling dips, water bars, drainage culverts, bridges, and sediment traps. These features along 

with typical out sloped road and gravel surfaced sections serve as the general techniques to 

address water runoff on the trail system. Table 3.1.2.1.1 summarizes the existing and planned 

sediment control BMPs for each alternative. For each of the alternatives, BMPs have been 

applied at the suggested spacing ranges given the site conditions at hand (Keller, G. and J. Sherar 

2003 and NC DFR 2006). Over 2,400 BMP features are in place within the trail system at this 

time. Because of the reduction in trail miles proposed in each of the action alternatives, the 

number of BMPs needed would be less than existing. The larger the number of drainage features, 

the likelihood of them being effective decreases because of the logistical and financial 

limitations of increasing maintenance 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

44 

Table 3.1.2.1.1. Comparison by alternative of the number of sediment control BMPs for 

unpaved roads and trails in the analysis area.

Feature Description Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Rolling Dip / Water Bar1 1,391 1,030 451 743 1,184 1,401 

Drainage Culverts & Bridges 179 129 64 113 170 286 

Sediment Traps 864 667 290 694 739 703 

Total Number of Features: 2,434 1,826 804 1,550 2,093 2,390 

Seasonal & Wet Weather 

Closures 

No Yes Yes Yes No No 

Paving of Trail 1 (5.3 miles) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Frequency of Maintenance2 < 1 12 < 1 9 12 12 

Miles of unpaved road/trail 

within 100 feet of a stream2

 

6.05 3.92 1.58 2.57 4.14 4.20 

Likelihood of BMP success3 None Low - 

Moderate 

High Moderate Low Low 

Likelihood of Meeting State & 

Federal Standards 

None Low - 

Moderate 

High Moderate Low Low 

1 Water bars are in Alternative A only since rolling dips would be constructed to replace waterbars in all of the 

action alternatives. 

2

 Frequency of maintenance is the number of times per year to maintain BMPs on the entire trail system. It is 

assumed that 4 times per year would be a minimum, and that maintenance would be required two more times per 

mile of unpaved trail within 100 feet of a stream. Thus the more trail miles within 100 feet of a stream the greater 

the maintenance frequency. Under Alternative C the remaining road network would be placed on the District’s 

system road maintenance schedule. 

3

 Likelihood of BMP success is based on the miles of trail within 100 feet of a stream and implementation of wet 

weather closures. 

 

Summarizing each alternative in comparison to Alternative A concluded that Alternative B 

would reduce the number of BMPs applied to 1,826, a reduction of 25% from existing. 

Alternative C would reduce the amount of BMPs by 67% to 804 BMP features; Alternative D 

would reduce BMPs by 36% to 1,550 features; Alternative E by 14% to 2,093 BMP features; and 

finally Alternative F would reduce the amount of BMPs needed by 1.8%, with 2,390 features. . 

The frequency of maintenance would increase for each action alternative with the exception of 

Alternative C. Maintenance would include scheduled and reactionary maintenance; maintenance 

scheduled every three months and maintenance responding to large storm events, respectively. 

The paving of Trail 1 in each of the action alternatives is expected to be an effective BMP to 

reduce erosion and sediment delivery to Tipton Creek and downstream in the Tellico River, and 

maintenance would be relatively small. Table 3.1.2.1 will be referenced in the soil and water 

discussions of effects. Since meeting Forest Plan and State Water Quality standards is based on 

the success of applied BMPs, this measure will be used to assess the likelihood of each 

alternative meeting standards. 

3.1.2.2. Effects on Soils by Alternative 

To meet the purpose and need for this project, each alternative (except Alternative A: No Action) 

is designed to minimize soil damage by restraining accelerated erosion (Forest Plan, Forest-wide 

Direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), through some combination of trail 

decommissioning, relocation, reconstruction, closure, and/or additional drainage features, and 

assuming adequate post-implementation maintenance. Although implementation of this type of 

work would benefit the soil resource in the analysis area, each alternative offers different levels 

of benefit that will be evaluated. Also of concern is the ability to maintain the trail system left in 

place by each alternative. This will be measured by the likelihood of applied BMPs being 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

45 

successful at minimizing soil loss or erosion. Most trail locations in the analysis area are 

inherently susceptible to possible lapses in sediment control because soil stability ratings are 

severe for hazards of erosion and poorly suited for native surfaced roads. Trail locations near 

streams also present greater challenges in controlling sediment transport and deposition into 

nearby streams, and will be discussed in Section 3.1.2.4 - Effects on Water Resources by 

Alternative. 

For this analysis of environmental consequences to the soil resource, the alternatives will be 

compared by assessing the likelihood that the alternative would minimize or reduce soil damage. 

The likelihood of successful implementation of BMPs (Table 3.1.2.1) and the change from 

current condition of miles of unpaved road or trail on soils with severe erosion hazard (Table 

3.1.2.2.1) will be used to compare alternatives. 

Table 3.1.2.2.1. Comparison of alternatives for the soil resource risk factor “Miles of 

Unpaved Road or Trail on Severe Hazard of Erosion Soils.” Values include unpaved 

road miles of FSR 402 in North Carolina 

Risk Factors Alternatives 

 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Miles of OHV System Unpaved Road 

& Trail 39.3 24 0 17.6 30.2 37.5 

Miles of All Unpaved System Road & 

Trail on “Severe Hazard of Erosion” 

Soils in the analysis area 

38.5 25.0 7.2 18.6 31.2 38.5 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of the no action alternative would be the same as the existing conditions 

described in the Affected Environment section. Specifically, these effects would be a 

continuation of accelerated erosion from the existing trail system and continuing 

sedimentation to streams. This alternative would retain approximately 38.5 miles of existing 

system roads and trails located on soils with inherently erosive characteristics, having a 

severe hazard of erosion for native surfaced trails (Table 3.1.2.2.1). The total 39.3 miles of 

OHV System trail would be open year round, regardless of weather and trail conditions, and 

would not minimize soil damage. Many sections of trail can not be properly maintained, 

even with the implementation of BMPs. Applied BMPs would remain largely ineffective. 

This alternative would not meet forest plan direction since it would not minimize soil damage 

by restraining the current levels of accelerated erosion. Additionally, sections of trail 

considered “high challenge” would continue to be sources of soil contamination, and 

potentially water contamination from vehicle-derived fluids. The continued contamination of 

these sites would not meet North Carolina state guidelines to reduce nonpoint sources of 

pollution (NC DFR 2006). Refer to Section 3.1.2.4 for the effects to water resources. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on soil resources are assessed for the Upper Tellico River and the Davis 

Creek watersheds. Past activities analyzed for cumulative effects do not go back more than 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

46 

60 years when timber harvest occurred over most of the analysis area. Future activities 

include those projected out 10 years into the future. 

Previous activities in the analysis area include timber harvest and road construction prior to 

Forest Service acquisition of the property and one Forest Service timber sale within the Jenks 

Branch watershed. Currently, the Farmer Branch Project will implement harvesting and 

regenerating five stands in the watershed for a total of 125 acres. Three stands along Trail 1 

and two stands accessed from the Allen Gap parking lot will be harvested over the next few 

years. The effects of logging have been extensively studied. The Forest Service uses logging 

techniques designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Many of these techniques have 

been developed at the Coweeta Hydrologic Station in Otto, North Carolina. Monitoring of 

past and ongoing timber sales, including timber haul road construction, have shown that the 

BMPs employed during timber harvest are highly effective at minimizing soil erosion and 

sedimentation. Furthermore, the Tusquitee Ranger District has harvested 38 acres using the 

2-age timber harvest method within the Jenks Branch watershed within the last 10 years. 

Post harvest monitoring has not located any sediment sources related to this timber sale, and 

none are anticipated from the Farmer Branch sale. Therefore there would be no cumulative 

impacts to sedimentation from these activities. 

Private lands in the analysis area are primarily characterized by second home developments. 

Subdivisions are being developed within the Tipton Creek watershed. These activities 

include the construction of homes, graveled roads and driveways. Total suspended sediment 

and turbidity data indicates an increase in suspended sediment in Tipton Creek below the 

private inholdings. It is likely that erosion is occurring as a result of these ongoing private 

activities and that these activities are leading to adverse cumulative effects to soil loss and 

sedimentation in the Tellico River drainage. Other ongoing activities on private lands 

affecting the soil resource in the analysis area include the network of roads and trails in the 

Peckerwood Creek drainage. The extent of potential effects of this road network has not 

been determined. 

The Tusquitee Ranger District is also implementing the paving of approximately 4,000 feet 

of Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek. These actions would likely 

result in a net reduction of sediments entering the Tipton Creek and Tellico River 

watersheds. There are no other actions proposed for the area on federal lands in the future. 

Therefore, there would be no effects from future actions. There are no other known future 

actions planned for private lands that would affect the soil resources of the project area. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative A would be continued erosion of the existing 39.3 

miles of trails minus the reduction of erosion on the 4,000 feet of Trail 1 being paved. 

Alternative A would not meet forest plan direction and standards for minimizing soil 

damage, and would not meet NC water quality standards for turbidity. 

Alternatives B, C, & D:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternatives B, C, and D would be similar in that they would each reduce the 

number of miles of total trail length on soils with inherently erosive characteristics. Trail 1 

would be paved, and seasonal and storm-event closures would be implemented. Closure of 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

47 

the trail system during periods of freeze and thaw of soils and during wet trail conditions 

would greatly reduce soil damage and subsequent erosion from the trail system. Closures 

would help protect BMP features, therefore requiring less maintenance over time and lower 

maintenance costs. 

Alternative C would reduce the amount of unpaved road or trail on severe hazard soil types 

by the greatest amount, leaving 7.2 miles of system road (Trail 6 and sections of Trails 2, 4, 

5, and 7) on severe hazard soil types (Table 3.1.2.2.1). These sections of trail would be 

converted to Forest Service system road. Alternative D reduces the amount of unpaved road 

or trail on severe hazard soil types to 18.6 miles; and Alternative B reduces it to 25.0 miles. 

Alternatives B and D would both leave a trail system on the landscape. The reduction in trail 

miles from each alternative would reduce the erosion and loss of soil from the existing trail 

system. Additionally, sections of trail considered “high challenge” on Trails 2, 7, 9, and 12 

would be decommissioned in each alternative, reducing the risk of vehicle fluid spills and 

subsequent soil (and potentially water) contamination from petroleum products. The 

elimination of these sites would meet North Carolina state guidelines to reduce nonpoint 

sources of pollution (NC DFR 2006). 

These alternatives each reduce soil damage, although Alternative C would do the most to 

effectively minimize soil damage, followed by Alternative D, then Alternative B. To ensure 

restrain accelerated erosion and prevent sediment delivery to streams. BMPs would include 

such measures as; gravel and larger size stone surfacing, trail relocation and reconstruction to 

meeting the Forest Plan direction and the State standard for turbidity, each alternative would 

have BMPs implemented on the remaining road and trail system that would be designed to 

frequently remove storm runoff from the trail surface (e.g., rolling dips, and outsloping), 

seasonal and storm-event closures, properly sized sediment traps, brush barriers, and 

scheduled and reactionary maintenance. 

If BMPs are implemented and effective on the road and trail system, there would be an 

overall benefit from each alternative on the soil resource. However, it is assumed that the 

likelihood of BMP effectiveness or success differs by alternative. Table 3.1.2.1.1 presents the 

likelihood of success in general terms, ranging from a definite “no chance” of success 

(Alternative A) to a “high likelihood” of success. The measure of “likelihood of success” is 

based on miles of trail within 100 feet of stream and the implementation of trail closures. 

Therefore, Alternative C is estimated to have the highest likelihood of implementing 

successful BMPs and meeting Forest Plan standards. Alternatives B and D would each 

reduce adverse soil impacts through the decommissioning and improvements of trails in areas 

of concern, but the remaining trail systems are estimated to have a Low - Moderate 

likelihood of implementing successful BMPs and meeting standards. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. Paving of Trail 1 would eliminate many sediment sources. The cumulative 

effects of Alternatives B, C, and D would reduce soil damage by restraining accelerated 

erosion (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), 

through decommissioning, reconstruction, implementing storm-event and seasonal closures, 

implementing BMPs, and post-implementation maintenance. Because Alternative C reduces 

the greatest miles of trail on severe hazard soils and has the highest likelihood of BMP 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

48 

success, the greatest cumulative benefit to the soil resource would come from Alternative C, 

followed by Alternative D, and Alternative B. 

Alternative E:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative E would be a net reduction in the number of miles of total trail 

length on soils with inherently erosive characteristics. Trail 1 would be paved and seasonal 

closure would be implemented. Seasonal closure of the trail system during periods of freeze 

and thaw of soils would greatly reduce soil damage and subsequent erosion from the trail 

system. A storm-event closure would not be implemented in this alternative. By not 

implementing a storm-event closure, the risk of trail erosion and soil damage during these 

periods is higher than Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E would reduce the amount of 

unpaved road or trail on severe hazard soil types, leaving 31.2 miles of system road and trail 

(Table 3.1.2.2.1). The reduction in trail miles would reduce the erosion and loss of soil from 

the existing trail system. 

Additionally, sections of trail considered “high challenge” on Trails 2, 7, and 12 would be 

decommissioned, reducing the risk of soil (and potentially water) contamination from 

petroleum products. Alternative E would retain the high challenge area on Trail 9, a known 

source of contamination from vehicle-derived fluids. The continued contamination at this 

site would not meet North Carolina state guidelines to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution, 

unless the Forest Service prepares and implements a spill response plan that facilitates a rapid 

cleanup of any size spill (NC DFR 2006). 

This alternative would implement BMPs on the remaining road and trail system that would 

be designed to effectively restrain accelerated erosion and prevent sediment delivery to 

streams. BMPs would include such measures as; gravel and larger size stone surfacing, trail 

relocation and reconstruction to frequently remove storm runoff from the trail surface (e.g., 

rolling dips, and outsloping), seasonal closures, properly sized sediment traps, brush barriers, 

and scheduled and reactionary maintenance. 

If BMPs are implemented and effective on the road and trail system, there would be an 

overall benefit from Alternative E on the soil resource. However, because of a “low 

likelihood” of successful implementation of BMPs, the benefit to the soil resource would be 

limited and less from this alternative than Alternatives B, C, and D. Compared to 

Alternatives A and F however, the benefit would be greater. Additionally, the likelihood of 

this alternative meeting the Forest Plan standard, to minimize soil damage, would be met in 

some places with the decommissioning and improvements of trails in areas of concern, but 

would not likely meet the standard for long, because of the low likelihood of BMP success 

on the remaining trail system. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. Paving of Trail 1 would eliminate many sediment sources. The cumulative 

effects of Alternative E would reduce soil damage by restraining accelerated erosion (Forest 

Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), through the 

decommissioning and improvements of trails in areas of concern. . However the relatively 

high miles of trail remaining on sensitive soils and a low likelihood of BMP success on the 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

49 

remaining trail system, the cumulative benefit would be less from this alternative than 

Alternatives B, C, and D, but greater than Alternatives A and F.

Alternative F:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative F would not reduce the number of miles of unpaved road and trail on soils with 

inherently erosive characteristics. Trail 1 would be paved and seasonal closure would be 

implemented. Seasonal closure of the trail system during periods of freeze and thaw of soils 

would greatly reduce soil damage and subsequent erosion from the trail system. Similar to 

Alternative E, a storm-event closure would not be implemented in this alternative. By not 

implementing a storm event closure, the risk of trail erosion and soil damage during these 

periods is higher than Alternatives B, C, and D. Since Alternative F would construct 7.3 

miles of new trail, it would not reduce the amount of unpaved road or trail on severe hazard 

soil types, leaving 38.5 miles on the system. This alternative would only move the “severe“ 

potential for erosion from the Tellico River headwaters (above Tipton Creek) to the 

headwaters of Tipton Creek. However, a reduction in erosion and loss of soil from the 

existing trail system is expected since trails experiencing excessive erosion would be 

decommissioned or rerouted, and the new trail construction (Trail 13) would be designed and 

constructed to minimize trail erosion. 

Additionally, sections of trail considered “high challenge” on Trails 2, 7, and 12 would be 

decommissioned, reducing the risk of soil (and potentially water) contamination from 

petroleum products. Similar to Alternative E, Alternative F would retain the high challenge 

area on Trail 9, a known source of contamination from vehicle-derived fluids. The continued 

contamination at this site would not meet North Carolina state guidelines to reduce nonpoint 

sources of pollution, unless the Forest Service prepares and implements a spill response plan 

that facilitates a rapid cleanup of any size spill (NC DFR 2006). 

Alternative F would implement BMPs on the remaining road and trail system that would be 

designed to restrain accelerated erosion and prevent sediment delivery to streams. BMPs 

would include such measures as; gravel and larger size stone surfacing, trail relocation and 

reconstruction to frequently remove storm runoff from the trail surface (e.g., rolling dips, and 

outsloping), seasonal closures, properly sized sediment traps, brush barriers, and scheduled 

and reactionary maintenance. 

However, because of a Low likelihood of successful implementation of BMPs, the benefit to 

the soil resource would be limited and certainly less from this alternative than Alternatives B, 

C, D, and E. Additionally, the likelihood of this alternative meeting the Forest Plan standard, 

to minimize soil damage, would be met initially with the decommissioning and 

improvements of trails in areas of concern, but would not likely meet the standard following 

such work, because of the Low likelihood of BMP success on the remaining trail system. 

 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. Paving of Trail 1 would eliminate many sediment sources. The cumulative 

effects of Alternative F would reduce soil damage by restraining accelerated erosion (Forest 

Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), through the 

decommissioning and improvements of trails in areas of concern. Because of the relatively 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

50 

high miles of trail remaining on sensitive soils and a low likelihood of BMP success on the 

remaining trail system, the cumulative benefit would be less from this alternative than 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E, but greater than Alternative A.

3.1.2.3 Summary of Effects to Soil Resources 

While Alternatives B through F are designed to minimize soil damage by restraining 

accelerated erosion (based on Forest Plan direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 

7c), the likelihood of meeting the standard decreases with an increase in the miles of trail 

system on severe hazard soils ( Table 3.1.2.2.1) and an increase in the number of water 

control features needing to be frequently maintained 

To ensure meeting the Forest Plan standard regarding visible sediment and the State water 

quality standard for turbidity, each alternative would need to implement and maintain BMPs 

on the remaining road and trail system, which effectively restrain accelerated erosion and 

prevent sediment delivery to streams. Because implementing effective BMPs has been found 

to be challenging in the analysis area, alternatives with a low likelihood of successful BMP 

implementation and more unpaved trail or road miles have a higher risk of not meeting 

standards. 

For these reasons, Alternatives B through F are all associated with a higher likelihood of 

success than Alternative A (current condition). Alternative F retains the same number of trail 

miles of severe hazard soils and has a low likelihood of BMP success. All other action 

alternatives reduce the amount of trail on severe hazard soils, while at the same time no 

alternative – even closing the OHV System – eliminates all of these roads or trails. However 

Alternative C (system closure) reduces the amount to a much greater degree than any other 

alternative and has a high likelihood of BMP success. Based on this information the 

alternatives can be ordered from least likely to most likely to succeed in meeting Forest Plan 

standards for no visible sediment. 

No Chance Low Moderate High 

Alt. A 

 Alt. F Alt. B Alt. D Alt. C 

 Alt. E 

3.1.2.4. Effects on Water Resources by Alternative 

To meet the purpose and need for this project, each alternative (except Alternative A: No Action) 

is designed to minimize soil loss and protect water quality by preventing visible sediment from 

entering intermittent or perennial streams or perennial waterbodies (Forest Plan and State of N.C. 

Performance Standard (NC DFR 2007)), through some combination of trail decommissioning, 

relocation, reconstruction, closure, and/or additional drainage features, and assuming adequate 

post-implementation maintenance. Although implementation of this type of work would benefit 

water quality of the project area, each alternative offers different levels of benefit that will be 

evaluated. Trail locations near streams also present greater challenges in controlling sediment 

transport and deposition into nearby streams, and therefore trails within 100 feet and 25 feet 

(Table 3.1.2.4.1 and Table 3.1.2.4.2) will be used as a measure of alternative comparison. Also 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

51 

of concern is the ability to maintain the trail system left in place by each alternative. This will be 

measured by the likelihood of applied BMPs (Table 3.1.2.1.1) being successful at preventing 

visible sediment from entering streams and meeting the State turbidity standard. 

Table 3.1.2.4.1. Miles of trail within 100 feet of a perennial stream. Data generated 

from GIS using a 100 foot horizontal measurement from perennial streams.

Alternative 

Trail A B C D E F 

1 1.00 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 

2 0.60 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 

3 0.48 0.48 0.0 0.0 0.48 0.48 

4 0.69 0.27 0.48 0.48 0.27 0.27 

5 0.80 0.66 0.73 0.66 0.66 0.66

5-6 

Connector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

7 0.07 0.072 0.0 0.072 0.072 0.072 

8 0.97 0.97 0.0 0.97 0.97 0.97 

9 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 0.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.223 0.223 

10A 1.09 1.09 0.0 0.0 1.09 1.09 

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 

Total 6.05 4.92 2.58 3.57 5.14 5.20 

Net reduction of 

miles of trail 

within 100 feet 

of streams 0 1.13 3.474 2.48 0.91 0.85 

1. Trail 1 would be paved, reducing long-term sediment inputs. 

2. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 

3. Relocation would improve trail grade but still requires a stream crossing. 

4. Additional sediment reductions would result from road reshaping (Trails 1, 2, 4, and 5), 

seeding, and closure (Trail 4), and paving (Trail 1). 

Table 3.1.2.4.2. Miles of trail within 25 feet of a perennial stream. Data generated from 

GIS using a 25 foot horizontal measurement from perennial streams.

Alternative 

Trail A B C D E F 

1 0.72 0.721 0.721 0.721 0.721 0.721 

2 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 

3 0.06 0.06 0.0 0.06 0.06 0.06 

4 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 

5 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 

5-6 Connector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

7 0.02 0.022 0.0 0.022 0.022 0.022 

8 0.21 0.21 0.0 0.21 0.21 0.21 

9 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.053 0.053 

10A 0.16 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.16 0.16 

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

52 

Alternative 

Trail A B C D E F 

Total 1.67 1.49 1.04 1.33 1.55 1.56 

Net reduction of 

miles of trail 

within 25 feet of 

streams 0 0.18 0.634 0.34 0.12 0.11 

1. Trail 1 would be paved, reducing long-term sediment inputs . 

2. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 

3. Relocation would improve trail grade and erosion control but still requires a stream crossing. 

4. Additional sediment reductions would result from road reshaping (Trails 1, 2, 4, and 5), seeding, 

and closure (Trail 4), and paving (Trail 1). 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of the no action alternative would be the same as the existing conditions 

described in Section 3.1.1. Specifically, these effects would be a continuation of chronic 

sedimentation from the existing trails, continuing sedimentation of riffles and pools, and the 

potential for continued declines in fish populations. This alternative would retain 

approximately 6.05 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 

3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also retain the existing 1.67 miles of trail within 25 feet of 

perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.2). Applied BMPs would continue to be mostly ineffective 

at controlling soil erosion and runoff under current trail conditions and level of use. 

Approximately 63 springs would be allowed to flow within or across the trails. These 

springs would continue collecting sediments and transporting these sediments to larger 

streams. 

This alternative would not reduce sedimentation derived from the trail system; a known 

violator of the Forest Plan and State water quality protection standard to prevent visible 

sediment from entering intermittent or perennial streams or perennial waterbodies. 

Additionally, elevated levels of turbidity would continue to exceed the State standard and 

adversely effect the designated protected uses of the Tellico River, particularly aquatic life 

propagation and survival. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on water are assessed for the Upper Tellico River and the Davis Creek 

watersheds. Past activities analyzed for cumulative effects do not go back more than 60 years 

when timber harvest occurred over most of the analysis area. Future activities include those 

projected out 10 years into the future. 

Previous activities in the analysis area include timber harvest and road construction prior to 

Forest Service acquisition of the property and one timber sale within the Jenks Branch 

watershed. Currently, the Farmer Branch Project will implement harvesting and regenerating 

five stands in the watershed for a total of 125 acres. Three stands along Trail 1 and two 

stands accessed from the Allen Gap parking lot will be harvested over the next few years. 

The effects of logging have been extensively studied. The Forest Service uses logging 

techniques designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Many of these techniques have 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

53 

been developed at the Coweeta Hydrologic Station in Otto, North Carolina. Monitoring of 

past and ongoing timber sales, including timber haul road construction, have shown that the 

BMPs employed during timber harvest are highly effective at minimizing sedimentation. 

Furthermore, the Tusquitee Ranger District has harvested 38 acres using the 2-age timber 

harvest method within the Jenks Branch watershed within the last 10 years. Post harvest 

monitoring has not located any sediment sources related to this timber sale, and none are 

anticipated from the Farmer Branch sale. 

Private lands in the analysis area are primarily characterized by second home developments. 

Subdivisions are being developed within the Tipton Creek watershed. These activities 

include the construction of graveled roads and driveways. These developments are subject to 

the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, which should provide 

protection to the aquatic resources. Effects to aquatic resources are likely occurring due to 

private activities because TSS and turbidity data indicate an increase in suspended sediment 

and pebble counts show a 53% increase in fine sediment deposition below the private inholding. These activities are leading to adverse cumulative effects on water quality. There 

are no other ongoing activities on private lands known to be affecting the aquatic resources in 

the project area. 

The Tusquitee Ranger District is also implementing the paving of approximately 4,000 feet 

of Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek. These actions would likely 

result in a net reduction of sediments entering the Tipton Creek and Tellico River 

watersheds. There are no other actions proposed for the analysis area on federal lands in the 

future; therefore, there would be no effects from future actions. There are no known future 

actions planned for private lands that would affect the water resources of the project area. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative A would be continued sedimentation from the existing 

6.05 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (1.67 miles of which are within 25 

feet of perennial streams). The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the 

reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton 

Creek where paving occurs. Additionally, effects from the private development within 

Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high 

challenge areas would also continue. Cumulatively, Alternative A would not meet forest 

plan standards for preventing visible sediment from entering streams or the State of North 

Carolina turbidity standard. 

 Alternative B: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative B would be a net reduction of 1.13 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in stream turbidity. This alternative would retain approximately 4.92 miles of 

existing trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would 

also retain approximately 1.49 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 

3.1.2.4.2). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

54 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative B would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, and 5, 

and eliminate sections on Trails 9 and 10. Overall, the remaining 3.92 miles of unpaved trail 

within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied that would be designed to reduce 

sediment yield. BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design storm size and duration 

(e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When storms exceed the 

design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the trail. BMPs in this 

alternative are estimated to have a low to moderate likelihood of successfully controlling 

sediment delivery to streams. Therefore, BMPs on road segments near stream channels are 

not expected to eliminate sediment delivery from trails to nearby streams under this 

alternative. A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, 

Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and several unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, where 

trail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be reduced or eliminated. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the analysis area by closure of 

many of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. Fine sediment 

deposition found on riffle and pool habitat would slowly diminish as new sediment sources 

are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would 

decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high 

challenge areas would be reduced. 

Alternative B would require installation of approximately 52 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 30 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of construction 

Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These 

BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across 

the forest. Sediment traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some 

sediment to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or 

sediment traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these 

locations have less surface area to filter sediments when sediment traps over-flow during 

storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.18 miles of these most vulnerable locations 

in the Tellico River Watershed. 

The proposed seasonal and storm-event closures would provide additional water quality 

protection by avoiding soil disturbing OHV/ATV use during the wettest season. This closure 

should reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation, and hasten improvements to 

turbidity and aquatic habitats. 

The proposed camping restrictions would have no effects on water resources because the 

dispersed camping areas along the Upper Tellico River have already been closed. Additional 

closures would only affect remaining campsites, which are not located in riparian areas. The 

proposed four-wheel drive lock-in restriction on OHVs would help reduce erosion by 

reducing the amount of tire spinning and digging on the trail surface. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

55 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative B would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 1.13 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.18 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 4.92 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.49 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Alternative B would reduce visible sediment entering streams and 

therefore reduce turbidity. However, under Alternatives B the remaining trail system is 

estimated to have a low to moderate likelihood of implementing successful BMPs and 

meeting the State turbidity standards. 

Alternative C:

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The effects of Alternative C would be a net reduction of 3.47 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in turbidity. This alternative would retain approximately 2.58 miles of existing 

trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also 

retain approximately 1.04 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.2). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative C would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, and 5, 

and eliminate sections on Trails 3, 7, 9, 10, and 10A. Overall, the remaining 1.58 miles of 

unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would be converted to system road. Since traffic on 

these roads is expected to decrease under this alternative, applied BMPs are likely to be more 

effective at reducing sediment yield from the roads. BMPs would be designed to 

accommodate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on 

local precipitation data. When storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment 

yield would increase from the trail. Because these road segments are near stream channels, 

the risk remains that sediment would be transported from the roads to nearby streams. 

However, BMPs in this alternative are estimated to have a high likelihood of successfully 

controlling sediment delivery to streams. A reduction in sediment to streams would be 

notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and many unnamed tributaries to 

Tellico River, where trail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be reduced or 

eliminated. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

56 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the analysis area by closure of 

many of the most eroding trail sections and repair the residual roads. Fine sediment 

deposition found on riffle and pool habitat would slowly diminish as new sediment sources 

are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would 

decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high 

challenge areas would be stopped. 

Alternative C would require installation of approximately 15 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 135 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails crossings are decommissioned and residual road crossings 

are repaired. These short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by 

seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by 

application of construction BMPs (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). 

These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects 

across the forest. Sediment traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release 

some sediment to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails 

and/or sediment traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these 

locations have less surface area to filter sediments when sediment traps over-flow during 

storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.63 miles of these most vulnerable locations 

in the Tellico River Watershed. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 3.47 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.63 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 2.58 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.04 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Of the six alternatives, Alternative C would provide the highest level 

of sediment reduction and provide the greatest likelihood of meeting forest plan standards for 

preventing visible sediment from entering streams and therefore reduce turbidity. Under 

Alternatives C the remaining road system is estimated to have a high likelihood of 

implementing successful BMPs and meeting the State turbidity standards. 

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect Effects
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

57 

The effects of Alternative D would be a net reduction of 2.48 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in turbidity. This alternative would retain approximately 3.57 miles of existing 

trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also 

retain approximately 1.33 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.2). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative D would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, and 5, 

and eliminate sections on Trails 3, 9, 10, and 10A. Overall, the remaining 2.57 miles of 

unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied that are designed to 

reduce sediment yield. BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design storm size and 

duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When storms 

exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the trail. 

BMPs in this alternative are estimated to have a moderate likelihood of successfully 

controlling sediment delivery to streams. Therefore, BMPs on road segments near stream 

channels are not expected to eliminate sediment delivery from trails to nearby streams under 

this alternative. A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, 

Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and several unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, where 

trail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be reduced or eliminated. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the analysis area by closure of 

many of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. Fine sediment 

deposition found on riffle and pool habitat would slowly diminish as new sediment sources 

are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would 

decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high 

challenge areas would be stopped. 

Alternative D would require installation of approximately 52 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 66 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of BMPs (e.g. 

silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at 

reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the forest. Sediment traps 

within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment to streams during 

storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or sediment traps within 25 feet 

are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less surface area to 

filter sediments when sediment traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would 

eliminate 0.34 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River Watershed. 

The effects of the proposed seasonal and storm-event closures, new camping restrictions, and 

four-wheel drive lock-in would be the same as described for Alternative B. 

Alternative D would reduce visible sediment entering streams more than Alternatives A, B, 

E, and F, but less than C. Under Alternatives D the remaining trail system is estimated to 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

58 

have a moderate likelihood of implementing successful BMPs and meeting the State turbidity 

standards. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative D would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 2.48 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.34 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 3.57 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.33 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative D 

would provide the lowest amount of risk to water resources. 

Alternative E:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative E would be a net reduction of 0.91 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

some improvement stream turbidity. This alternative would retain approximately 5.14 miles 

of trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also 

retain approximately 1.55 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.2). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative E would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, 5, and 

10, and eliminate sections on Trail 9. Overall, the remaining 4.14 miles of unpaved trail 

within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied that would be designed to reduce 

sediment yield. BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design storm size and duration 

(e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When storms exceed the 

design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the trail. BMPs in this 

alternative are estimated to have a low likelihood of successfully controlling sediment 

delivery to streams. Therefore, BMPs on road segments near stream channels are not 

expected to eliminate sediment delivery from trails to nearby streams under this alternative. 

A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, 

Tellico River and several unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 

100 feet of a stream would be reduced or eliminated. Accumulation of toxic substances in the 

high challenge areas would be stopped, except on Trail 9, and therefore a risk of water 

contamination persists. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

59 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the analysis area by closure of 

some of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. Fine sediment 

deposition found on riffle and pool habitat would slowly diminish as new sediment sources 

are slowly reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity 

would decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion. However, Alternative E would likely 

continue to produce sediment in the Peckerwood Creek watershed and the headwaters of the 

Tellico River (where Trails 10 and 10A are adjacent to the Tellico River and its tributaries). 

Alternative E would require installation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 9 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of construction 

BMPs (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven 

successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the forest. 

Sediment traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment to 

streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or sediment traps 

within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less 

surface area to filter sediments when sediment traps over-flow during storm events. This 

alternative would eliminate 0.12 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River 

Watershed. 

Expanding the use of Trail 10 to accommodate full-size OHVs would likely increase use of 

this trail and possibly increase sedimentation of streams within 25 feet of the trail. Trail 

condition surveys found that 46 of 47 sites within 25 feet of streams surveyed along Trail 10 

were contributing sediment to those streams. The sediment traps proposed for this alternative 

would likely over-top during rain events exceeding 1 inch/day. As the trail condition survey 

results suggest, these sediments would likely enter the streams - depositing on larger 

substrates and increasing turbidity. 

The proposed seasonal closure would provide additional water quality protection by avoiding 

soil disturbing OHV/ATV use during the wettest season. This closure should reduce the 

amount of erosion and sedimentation, and hasten improvements to turbidity and aquatic 

habitats. In the absence of storm-event closure, improvements to water quality would be less 

evident than in Alternatives B and D that proposed such closures. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative E would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 0.91 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.12 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.14 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

60 

streams (1.55 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative E would 

provide a lower level of sediment reduction and habitat improvements than Alternatives B, 

C, or D. 

While Alternative E would reduce visible sediment entering streams, sediment from Trail 10 

in particular may continue to present a challenge to control. Also, under Alternatives E the 

remaining trail system is estimated to have a low likelihood of implementing successful 

BMPs and meeting the State turbidity standard. 

Alternative F:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative F would be a net reduction of 0.85 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement stream turbidity. This alternative would retain approximately 5.20 miles of 

trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also 

retain approximately 1.56 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.2). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative F would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, 5, and 

10, and eliminate sections on Trail 9. With the construction of Trail 13, this alternative 

would add 0.06 miles of system trail within 100 feet of upper Tipton Creek. Overall, the 

remaining 4.20 miles of unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied 

that would be designed to reduce sediment yield. BMPs would be designed to accommodate 

a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation 

data. When storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would 

increase from the trail. BMPs in this alternative are estimated to have a low likelihood of 

successfully controlling sediment delivery to streams. Therefore, BMPs on road segments 

near stream channels are not expected to eliminate sediment delivery from trails to nearby 

streams under this alternative. A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks 

Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and several unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, 

where trail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be reduced or eliminated. An 

increase of sediment to streams could occur in the upper Tipton Creek drainage. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the analysis area by closure of 

some of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. Fine sediment 

deposition found on riffle and pool habitat would slowly diminish as new sediment sources 

are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would 

decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion. However, Alternative F would likely 

continue to produce sediment in the Peckerwood Creek watershed and the headwaters of the 

Tellico River (where Trails 10 and 10A are adjacent to the Tellico River and its tributaries). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

61 

Additionally, the proposed Trail 13 would cross the watershed of upper Tipton Creek and 

Bearpen Branch. Upper Tipton Creek and Bearpen Branch contains one of the few stream 

channels currently unaffected by OHV/ATV use. This trail would come within 25 feet of the 

head of Bearpen Branch. Trail condition surveys have shown that trails within 25 feet of a 

stream have had a nearly 100% chance of releasing sediments to streams. Sedimentation 

sources may develop in this new trail reach that could reduce water quality. Accumulation of 

toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be stopped, except of Trail 9, and 

therefore a risk of water contamination persists. 

Alternative F would require installation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels plus an additional unknown number of culverts to cross springs exposed 

during construction. Approximately 9 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of BMPs (e.g. 

silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at 

reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the forest. Sediment traps 

within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment to streams during 

storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or sediment traps within 25 feet 

are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less surface area to 

filter sediments when sediment traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would 

eliminate 0.11 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River Watershed. 

The effects of retaining and expanding the use of Trails 10 and 10A would be the same as 

described for Alternative E. Sediments would likely enter the streams - depositing on larger 

substrates and increasing turbidity. 

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure would be the same as described for Alternative 

E. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative F would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 0.85 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.11 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.20 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.56 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative F would 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

62 

provide a lower level of sediment reduction and habitat improvements than Alternatives B, 

C, D, or E. 

While Alternative F would reduce visible sediment entering streams from the existing trail 

system, sediment from Trail 10 in particular may continue to present a challenge to control. 

A new potential sediment source would be created with Trail 13. This alternative would 

provide a better likelihood of improving water quality than Alternative A, but the remaining 

trail system is estimated to have a low likelihood of implementing successful BMPs and 

meeting the State turbidity standard.. 

See “Consistency with State and Forest Plan Standards” section in Section 3.2.3 for summary 

by alternative of standards and protected uses.
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

63 

3.2 Aquatic Wildlife 

3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Boundaries of Aquatic Analysis Area 

The aquatic analysis area for this project consists of the entire Upper Tellico River watershed 

downstream to the confluence with Rough Ridge Creek. This includes those waters in the 

area of potential site-specific impacts on aquatic habitat and populations, and encompasses 

waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities. 

 

Information presented in the previous Soil and Water section is also used in this 

analysis. 

Existing Condition 

There are approximately 25 miles of perennial steam within the Tellico River watershed in 

North Carolina. Of these miles, approximately 14.80 (60%) are first order streams, 6.81 

(27%) are second order streams, and 3.31 (13%) are third order streams. 

Stream habitat conditions have been surveyed across the Nantahala National Forest using the 

Basinwide Visual Estimation Technique (Moran and Roghair 2006, Dolloff et al 1993, 

Roghair 2003). The Upper Tellico River was surveyed using this technique in 2004 and 

2005. It has fewer pools per kilometer than the mean number or median number across the 

forest (Figure 3.2.1.1). Pools are an important habitat type for many fish species; including 

brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout. The lack of pool habitats within the Upper 

Tellico River may reduce the river’s ability to support trout species. 

Figure 3.2.1.1. Mean and median pools per kilometer of 49 streams across the 

Nantahala National Forest. Number of pools per kilometer within the Tellico River – 

2004 and 2005 survey data.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pools/km

Mean/std Dev

Median/quartiles

Tellico River

The relatively few pools present are also of poorer quality than the reference stream 

conditions (see Figure 3.1.1.4). As pools fill with sediment, the homogenous structure makes 

them less suitable for trout. Such pools have few crevices and concealment areas for adult 

trout to escape predators and rest. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

64 

Substrates within the Upper Tellico River watershed are embedded by sands and silt (Figure 

3.1.1.3). These small substrate particles have been shown to be limiting factors in the 

spawning success of salmonids. Brook trout spawning success can be reduced by increases 

in sediments when it accumulates within the spawning gravels (Alexander and Hansen 1986, 

Argent and Flebbe 1999, Curry and MacNeill 2004, Meyer et al. 2005). 

Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) within the watershed have generally been higher near the 

OHV System than in reference areas (Table 3.1.1.3). Increases in turbidity have been shown 

to reduce trout foraging abilities by reducing sight distance for feeding trout (Barrett et al. 

1992, Sweka and Hartman 2001, and White and Harvey 2007). 

Water temperature monitoring has indicated that all streams within the Upper Tellico River 

watershed in North Carolina are suitable for brook trout. The upper thermal tolerance for 

brook trout is estimated to be between 16 - 22°C (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Eaton and 

Scheller 1996, and Clark et al 2001). The maximum temperature for the monitoring period 

(December 2007 – July 2008) for any stream within the watershed was approximately 18°C. 

Toxicity tests within and adjacent to three high challenge areas within the OHV System have 

shown elevated levels of petroleum products (Mahan 2008). We do not yet know if these 

substances are reaching water, so more testing is planned. Research in aquatic environments 

has shown that toxic substances are often closely associated with sediments (Krein and 

Schorer 2000). Direct and indirect effects (i.e. reduced egg and larval fish survival, higher 

susceptibility to infectious diseases and parasites, and population depletions) have been 

documented in fishes exposed to petroleum products (Murphy et al. 1999, Arkoosh et al. 

1998). Petroleum products have also been shown to accumulate within fatty tissues of fish 

eggs, reducing the viability of the eggs (Arkoosh et al. 1998). These toxins can also decrease 

the number of eggs produced and cause deformities in larval fish (Hall and Oris 1991; as 

cited by Kime 1995). Toxic substances may be further inhibiting reproduction and 

recruitment of fish populations within the Upper Tellico River watershed. Effects of toxins 

are more likely to occur in those stream reaches receiving sediments from over-topping silt 

traps. 

Acid Deposition – Water Chemistry 

(Also see Upper Tellico River Watershed Assessment 2005) 

Based on elevation and the amount of wet sulfur deposition, the Upper Tellico watershed has 

been identified as having the greatest risk to acidification from acidic deposition from the 

atmosphere when rating all of the 5th level hydrologic unit codes (HUC) on the Nantahala 

and Pisgah National Forests. Excessive deposition of acidic compounds of sulfur and 

nitrogen from the atmosphere can cause an adverse impact to the health of the vegetation and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Typically, the deposition of sulfur compounds is of greatest concern since it is usually 

deposited as sulfuric acid, which lowers the pH of the soils. A reduction of soil pH below 

4.5 is likely to allow aluminum to become mobile and move into the soil water solution 

(Elliott et al. 2008). High concentrations of aluminum are toxic to aquatic organisms. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

65 

The acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of a watershed can be calculated as the sum of the 

bases (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium) minus the sum of the mineral acids 

(sulfate, nitrate, and chloride). Streams having ANC values of greater than 50 

microequivalents per liter (μeq/L) are thought to have adequate buffering capacity to offset 

the future deposition of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. ANC values less than zero (0) are 

considered chronically acidic and have no buffering capacity. Many aquatic organisms 

would generally not occur under such conditions, including native brook trout. 

Seven locations in the Upper Tellico area have had the water samples processed to estimate 

the stream ANC. One stream (Jenks Branch) was classified as having adequate buffering 

capacity (lab ANC = 69.7 μeq/L). The remaining six streams as well as most of the other 

streams sampled in adjacent watersheds were classified as potentially sensitive. Most of the 

Upper Tellico watershed has a low buffering capacity to offset any sulfur released from the 

soils or deposited from the atmosphere. Based upon the scientific literature and the inventory 

results from the watershed it appears acid deposition could be a contributor to why 30 

percent of the brook trout range has been lost in the watershed and why the trout densities are 

lower than expected. 

Aquatic populations 

The fish community of the Upper Tellico River watershed is predominantly a coldwater 

fishery. Brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, blacknose dace, creek chub, and northern 

hogsuckers inhabit the river. Rainbow trout and brown trout are both non-native species 

introduced into the watershed for recreational fishing purposes. No rainbow trout or brown 

trout are currently being stocked by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

(NCWRC) into this watershed. Upper Tellico River watershed trout populations were 

monitored from 1994-2006 by the NCWRC (Besler et al. 2007). 

Fishing pressure in the Upper Tellico River watershed is not expected to be any greater than 

streams in other parts of the forest. Fishing pressure on trout streams on the forest has not 

been shown to be a limiting factor in trout densities because the NCWRC has developed 

fishing regulations to prevent overexploitation of the fishery resources (Borawa and 

Clemmons 1998, Borawa 1999). Furthermore, brook trout streams in the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park that were previously closed to fishing showed no changes in fish 

density or size structure after the streams were reopened to fishing (Kulp and Moore in 

press). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

66 

Figure 3.2.1.2. Distribution of trout within the Tellico River watershed, North 

Carolina.

Brook trout- Brook trout inhabit most of the watershed from a cascade on the Upper Tellico 

River upstream throughout the tributaries (Figure 3.2.1.2). Although brook trout 

occasionally occur in the Tellico River near the state line, this species is unable to compete 

with the rainbow trout and brown trout in this portion of the Tellico River. Therefore, the 

brook trout population remains confined to the portions of the watershed that are isolated by 

physical barriers (i.e. falls). 

NCWRC monitoring indicated that the reference site (Tipton Creek) contained a mean 

number of 640 age-0 brook trout per hectare (standard error = 169) while the stream within 

the OHV System (Peckerwood Creek) contained a mean number of 422 age-0 brook trout per 

hectare, standard error = 130 (Besler et al. 2007). Although the sample size is small for each 

site, the Peckerwood Creek site appeared to have lower densities of age-0 brook trout than 

the Tipton Creek site. No data were gathered during this monitoring to determine the factors 

affecting the brook trout population numbers. 

Brook trout reproductive behavior is classified as substrate modifiers – egg hiding (Balon 

1975, Jones et al 1999) – burying their eggs within the gravel substrate. Sediments can cover 

these nests and smother the developing eggs (Argent and Flebbe 1999). Alexander and 

Hansen (1986) also documented a reduction of recruitment of age-0 brook trout in a stream 

experimentally treated with sands. Based upon the available monitoring data from the Upper 

Tellico River watershed and data from other fisheries research, the sediment loading that is 

coming from the Tellico OHV System is likely to be having a negative effect upon brook 

trout reproduction. These findings are consistent with studies of salmonids across the United 

States (Furniss et al 1991, Waters 1995). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

67 

Rainbow trout and brown trout – Rainbow trout and brown trout inhabit the mainstem of the 

Tellico River from a cascade on the Upper Tellico River downstream into Tennessee. 

Rainbow trout also occur within Jenks Branch. 

NCWRC monitoring indicated that the age-0 fish densities and standing crops for rainbow 

trout and brown trout in the Upper Tellico River were considerably lower than the reference 

sites (Besler et al. 2007). Although the sample size is small for each site, the Tellico River 

sites appear to have lower densities of age-0 rainbow trout and brown trout than any of the 

other North Carolina sites. No data were gathered during this monitoring to determine the 

factors affecting the rainbow trout or brown trout population numbers. 

Rainbow trout and brown trout reproductive behavior is classified as substrate modifiers – 

egg hiding (Balon 1975, Jones et al 1999). The spawning behaviors of these species are 

similar to the spawning behavior of the brook trout; therefore, the negative effects of 

sedimentation are likely similar for these species (see brook trout discussion above). 

Non-game fish community – The non-game fish community within the analysis area is greatly 

limited by the physical barriers located on the North Carolina portion of the Tellico River. 

Blacknose dace, creek chubs, and northern hogsuckers occupy a portion of the Tellico River 

downstream of the cascade on the Upper Tellico River (Figure 3.2.1.2). The North Carolina 

portion of the Tellico River is the uppermost reach of suitable habitat for these species. No 

suitable habitats exist for these species within the tributaries. 

The mean densities of blacknose dace in the Upper Tellico River have shown considerable 

variation (Figure 3.2.1.3). The population experienced a decline in the late 1990’s through 

the early 2000’s. The blacknose dace population has shown some recovery in recent years. 

The mean densities of creek chubs declined in the 1990’s and have not yet recovered (Figure 

3.2.1.3). The mean densities of northern hogsuckers exhibited a similar trend as the 

blacknose dace population. 

Much of the variation in mean densities among these populations is likely related to the 

spawning behaviors of the species. Blacknose dace and northern hogsuckers broadcast their 

eggs generally over cobbles and large gravels. These species provide no parental care and 

the larval fishes generally hide under stones within the substrate (Balon 1975). High 

sedimentation levels within the Upper Tellico River watershed have reduced the availability 

of open spaces within the substrates – the key habitat feature for developing larval fishes. 

The creek chub is a nesting species which builds small mounds using small gravels (Jones et 

al. 1999). The decline in mean densities of this species has likely resulted from a 

combination of factors including sedimentation of riffle areas, which are important for 

spawning, and the filling of pools, which are key adult habitats (Etnier and Starnes 1993). 

Substrate monitoring (see section 3.1 – Soil and Water) has indicated that the Upper Tellico 

River riffles contain a higher portion of sands and silts, which are embedding the larger 

substrates, than do the reference reaches. Monitoring has also indicated that the pools within 

the Upper Tellico River, which are below the forest-wide average number per kilometer 

(Figure 3.2.1.1), have been filled with considerable amounts of sands and silts. These 

conditions produce poor habitats for all life stages of the creek chubs – likely resulting in the 

observed decline in mean densities (Figure 3.2.1.3). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

68 

Figure 3.2.1.3. Mean densities of non-game fish species within the Upper Tellico River, 

North Carolina – 1994-2004. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Mean Density (#/ha)

Blacknose dace

Creek chub

Northern hogsucker

Aquatic insect community – The aquatic insect community within the Upper Tellico River 

watershed has been monitored since May 2007 by Western Carolina University. Preliminary 

results have been inconclusive (Ferrell unpublished data). In general, species diversity 

among all sites has been similar. 

Desired Conditions for Aquatic Resources 

Protection of specific habitat elements for the brook trout involves maintaining water quality 

to North Carolina state standards, preventing sedimentation of spawning gravels, and 

protecting stream bank integrity. Improving brook trout habitat is a forest plan standard 

(LRMP Amendment 5 page III-185). Furthermore, the desired condition for the Tellico 

River and its tributaries is to “manage streams for self-sustaining fish populations where 

conditions are favorable...emphasize habitat for specific Management Indicator Species 

which represent this group” (LRMP Amendment 5 page III-185). 

The forest plan also provides direction to “maintain the natural hydraulic and hydrologic 

functioning of the stream channel and protect the integrity of the stream system including 

channel, banks, and stream bottom” (LRMP Amendment 5 page III-187). This direction 

places emphasis upon reducing negative effects upon riparian dependent resources, which 

includes wild trout populations and other aquatic organisms. 

 

3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmental consequences to aquatic wildlife resources are evaluated based on impacts to 

the following: Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) aquatic species, 

aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS), and aquatic Forest Concern (FC) species. 

Aquatic Species Evaluated and Rationale 

Previous Survey Information 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

69 

Thirteen aquatic PETS species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala 

National Forest. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences 

of PETS species in Cherokee County. Additionally, species known to occur within the Little 

Tennessee River system were included since the Tellico River is within this basin. These 

species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats 

within the aquatic analysis area. Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project 

or analysis areas were eliminated from further analysis. Based upon the results of this 

filtering process no proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive aquatic species were 

evaluated for this analysis. A complete list of species considered is available from the project 

record. 

The federally threatened species yellowfin madtom and spotfin chub, and the federally 

endangered species duskytail darter and smoky madtom have been reintroduced to the 

Tellico River near Mile 33 in Tennessee. These populations, listed as non-essential 

experimental populations by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are located approximately 

15 river miles downstream of the aquatic analysis area. The Upper Tellico River and its 

tributaries are isolated from any downstream threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic 

species because numerous physical barriers are located within the Tellico River downstream 

of the North Carolina state line. Furthermore, any effects of the alternatives would dissipate 

prior to reaching these species or their habitats because numerous tributaries enter the Tellico 

River between the aquatic analysis area and the occupied habitats. 

Effects of Alternatives on Federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive 

Aquatic species 

There are no known proposed, threatened, or endangered species in the project area. The 

affected areas of the proposed project are outside the range of the species and these areas 

currently contain no habitat for any proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive aquatic 

species. As such, there will be no direct or indirect effects to any federally listed species or 

habitats. In the absence of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, there would be 

no cumulative effects to any proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive aquatic species. 

Management Indicator Species:

Aquatic MIS listed in the LRMP represent all biological communities and special habitats on 

the Nantahala/Pisgah National Forests. Only those MIS that would be affected by the 

proposed project are fully evaluated; the following paragraphs explain why certain LRMP 

MIS were eliminated from further consideration. 

Tipton Creek, Peckerwood Creek, and the Upper Tellico River were surveyed by the 

NCWRC, U.S. Forest Service, and TVA. 

Table 3.2.2.1: Species data from NCWRC, USFS, and Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) surveys.

Stream Year Species located 

Tipton Creek 1990 Wild rainbow trout 

Tellico River 1981,1994-

2006 

Wild rainbow trout, wild brown trout, wild brook trout, northern 

hogsucker, creek chub, and blacknose dace 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

70 

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) occur in reservoirs. This habitat does not occur 

within the analysis area; therefore, largemouth bass and its habitat will not be analyzed 

further. Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) inhabit coolwater and warmwater steams. 

No coolwater or warmwater stream habitats exist for smallmouth bass within the aquatic 

analysis area; therefore, this species will not be analyzed. Wild brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), wild rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) and wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) are coldwater fish species; therefore, these 

species were retained within the analysis. Warmwater streams, coolwater streams, and 

reservoirs will not be analyzed for this project because none occur within the aquatic analysis 

area. Therefore, there would be no effects to any warmwater streams, coolwater streams, or 

reservoirs. 

The effects of this project would dissipate prior to reaching the point where any streams 

become suitable for warmwater or coolwater species. 

Wild brook trout, wild rainbow trout, wild brown trout, and blacknose dace were selected as 

management indicator species for this project given their known presence and the presence of 

suitable habitat in the waters within the aquatic analysis area. Management activities most 

likely to affect brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and blacknose dace habitat would be 

changes in water quality, particularly sedimentation of pools and spawning substrates. Trail 

condition surveys have indicated that trails within 100 feet of streams have a moderately high 

probability of contributing sediment to those streams. Trails within 25 feet of streams were 

found to have the highest probability of contributing sediment to streams. Therefore, 

changes to the amount of trail within 100 feet and within 25 feet of perennial streams serve 

as indicators for analysis of the effects of each alternative. 

Effects on Aquatic MIS by Alternative 

Table 3.2.2.2. Miles of trail within 100 feet of a perennial stream. Data generated from 

GIS using a 100 foot horizontal measurement from perennial streams.

Alternative 

Trail A B C D E F 

1 1.00 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 

2 0.60 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 

3 0.48 0.48 0.0 0.0 0.48 0.48 

4 0.69 0.27 0.48 0.48 0.27 0.27 

5 0.80 0.66 0.73 0.66 0.66 0.66

5-6 

Connector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

7 0.07 0.072 0.0 0.072 0.072 0.072 

8 0.97 0.97 0.0 0.97 0.97 0.97 

9 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 0.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.223 0.223 

10A 1.09 1.09 0.0 0.0 1.09 1.09 

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 

Total 6.05 4.92 2.58 3.57 5.14 5.20 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

71 

Alternative 

Trail A B C D E F 

Net reduction of 

miles of trail 

within 100 feet 

of streams 0 1.13 3.474 2.48 0.91 0.85 

5. Trail 1 would be paved, reducing long-term sediment inputs. 

6. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 

7. Relocation would improve trail grade but still requires a stream crossing. 

8. Additional sediment reductions would result from road reshaping (Trails 1, 2, 4, and 5), 

seeding, and closure (Trail 4), and paving (Trail 1). 

Table 3.2.2.3. Miles of trail within 25 feet of a perennial stream. Data generated from 

GIS using a 25 foot horizontal measurement from perennial streams.

Alternative 

Trail A B C D E F 

1 0.72 0.721 0.721 0.721 0.721 0.721 

2 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 

3 0.06 0.06 0.0 0.06 0.06 0.06 

4 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 

5 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 

5-6 Connector 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

7 0.02 0.022 0.0 0.022 0.022 0.022 

8 0.21 0.21 0.0 0.21 0.21 0.21 

9 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.053 0.053 

10A 0.16 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.16 0.16 

11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 

Total 1.67 1.49 1.04 1.33 1.55 1.56 

Net reduction of 

miles of trail 

within 25 feet of 

streams 0 0.18 0.634 0.34 0.12 0.11 

5. Trail 1 would be paved, reducing long-term sediment inputs . 

6. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 

7. Relocation would improve trail grade and erosion control but still requires a stream crossing. 

8. Additional sediment reductions would result from road reshaping (Trails 1, 2, 4, and 5), seeding, 

and closure (Trail 4), and paving (Trail 1). 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of the no action alternative would be the same as the existing conditions 

described in Section 3.2.1. Specifically, these effects would be a continuation of chronic 

sedimentation from the existing trails, continuing sedimentation of riffles and pools, and the 

potential for continued declines in fish populations. This alternative would retain 

approximately 6.05 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 

3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain the existing 1.67 miles of trail within 25 feet of 

perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). Approximately 63 springs would be allowed to flow 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

72 

within or across the trails. These springs would continue collecting sediments and 

transporting these sediments to larger streams. 

This alternative would not reduce sedimentation to any streams within the aquatic analysis 

area. This alternative would not meet forest plan direction because habitats for the aquatic 

MIS would continue to be degraded by sediments embedding larger substrates and the filling 

of pools. Stream turbidity would continue to be elevated during storm events by sediment 

entrained within the storm flows. This increased turbidity would likely limit the feeding 

ability of the aquatic MIS by reducing the sight distance for fishes. 

Cumulative Effects

The boundaries for the cumulative effects analysis for aquatic resources are the same as the 

boundaries for the Aquatic Analysis Area. Previous activities in the project area include 

timber harvest and road construction prior to Forest Service acquisition of the property and 

one timber sale within the Jenks Branch watershed. Currently, the Farmer Branch Project 

will implement harvesting and regenerating five stands in the watershed for a total of 125 

acres. Three stands along Trail 1 and two stands accessed from the Allen Gap parking lot will 

be harvested over the next few years. The effects of logging have been extensively studied. 

The Forest Service uses logging techniques designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

Many of these techniques have been developed at the Coweeta Hydrologic Station in Otto, 

North Carolina. Monitoring of past and ongoing timber sales, including timber haul road 

construction, have shown that the BMPs employed during timber harvest are highly effective 

at minimizing sedimentation. Furthermore, the Tusquitee Ranger District has harvested 38 

acres using the 2-age timber harvest method within the Jenks Branch watershed within the 

last 10 years. Post harvest monitoring has not located any sediment sources related to this 

timber sale, and none are anticipated from the Farmer Branch sale. 

Private lands in the project area are primarily characterized by second home developments. 

Subdivisions are being developed within the Tipton Creek watershed. These activities 

include the construction of graveled roads and driveways. These developments are subject to 

the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, which should provide 

protection to the aquatic resources. However, effects to aquatic resources are likely 

occurring due to private activities because TSS and turbidity data indicate an increase in 

suspended sediment and pebble counts show a 53% increase in fine sediment deposition 

below the private in-holding. These activities are leading to adverse cumulative effects. 

There are no other ongoing activities on private lands known to be affecting the aquatic 

resources in the project area. 

The Tusquitee Ranger District is also implementing the paving of approximately 4,000 feet 

of Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek. These actions would likely 

result in a net reduction of sediments entering the Tipton Creek and Tellico River 

watersheds. The Tusquitee Ranger District is proposing to install dying hemlocks into the 

Tellico River to improve the river’s ability to process sediments and to improve fish habitat. 

These activities may cause a short-term increase in sediment deposition immediately 

upstream of the new logs but these additional structures should improve long-term channel 

stability and help remove sediments from the channel. There are no other actions proposed 

for the project area on federal lands in the future; therefore, there would be no effects from 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

73 

future actions. There are no known future actions planned for private lands that would affect 

the aquatic resources of the project area. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative A would be continued sedimentation from the existing 

6.05 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (1.67 miles of which are within 25 

feet of perennial streams). The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the 

reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton 

Creek where paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the large woody 

debris installation that is planned. Additionally, effects from the private development within 

Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high 

challenge areas would also continue. Alternative A would not meet forest plan standards for 

preventing visible sediment from entering streams or direction to restore and enhance 

habitats for associated aquatic MIS. 

Alternative B: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative B would be a net reduction of 1.13 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in fish populations as spawning habitat and pool conditions improve. This 

alternative would retain approximately 4.92 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of 

perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.49 

miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative B would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, and 5, 

and eliminate sections on Trails 9 and 10. Overall, the remaining 3.92 miles of unpaved trail 

within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied that would reduce sediment yields 

(assuming the application of gravel and adequate maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs 

would be designed to accommodate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour 

rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When storms exceed the design storm or when 

BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the trail. Because these road segments are 

near stream channels, these improvements are not expected to eliminate sediment delivery 

from trails to nearby streams under this alternative. A reduction in sediment to streams 

would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and several unnamed 

tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be 

reduced or eliminated. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the aquatic analysis area by 

closure of many of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. 

Habitats for the aquatic MIS would slowly improve as new sediment sources are reduced and 

old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would decline due to 

the reduction of chronic erosion. 

Alternative B would require installation of approximately 52 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 30 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

74 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of Best 

Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs 

have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the 

forest. Silt traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment 

to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or silt traps 

within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less 

surface area to filter sediments when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This 

alternative would eliminate 0.18 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River 

Watershed. 

The proposed seasonal closure would provide additional aquatic resource protection by 

avoiding soil disturbing OHV/ATV use during the wettest season. This closure should 

reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation, and hasten improvements to the habitats for 

the aquatic MIS. 

The storm-event closure may reduce erosion and sedimentation by eliminating vehicle traffic 

on soft trail surfaces. These closures would help improve habitats for aquatic MIS. 

The proposed camping restrictions would have no effects on aquatic resources because the 

dispersed camping areas along the Upper Tellico River have already been closed. Additional 

closures would only affect remaining campsites, which are not located in riparian areas. 

The proposed four-wheel drive lock-in restriction on OHVs would help reduce erosion by 

reducing the amount of tire spinning and digging on the trail surface. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the large woody debris that is 

planned. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative B would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 1.13 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.18 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 4.92 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.49 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be 

reduced. Alternative B would reduce visible sediment entering streams. This alternative 

would also be a positive action in regard to forest plan direction for aquatic resources: to 

restore and enhance habitats for associated aquatic MIS. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

75 

Alternative C:

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The effects of Alternative C would be a net reduction of 3.47 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in fish populations as spawning habitat and pool conditions improve. This 

alternative would retain approximately 2.58 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of 

perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.04 

miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative C would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, and 5, 

and eliminate sections on Trails 3, 7, 9, 10, and 10A. Overall, the remaining 1.58 miles of 

unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would be converted to system road. Since traffic on 

these roads is expected to decrease under this alternative, applied BMPs are likely to be more 

effective at reducing sediment yield from the roads. BMPs would be designed to 

accommodate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on 

local precipitation data. When storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment 

yield would increase from the trail. Because these road segments are near stream channels, 

the risk remains that sediment would be transported from the roads to nearby streams. A 

reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, 

Tellico River and many unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 

100 feet of a stream would be reduced or eliminated. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the aquatic analysis area by 

closure of many of the most eroding trail sections and repair the residual roads. Habitats for 

the aquatic MIS would slowly improve as new sediment sources are reduced and old 

sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would decline due to the 

reduction of chronic erosion. 

Alternative C would require installation of approximately 15 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 135 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails crossings are decommissioned and residual road crossings 

are repaired. These short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by 

seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by 

application of Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and 

mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road 

construction projects across the forest. Silt traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may 

continue to release some sediment to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. 

Streams with trails and/or silt traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation 

because these locations have less surface area to filter sediments when silt traps over-flow 

during storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.63 miles of these most vulnerable 

locations in the Tellico River Watershed. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

76 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the large woody debris 

installation that is planned. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 3.47 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.63 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 2.58 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.04 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be 

stopped. Of the six alternatives, Alternative C would provide the highest level of sediment 

reduction and provide the greatest likelihood of fish habitat recovery. Alternative C would 

meet forest plan standards for preventing visible sediment from entering streams. This 

alternative would provide more positive action to move the aquatic resources towards the 

forest plan direction to restore and enhance habitats for associated aquatic MIS than any of 

the other alternatives. 

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative D would be a net reduction of 2.48 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in fish populations as spawning habitat and pool conditions improve. This 

alternative would retain approximately 3.57 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of 

perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.33 

miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative D would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, and 5, 

and eliminate sections on Trails 3, 9, 10, and 10A. Overall, the remaining 2.57 miles of 

unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied that would reduce 

sediment yield (assuming the application of gravel and adequate maintenance of applied 

BMPs). BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 

1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When storms exceed the design 

storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the trail. Because these road 

segments are near stream channels, these improvements are not expected to eliminate 

sediment delivery from trails to nearby streams under this alternative. A reduction in 

sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

77 

several unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 100 feet of a stream 

would be reduced or eliminated. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the aquatic analysis area by 

closure of many of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. 

Habitats for the aquatic MIS would slowly improve as new sediment sources are reduced and 

old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would decline due to 

the reduction of chronic erosion. 

Alternative D would require installation of approximately 52 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 66 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of Best 

Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs 

have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the 

forest. Silt traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment 

to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or silt traps 

within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less 

surface area to filter sediments when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This 

alternative would eliminate 0.34 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River 

Watershed. 

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure, storm-event closure, new camping restrictions, 

and four-wheel drive lock-in would be the same as described for Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the large woody debris 

installation that is planned. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative D would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 2.48 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.34 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 3.57 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.33 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be 

stopped. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative D would provide the 

lowest amount of risk to aquatic resources. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

78 

Alternative D would reduce visible sediment entering streams more than Alternatives A, B, 

E, and F, but less than C. Alternative D would be a positive action in regard to forest plan 

direction for aquatic resources: to restore and enhance habitats for associated aquatic MIS. 

This alternative would provide a higher likelihood of moving the aquatic resources towards 

this forest plan direction than Alternatives A, B, E, or F. 

Alternative E:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative E would be a net reduction of 0.91 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

some improvement in fish populations as spawning habitat and pool conditions improve. 

This alternative would retain approximately 5.14 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.55 miles of trail 

within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative E would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, 5, and 

10, and eliminate sections on Trail 9. Overall, the remaining 4.14 miles of unpaved trail 

within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied that would reduce sediment yield 

(assuming the application of gravel and adequate maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs 

would be designed to accommodate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour 

rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When storms exceed the design storm or when 

BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the trail. Because these road segments are 

near stream channels, these improvements are not expected to eliminate sediment delivery 

from trails to nearby streams under this alternative. A reduction in sediment to streams 

would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River and several unnamed 

tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be 

reduced or eliminated. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the aquatic analysis area by 

closure of some of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. 

Habitats for the aquatic MIS would improve somewhat as new sediment sources are slowly 

reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would 

decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion. However, Alternative E would likely 

continue to produce sediment in the Peckerwood Creek watershed and the headwaters of the 

Tellico River (where Trails 10 and 10A are adjacent to the Tellico River and its tributaries). 

These headwater streams all contain the southern Appalachian brook trout. Therefore, 

adverse effects to this species would continue, albeit, at a reduced magnitude. 

Alternative E would require installation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels. Approximately 9 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

79 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of Best 

Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs 

have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the 

forest. Silt traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment 

to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or silt traps 

within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less 

surface area to filter sediments when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This 

alternative would eliminate 0.12 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River 

Watershed. 

Expanding the use of Trail 10 to accommodate full-size OHVs would likely increase use of 

this trail and possibly increase sedimentation of streams within 25 feet of the trail. Trail 

condition surveys found that 46 of 47 sites within 25 feet of streams surveyed along Trail 10 

were contributing sediment to those streams. The silt traps proposed for this alternative 

would likely over-top during rain events exceeding 1 inch/day. As the trail condition survey 

results suggest, these sediments would likely enter the streams – embedding larger substrates 

and reducing habitat quality for brook trout. 

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure would be the same as described for Alternative 

B. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the large woody debris 

installation that is planned. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative E would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 0.91 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.12 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.14 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.55 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be 

stopped. This alternative would provide less potential for recovery of the southern 

Appalachian brook trout habitat within the headwater streams. Of the alternatives proposing 

continued OHV use, Alternative E would provide a lower level of sediment reduction and 

habitat improvements for the Aquatic MIS than Alternatives B, C, or D. 

While Alternative E would reduce visible sediment entering streams, sediment from Trail 10 

in particular may continue to present a challenge to control . This alternative would be a 

positive action in regard to forest plan direction for aquatic resources: to restore and enhance 

habitats for associated aquatic MIS. This alternative would provide a higher likelihood of 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

80 

moving the aquatic resources towards the forest plan direction to restore and enhance habitats 

for associated aquatic MIS than Alternatives A or F. 

Alternative F:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative F would be a net reduction of 0.85 miles of trail within 100 feet of 

streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the 

existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation within riffles and pools, and the potential for 

improvement in fish populations as spawning habitat and pool conditions improve. This 

alternative would retain approximately 5.20 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.56 miles of trail 

within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). 

One mile and 0.72 miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet, respectively, would be paved (Trail 

1), resulting in a notable reduction in sediment yield to Tipton Creek. Compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative F would reduce miles of trail within 100 feet on Trails 2, 4, 5, and 

10, and eliminate sections on Trail 9. With the construction of Trail 13, this alternative 

would add 0.06 miles of system trail within 100 feet of upper Tipton Creek. Overall, the 

remaining 4.20 miles of unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs applied 

that would reduce sediment yield (assuming the application of gravel and adequate 

maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design storm 

size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. When 

storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from the 

trail. Because these road segments are near stream channels, these improvements are not 

expected to eliminate sediment delivery from trails to nearby streams under this alternative. 

A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, 

Tellico River and several unnamed tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 

100 feet of a stream would be reduced or eliminated. An increase of sediment to streams 

could occur in the upper Tipton Creek drainage. 

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to streams within the aquatic analysis area by 

closure of some of the most eroding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. 

Habitats for the aquatic MIS would slowly improve as new sediment sources are reduced and 

old sediments are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would decline due to 

the reduction of chronic erosion. However, Alternative F would likely continue to produce 

sediment in the Peckerwood Creek watershed and the headwaters of the Tellico River (where 

Trails 10 and 10A are adjacent to the Tellico River and its tributaries). These headwater 

streams all contain the southern Appalachian brook trout. Therefore, adverse effects to this 

species would continue, albeit, at a reduced magnitude. Additionally, the proposed Trail 13 

would cross the watershed of upper Tipton Creek and Bearpen Branch. Upper Tipton Creek 

and Bearpen Branch contains one of the few remaining brook trout populations that is 

currently unaffected by OHV/ATV use. This trail would come within 25 feet of the head of 

Bearpen Branch. Trail condition surveys have shown that trails within 25 feet of a stream 

have had a nearly 100% chance of releasing sediments to streams. Sedimentation sources 

may develop in this new trail reach that could reduce habitat quality for the southern 

Appalachian brook trout. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

81 

Alternative F would require installation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral 

stream channels plus an additional unknown number of culverts to cross springs exposed 

during construction. Approximately 9 existing stream crossings would be decommissioned. 

There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or 

decommissioned stream crossing) increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams during 

construction where existing trails and trail crossings are decommissioned or repaired. These 

short-term effects would dissipate as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. 

Effects of construction and reconstruction would be minimized by application of Best 

Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs 

have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the 

forest. Silt traps within 25 feet of perennial streams may continue to release some sediment 

to streams during storm events exceeding 1 inch/day. Streams with trails and/or silt traps 

within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to sedimentation because these locations have less 

surface area to filter sediments when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This 

alternative would eliminate 0.11 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River 

Watershed. 

The effects of retaining and expanding the use of Trails 10 and 10A would be the same as 

described for Alternative E. Sediments would likely enter the streams – embedding larger 

substrates and reducing habitat quality for brook trout. 

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure would be the same as described for Alternative 

B. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also include the reduction of 

sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where 

paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the large woody debris 

installation that is planned. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative F would be the elimination of sedimentation from the 

approximately 0.85 miles of trail within 100 feet of perennial streams, the elimination of 

approximately 0.11 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams, and a reduction of 

chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.20 miles of trails within 100 feet of perennial 

streams (1.56 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). This alternative may 

cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sedimentation at the proposed stream crossings 

but these effects would dissipate as the constructed areas are stabilized after construction is 

completed. Additionally, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are 

expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be 

stopped. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative F would provide a 

lower level of sediment reduction than Alternatives B, C, D, or E. 

While Alternative F would reduce visible sediment entering streams from the existing trail 

system, sediment from Trail 10 in particular may continue to present a challenge to control . 

A new potential sediment source would be created with Trail 13. This alternative would 

provide a better opportunity for meeting the forest plan direction to restore and enhance 

habitats for associated aquatic MIS than Alternative A. However, this alternative may not 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

82 

meet forest plan direction for the upper Tipton Creek watershed because Trail 13 would 

introduce new sediment effects to the currently unaffected brook trout population, and add to 

current increases in sedimentation from the private in-holding along Tipton Creek. 

Effects of proposed alternatives on aquatic forest concern species 

Forty-two aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the 

Nantahala National Forest. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for 

occurrences of forest concern species in Cherokee County. Additionally, species known to 

occur within the Little Tennessee River system were included since the Tellico River is 

within this basin. Fourteen forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These 

fourteen species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of 

these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Based upon the results of this filtering process 

three forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis (Table 3.2.2.4). These species 

were analyzed for this project because they are either known to occur within the analysis area 

or suitable habitat exists for these species. Species that do not have suitable habitat within 

the analysis area were eliminated from further analysis. A complete list of species 

considered is available from the project record. The aquatic analysis area for this project 

consists of the Tellico River from the headwaters downstream to Rough Ridge Branch. 

Table 3.2.2.4: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Cherokee County 

evaluated for the Upper Tellico OHV Project (See also Attachments A1 and A2).

Forest Concern Species 

Species Type Habitat Occurrence 

Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis 

Amphibian Rivers and large streams in 

Tennessee and Savannah 

system 

May occur in project 

area* 

Baetopus trishae Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur in project 

area* 

Habrophlediodes 

spp. 

 Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur in project 

area* 

*Where may occur means the species probably occurs in a specified area in the broadest sense. 

Only very general habitat preferences and species distribution are used to determine if a species may 

occur. This does not imply their existence in an area, but that their general habitat description is 

found in the area, so therefore the species may occur. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Forest Concern Species

The direct and indirect effects of each alternative on the forest concern aquatic species would 

be the same as described for the MIS. 

Cumulative Effects – Forest Concern Species 

The cumulative effects of implementing any of the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, 

E, or F) are the effects of the proposed actions and the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 

1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where paving occurs and the 

improvement of fish habitats following the large woody debris installation that is planned. 

The cumulative effects to the aquatic forest concern species would be the same as those 

described for MIS above. Although each alternative may impact individuals of the three 

forest concern species, these impacts would not cause a trend to federal listing because the 

species habitats are broadly distributed across the forest. Impacts of the alternatives would 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

83 

be limited to streams within the Tellico River watershed and a very small portion of the Cook 

Creek watershed (Hiwassee River drainage). 

Table 3.2.2.5: Determination of effect of the Upper Tellico OHV Project on the 

evaluated forest concern species. 

Alternative 

Species A B C D E F 

Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact1 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact2 

Baetopus trishae May 

impact2 May 

impact2 May impact1 May impact2 May impact2 May impact2 

Habrophlediodes 

spp. 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact1 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact2 

May 

impact2 

1. May impact individuals during stream crossing construction/removal but would not affect viability 

of the species. 

2. May impact species locally but would not affect forest-wide viability. 

Forest concern species Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, Baetopus trishae, and

Habrophlediodes spp. may occur within the project area. This project may impact 

individuals of these species but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of 

viability of the above species because habitats for these species are common across their 

range. 

3.2.3. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO AQUATIC WILDLIFE HABITAT

The opportunity to move aquatic resources toward the forest plan direction varies by 

alternative. The alternative with the greatest expected positive benefit is Alternative C, 

followed by D, B, and E, in that order. Alternative F would be the least beneficial of the 

action alternatives. Unlike Alternative A (no action), Alternative F would eliminate some 

existing sediment sources, but it also introduces disturbance in a previously undisturbed 

portion of the watershed. See Table 3.2.3.1 for summary indicator information. 

Table 3.2.3.1. Indicators of Effects of the Alternatives on Aquatic Habitat 

Effects Indicators Alternatives 

 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Reduction in miles of Road or Trail within 100 feet 

of streams 0 1.13 3.47 2.48 0.91 0.85 

Reduction in miles of Road or Trail within 25 feet 

of streams 0 0.18 0.63 0.34 0.12 0.11 

Number of new/decommissioned culverts* 0 52/30 15/135 52/66 62/9 62+/9 

Benefits from Seasonal Closures No Yes ** Yes Yes Yes 

Benefits from Storm-Event Closures No Yes ** Yes No No 

Benefits from 4WD Lock-in No Yes ** Yes No No 

Affects brook trout population in upper Tipton 

Creek watershed No No No No No Yes 

*Installation of new culverts and removal of decommissioned culverts temporarily stirs up sediment, 

but the effect is very short term (48 hours). 

**Closure of the OHV System as proposed in Alternative C would be expected to benefit habitat to a 

greater degree than the benefits from seasonal and storm-event closures and 4wd lock-in restrictions. 

Consistency with State and Forest Plan Standards 

The State’s antidegradation policy requires that at a minimum, existing water uses and level of 

water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected (NC DWQ 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

84 

2007). Streams within the Upper Tellico River Watershed have not been identified as “water 

quality limited” by the North Carolina DENR and water quality supports existing protected uses, 

including the most limiting use of “aquatic life”. 

However, excessive erosion of the Upper Tellico OHV System and subsequent loading of trailderived sediment to intermittent and perennial streams has caused adverse effects on the aquatic 

ecosystem and stress on aquatic life propagation and survival. Currently, the Forest Plan and 

State of N.C. Performance Standard (NC DFR 2007) to “prevent visible sediment from entering 

intermittent or perennial streams or perennial waterbodies” is not being met in the Upper Tellico 

River watershed. Since this standard is not met, the turbidity standard is often not met during 

storm runoff events. 

All of the “action” alternatives (B-F) are likely to reduce the adverse impacts to protected water 

uses, specifically aquatic life propagation and survival, by doing all or part of the following: 

• Reducing the number of miles of trail on severe hazard soils 

• Reducing the miles of trail within 100 and 25 feet of streams 

• Improving stream crossings 

• Implementing seasonal and/or storm-event trail closures 

• Implementing road and trail Best Management Practices to protect water quality 

• Implementing adequate annual maintenance 

• Implementing a rapid response plan to cleanup vehicle fluid spills 

However, not all proposed alternatives are equal in their beneficial effects to the aquatic 

resource, and range in likelihood of meeting the Forest Plan and State of North Carolina 

Performance Standards for sediment. Based on information presented in Sections 3.1.2 and 

3.2.2, alternatives can be ordered from least to greatest likelihood of meeting the sediment 

standard, the turbidity standard, and maintaining protected uses as follows: 

Least Likely → → → → → → → → → → → Most Likely 

Alt. A Alt. F Alt. E Alt. B Alt. D Alt. C 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

85 

3.3 Plants

3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Only botanical resources within, or adjacent to, the proposed treatment areas were analyzed 

in detail. For Alternatives A through E, this analysis area was defined as the existing OHV 

trail system in the Upper Tellico River watershed, including the Peckerwood Creek, 

Mistletoe Creek, Bob Creek, Round Mountain Branch, Tipton Creek (west of Trail 1), and 

Jenks Branch drainages. For Alternative F, the analysis area was defined as the existing trail 

system in the Upper Tellico River watershed plus the proposed trail system in the Bearpen 

Branch drainage (east of Trail 1). Botanical resources of concern in these areas include rich 

cove and northern hardwood forests and their associated Management Indicator Species 

ginseng and ramps, forests ≥ 100 years old, one “forest concern” species (Carex 

purpurifera), one “sensitive” species (Megaceros aenigmaticus),and one unique botanical 

community (boulderfields). Potential spread of non-native invasive plants is also analyzed. 

Plant Communities 

Rich Cove and Northern Hardwoods Forest. There are approximately 110,000 acres of rich 

cove forest and approximately 52,000 acres of northern hardwood forest across Nantahala 

and Pisgah National Forests. The trend for both these communities is stable (Forest Service 

USDA 2001). 

Community analysis has traditionally focused on attributes above the species level, such as 

trophic structure, food webs and energy flow (e. g., Odum, 1971, Dodson, et al. 1998). 

Effects to these attributes in Upper Tellico extend to the existing area occupied by the trail 

system plus new trail construction, plus the adjacent area that may be impacted by silt, minus 

the extent of area restored through trail decommissioning. Because the trail clearings will 

persist indefinitely, the effects of the clearings will also persist indefinitely. 

The number of trail miles crossing each of the forest types was estimated using Forest 

Service GIS maps of the stands in the analysis area, overlain by GIS maps of the trails. 

Existing OHV trails cross approximately 12.1 miles of cove forests in the analysis area. 

Field surveys, however, indicated that two thirds of these miles cross acidic cove forests, 

dominated by white pines, eastern hemlocks and rosebay rhododendrons. These acidic coves 

are low-diversity communities typically excluded from analyses for rich cove forests. As a 

result, existing trails cross an estimated 4.0 miles of rich cove forests in the analysis area. 

Assuming an average tread width of ten feet, these 4.0 miles represent 4.8 acres of rich cove 

forests. Existing OHV trails cross approximately 5.7 miles of northern hardwood forests in 

the analysis area. Assuming an average tread width of ten feet, these 5.7 miles represent 6.9 

acres of northern hardwood forests. 

Forest communities ≥ 100 yr. The trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr old on the 

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is increasing, from 47,591 acres in 1980 to 166,078 

acres in 2000 (Forest Service USDA 2001). In general, the age class of a forest community 

is affected only by regeneration harvest or permanent clearing. As a result, analyses for 

direct and indirect effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old will be confined to the areas 

cleared during trail construction. Because the clearings will persist indefinitely, the effects of 

the clearings will also persist indefinitely. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

86 

Although all forests have the capacity to be ≥ 100 years old, only forest communities 

indicated as ≥ 100 year old in Forest Service stand data, and crossed by OHV trails, were 

considered for this analysis. The ages of the other forest communities in the analysis area 

were attributed to past timber management, and considered outside the scope of this analysis. 

 

The number of trail miles crossing forest communities ≥ 100 years old was estimated using 

Forest Service GIS maps of the forest stands in the analysis area overlain by GIS maps of the 

trails. Existing OHV trails cross approximately 1.2 miles of forest communities ≥ 100 yr in 

the analysis area. Assuming an average tread of ten feet, these 1.2 miles represent 1.5 acres 

of forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 

Management Indicator Species 

Ginseng and Ramps. Ginseng is a management indicator species (MIS) associated with rich 

cove forests and ramps is an MIS associated with northern hardwood forests. Ginseng and 

ramps both grow in mesic, forest communities characterized by closed canopies. Effects to 

ginseng and ramps habitat correspond to effects to their associated forest community types. 

The forest-wide trend for ginseng is decreasing, primarily due to direct harvest for 

commercial sale (Forest Service, USDA 2001). The forest-wide trend for ramps, however, is 

stable (Gary Kauffman, USFS Botanist, Asheville, NC, personal communication 2008). 

Because none of the existing OHV trails contain ginseng plants or ramps, direct and indirect 

effects to these species were confined to areas of new trail construction, the spread of 

erosional silt plumes, and the decommissioning of existing trails. New trails affect ginseng 

and ramps by eliminating either the plants or their habitat. Silt plumes affect ginseng and 

ramps by burying either the plants or their habitat. Trail decommissioning affects ginseng 

and ramps by potentially allowing the restoration of their habitat previously given over to the 

trails. Trails removed from the OHV System, but that remain as open or system roads, do not 

allow potential resotration of habitat. 

Indirect effects to neighboring plants are usually estimated using a one mile radius around the 

activity areas. These indirect effects may include both reductions in the gene pool as well as 

reductions in the gene flow among neighboring plants, potentially resulting in more 

inbreeding, decreased seed set, and less vigorous seedlings. Brief surveys through the rich 

cove and northern hardwood forests in the analysis area, however, located no ginseng plants 

or ramps. Ginseng is a medicinal herb, traditionally harvested throughout the southern 

Appalachians for both cash export and personal use. Ramps are a culinary herb, also widely 

collected in the southern Appalachians. As a result, past actions, including commercial 

timber harvest and plant collection, may have reduced the populations in the analysis area to 

undetectable levels. Given the low density of plants in the surrounding communities, indirect 

effects to both ginseng and ramps are considered minimal, especially in comparison to the 

direct effects from the proposal, and therefore will not be considered further. 

 

Forest Concern Species. 

Because plants are rooted species that must be present in the proposed treatment areas to 

undergo effects, the analysis area for forest concern plant species was confined to the 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

87 

expected impact zone surrounding the proposed areas. The expected impact zone is typically 

slightly larger than the proposed treatment area because impacts such as increased sunlight 

and decreased humidity may extend beyond the areas undergoing active management. These 

effects can be estimated to extend into the surrounding forest a distance equal to half the 

height of the canopy, or about 40 – 50 feet beyond the boundaries of the proposed treatment 

areas. Because the clearings will persist indefinitely, the effects of the clearings will also 

persist indefinitely, and may involve changes in both growing conditions as well as the 

surrounding vegetation. 

All forest concern plant species listed by the National Forests in North Carolina for the 

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were considered for this analysis. Only forest 

concern species located inside expected impact zones during the field surveys, or with 

previous collection data inside these zones, were analyzed in detail. A complete list of 

species considered is available from the project record. 

The Biotics Database was queried for forest concern plant species growing in the expected 

impact zones. The database contained one record for necklace sedge (Carex projecta), a 

forest concern species, within one mile of the expected impact zones. The database 

contained no other records for any forest concern plant species in these zones. 

Field surveys for forest concern plant species growing in the expected impact zones were 

conducted by Wilson Rankin, USFS botanist, in August, 2008. Field surveys consisted of a 

timed meander with increased intensity in the most diverse areas. Surveys were continued 

until no new species or microhabitats were detected (Goff, et al. 1982). 

One forest concern species was located during the field surveys: several clumps of purple 

sedge (Carex purpurifera) in the Trail 13 corridor, and several additional clumps in the tread 

of the proposed trail connecting Trails 4 and 5. Because purple sedge was located in a 

proposed treatment area, direct and indirect effects can be expected from Forest Service 

activities, and the species underwent further analysis for this project (Table 3.3.1.1). Field 

surveys also searched for necklace sedge, but failed to locate the species in the analysis area. 

Because the species was not located during the field survey, it was not analyzed further. No 

other forest concern species were located during the field surveys, and therefore will not be 

analyzed further. 

Table 3.3.1.1 Summary of forest concern species undergoing effects analysis for the 

Upper Tellico OHV Project. 

Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis 

Carex purpurifera Rich Cove Forest, Montane 

Alluvial Forest 

Located during field surveys inside a 

proposed treatment area 

Carex purpurifera grows in rich cove and oak-hickory forests, communities that compose 

most of the analysis area. Because field surveys revealed most of this habitat was not 

occupied by the sedge, analyses for effects will be confined to only those locations where the 

plants were found. Field surveys located plants in the tread of the proposed Trail 5 reroute to 

Trail 4 (Alternatives B, D, E and F), and the proposed Trail 13 (Alternative F). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

88 

Non-Native Invasive Species. 

Because non-native, invasive plants are generally associated with disturbed areas, analysis 

areas for direct, indirect, past and cumulative effects to non-native invasive plant species 

were confined to proposed treatment areas. Because invasive species generally cannot be 

correlated with specific past projects, past effects must be summarized by the current 

condition in the analysis areas, as determined by field surveys. Because invasive plants can 

maintain themselves indefinitely in the landscape, there is no future boundary for effects for 

these species. 

In the proposed treatment areas, the most invasive species were Microstegium vimineum, 

Paulownia tomentosa, Rosa multiflora and Centaurea jacea. In general, these species grew 

on the edges of the OHV trails, a total of approximately three acres, most of which were 

located along Trail 1. Considering the scope and length of the trail system, effects due to 

non-native invasive species in the analysis area are relatively small. Because the spread of 

non-native invasives is facilitated by local seed sources, the low level of invasives in the 

analysis area should help minimize the expected effects of the proposed treatments. 

Boulderfield Botanical Communities 

Field surveys by Wilson Rankin, Botanist for the Nantahala National Forest, located three 

boulderfield communities in the proposed Trail 13 corridor (see description of Alternative F). 

These communities are considered unusual in North Carolina by the North Carolina Heritage 

Program, and are associated with the forest concern wildlife species rock shrew, five forest 

concern plant species, and eight sensitive plant species. As a result, these boulderfields are 

identified as unique (Forest Service USDA 2005) and are included in the analysis of effects. 

Constructing a trail for motorized vehicles through a boulderfield can require high-impact 

procedures, such as blasting. Because of the unusually severe impacts expected from the 

construction, direct and indirect effects to boulderfield communities may impact 

disproportionately larger areas than expected in other forest communities. In addition, the 

continuing human activity associated with the trail may reduce the value of the community as 

a habitat for boulderfield plants and animals. Because the trails will persist indefinitely, the 

effects of the trails will also persist indefinitely. The three boulderfield communities total 

approximately four acres. 

Sensitive Species. 

Wilson Rankin, Botanist for the Nantahala National Forest, surveyed the proposed treatment 

areas in August, 2008. The survey located three additional populations of the Tusquitee 

hornwort (Megaceros aenigmaticus) in expected impact zones at stream crossings in the 

Upper Tellico River watershed: one population each on Trails 4, 8 and 10A, at either stream 

crossings or large seeps next to the trail. The species was most common in small, blue-line 

streams and tributaries containing shallow, clean water with moderate flows. Because the 

species was found in expected impact zones, Megaceros aenigmaticus underwent further 

analysis for effects. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

89 

Field surveys failed to locate any other populations of endangered, threatened or sensitive plant 

species. Because no other endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species were located in the 

proposed treatment areas, none of these species underwent further analysis for potential effects. 

3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are discussed below, followed 

by an effects comparison table at the end of section 3.3.2. 

Alternative A: 

A1. Plant Communities and MIS 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Because it proposes no trail construction or trail 

decommissioning, and does not address the spread of silt plumes beyond measures already 

implemented, Alternative A would produce no additional direct or indirect effects to rich 

cove forests, northern hardwood forests, forest communities ≥ 100 years old, ginseng, or 

ramps other than the effects produced by the current trail system. 

Cumulative Effects - Cumulative effects are the combined total of past, ongoing and future 

management actions in the analysis area. 

For rich cove forests, northern hardwood forests, and forest communities ≥ 100 years old, 

past effects can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in, and adjacent to, the 

existing trails. Large sections of the trail system were placed on highly erosive silt loam 

soils, with steep grades and poor control measures. As a result, portions of the trails have 

become deeply eroded, producing gullies as deep as fifteen feet. In addition, silt plumes 

wash into the neighboring forests, burying native herbs. For example, the silt plume 

emanating from the western end of Trail 12 extends at least 150 feet into the forest, covering 

the forest with several inches of silt in a path 50 feet wide. No native herbs were growing in 

this plume. Because herbaceous diversity is one of the defining characteristics of these forest 

communities, silt plumes that remove this diversity would be considered a severe impact. 

Since ginseng and ramps grow in the herbaceous layer, silt plumes are also considered a 

severe impact to these species. 

Cumulative effects to ginseng can be estimated based on effects to its habitat, rich cove 

forests and cumulative effects to ramps can be estimated based on effects to its habitat, 

northern hardwood forests. 

Rich Cove Forests and Ginseng 

Field surveys determined that the total impact of silt plumes is roughly equivalent to the total 

area of the trails crossing rich cove forest, estimated above as 4.8 acres. Total past effects to 

rich cove forests and ginseng (area of trail plus area of silt plume) therefore, can be estimated 

at approximately 9.6 acres, either eliminated or severely impacted by OHV trails. 

The analysis area contains two other Forest Service projects, the Davis Creek Road Paving 

Project and the Fain Ford Bridge Project. Neither of these two projects will impact rich cove 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

90 

forests or ginseng, and neither project will be discussed further. The analysis area contains 

no other ongoing or foreseeable Forest Service or private actions that may impact rich cove 

forests. 

As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative A is 9.6 acres of rich cove forest and ginseng 

habitat either eliminated or severely impacted. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community 

across the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (NP Forests). As a result, this alternative is 

unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for rich cove forests or ginseng. 

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps 

Field surveys determined the total impact of silt plumes is roughly equivalent to the total area 

of the trails crossing northern hardwoods forest, estimated above as 6.9 acres. Total past 

effects to northern hardwood forests and ramps (area of trail plus area of silt plume), 

therefore, can be estimated at approximately 13.8 acres, either eliminated or severely 

impacted by OHV trails. 

The analysis area contains two other Forest Service projects, the Davis Creek Road Paving 

Project and the Fain Ford Bridge Project. Neither of these two projects will impact northern 

hardwood forests or ramps, and neither project will be discussed further. The analysis area 

contains no other ongoing or foreseeable Forest Service or private actions that may impact 

northern hardwood forests. 

As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative A is 13.8 acres of forest either eliminated or 

severely impacted. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, this alternative is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for northern hardwood forests or ramps. 

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old 

Field surveys determined the total impact of silt plumes is roughly equivalent to the total area 

of the trails crossing forest communities ≥ 100 yr old, estimated above as 1.5 acres. Total 

past effects to forest communities ≥ 100 yr old, therefore, can be estimated at approximately 

3.0 acres, either eliminated or severely impacted by OHV trails. 

The analysis area contains no other ongoing Forest Service projects. The analysis area 

contains two future Forest Service projects, the Davis Creek Road Paving Project and the 

Fain Ford Bridge Project. Neither of these two projects will impact forest communities ≥

100 yr old, however, and neither project will be discussed further. The analysis area contains 

no other ongoing or foreseeable Forest Service or private actions that may impact forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

As a result, the cumulative effect Alternative A is 3.0 acres of forest either eliminated or 

severely impacted. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

91 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this special habitat component 

across the national forests. As a result, this alternative is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 

A2. Forest Concern Species 

Purple Sedge 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Because no Carex purpurifera plants were found in, or adjacent 

to, any trail in the current OHV System, Alternative A will have no direct or indirect effects 

to the species. 

Cumulative Effects - In the absence of any direct or indirect effects, Alternative A would 

have no cumulative effects to Carex purpurifera. 

A3. Non-native Invasive Species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Ground disturbance and the increased light conditions resulting 

from road construction may increase the amount of acreage suitable for invasive exotic 

species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Because it would construct no miles of new trail, 

Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects for non-native, invasive plant 

species other than the continuing effects of the trail system. 

Cumulative Effects - In absence of any direct or indirect effects, Alternative A would 

produce no cumulative effects for non-native invasive species in the analysis area. 

A4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Because no boulderfield communities plants were found in, or 

adjacent to, any trail in the current OHV System, Alternative A will have no direct or 

indirect effects to the species. 

Cumulative Effects - In the absence of any direct or indirect effects, Alternative A would 

have no cumulative effects to boulderfield communities. 

A5. Sensitive Species 

Megaceros aenigmaticus (Tusquitee Hornwort) 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A proposes no new management activities. In the 

absence of management, habitat for Megaceros aenigmaticus should remain unchanged by 

Forest Service actions. Sedimentation from the existing trails, however, may impact 

populations of the species both directly, by burying the plants, and indirectly, by either 

scouring or altering stream flows through the populations. Plants near trail crossings may 

also be indirectly affected by pollution, primarily petroleum distillates, degrading the water 

quality of the streams. 

For Megaceros, effects from sedimentation can be expected to extend approximately 75 feet 

downstream of trail crossings, and, for one-time impacts such as replacing a culvert, would 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

92 

persist until the next bankfull flow, which occurs, on average, every 2.5 years (Jason Farmer, 

personal communication 2008). For continuing impacts, however, effects would persist 

indefinitely. 

Both direct and indirect effects would decrease the number, extent and vigor of Megaceros

populations in the small streams and tributaries running through the trail system. Because 

these effects occur primarily at crossings, the number of blue line stream and tributary 

crossings reflects, to some degree, the relative impact on populations of Megaceros. As a 

result, alternatives that minimize or improve stream crossings should improve habitat for 

Megaceros by reducing siltation and pollution in the streams. Compared to the other 

alternatives, Alternative A contains the second highest number of crossings (Table 3.3.2.1). 

Table 3.3.2.1 Relative effects to Megaceros habitat, as estimated by number of trail crossings. 

Alternative Miles of Trail Existing Blue Line 

Stream Crossings1,2 Proposed Changes in Stream Crossings 

Alternative A 39.3 25 No change 

Alternative B 24.0 21 16 % decrease 

Alternative C 0.0 3 88 % decrease 

Alternative D 17.3 23 8 % decrease 

Alternative E 29.3 17 32 % decrease 

Alternative F 38.0 26 4 % increase 

1 = Number of blue line stream crossings in potentially suitable Megaceros habitat in the Upper 

Tellico River watershed. The Tellico River below and including Fain Ford is not considered suitable 

habitat because Megaceros is typically found in smaller, more shaded tributaries. 

2 = Alternative F includes one blue line stream crossing at Bearpen Branch. 

Although three small populations of Megaceros may be directly and indirectly effected by 

current conditions, maintenance or construction at trail crossings, the watersheds in the 

Tellico OHV System contain large amounts of unsurveyed, suitable habitat. For example, 

field surveys suggest that blue line tributaries of the Tellico River above Fain Ford total 13.6 

miles of suitable habitat. Assuming 100 feet of stream disturbance at each trail crossing, the 

25 stream crossings in Alternative A would affect approximately 0.5 miles of suitable habitat 

for Megaceros, or < 4.0 % of the potential habitat in the Upper Tellico watershed. In 

addition, populations were located at 3 of the 25 (12 %) blue line stream crosssings in 

Alternative A, suggesting a relatively high occurrence of the species in suitable habitat in the 

watershed. 

Cumulative Effects - Cumulative effects are the combined total of past, ongoing and future 

management actions. According to previous NEPA analyses, ten past actions on the 

Nantahala National Forest have impacted populations of Megaceros since 1997 (Table 

3.3.2.2). One of the projects may have improved habitat for the species by reducing stream 

sedimentation. As a result, only nine of the projects may have negatively impacted 

populations of Megaceros, primarily by indirect impacts associated with sedimentation from 

road construction. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

93 

Table 3.3.2.2 Past projects on the Nantahala National Forest impacting populations of 

Megaceros aenigmaticus. 

District Project Year Determination of Effect 

Cheoah Stecoah Timber Sale 2005 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Cheoah A9 Stecoah Gap Road 

Reconstruction 

2003 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Tusquitee Ritz Easement 2002 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Cheoah Old Field Gap Road (SR 

1249) 

2001 May impact inviduals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Tusquitee FY2002 Prescribed Burn 2001 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Cheoah Lovingood Road 

Reconstruction 

2000 Possible positive indirect effects from 

decreased sedimentation 

Tusquitee Buck Creek DOT 2000 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Wayah Thrash Land Exchange 2000 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Tusquitee Tuni Gap Road 1999 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

Cheoah Fontana Village Horse Trail 1998 May impact individuals but no trend towards 

federal listing 

The Tellico OHV analysis area contains no ongoing private projects that may impact 

Megaceros. The analysis area contains two other Forest Service projects, however, that 

could impact Megaceros. The Davis Creek Road Paving project will realign and pave 

approximately 0.75 miles between the Tennessee state line and Trail 5. The Fain Ford 

Bridge Project will construct a bridge across the Tellico River, realigning the Trail 4 

crossing, an estimated impact of 0.1 miles. No Megaceros plants, however, were located in 

the expected impact zones of either project. As a result, the projects will produce no direct, 

indirect or cumulative effects for Megaceros. The analysis area contains no other foreseeable 

USFS or private projects that would impact populations of Megaceros. 

Adding the three populations that may be directly and indirectly affected by Alternative A to 

the populations affected by past actions, the cumulative effects of Alternative A represent 

negative impacts to 13 of the 35 populations of Megaceros documented in western North 

Carolina. On the other hand, undisturbed populations of Megaceros are common in the 

region, and the Upper Tellico watershed may contain additional, undocumented populations. 

Many of the documented populations are quite extensive, and unlikely to be extirpated by 

current Forest Service direction for stream habitats. As a result, Alternative A may impact 

individuals of Megaceros, but is unlikely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a 

loss of viability for the species. 

Alternative B:

B1. Plant Communities and MIS 

Rich Cove Forests and ginseng 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

94 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative B would construct approximately 1.2 miles of new 

trail through cove forests. Using the one third metric described above to separate rich coves 

from acidic coves, Alternative B would construct an estimated 0.4 miles of new trail through 

rich coves. Assuming a ten foot tread, this new construction would destroy approximately 

0.5 acre of rich cove forests. Alternative B would also close an estimated 2.3 miles of trail 

crossing rich cove forests. Assuming a ten foot tread, and an equal area of silt plumes that 

would become inactive, Alternative B would potentially allow the restoration of 1.8 acres of 

rich cove forest. 

In addition, Alternative B would pave Trail 1. Although paving would alleviate some of the 

erosion producing silt plumes, the road would continue to provide conditions suitable for 

erosion along the ditches. As a result, the effects due to erosion are estimated at half the 

effects from trail closure, or five feet per linear foot of paving. Trail 1 crosses 2.3 miles of 

cove forests, producing an estimate of 0.8 miles of rich cove forests and 0.9 acre of 

inactivated silt plumes. Added to the acres lost to trail construction and potentially restored 

from trail closures, Alternative B would produce a gain of 2.2 acres of rich cove forest and 

ginseng habitat. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to rich cove 

forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative B would reduce the 

area of impact by 2.2 acres over the current condition. The area contains no other future 

activities that will affect rich cove forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative B 

is 7.4 net acres of rich cove forest either eliminated or severely impacted.

The cumulative effects of Alternative B represent a total impact of < 0.01 % of this 

biological community across the national forests. As a result, the project is unlikely to 

substantially alter the current trend for rich cove forests or ginseng. 

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative B would construct no miles of new trail through 

northern hardwood forests. Alternative B would also close 0.2 miles of trail crossing 

northern hardwood forests. Assuming a ten foot tread, and an equal amount of silt plumes 

that would become inactive, Alternative B would potentially allow the restoration of 0.5 acre 

of northern hardwoods forest and ramps habitat, for a gain of 0.5 acre across the analysis 

area. 

Cumulative Effects – Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing 

effects to northern hardwood forests total 13.8 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. 

Alternative B would reduce the area of impact by 0.5 acre over the current condition. The 

area contains no other future activities that will affect northern hardwood forests. As a result, 

the cumulative effect of Alternative B is 13.3 net acres of northern hardwood forest either 

eliminated or severely impacted.

The cumulative effects of Alternative B represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this 

biological community across the national forests. As a result, the project is unlikely to 

substantially alter the current trend for northern hardwood forests or ramps. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

95 

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative B would construct no miles of new trail through 

forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative B would also close no miles of trail crossing 

forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. On the other hand, Alternative B would close 6.8 net miles 

of other OHV trails that could also be restored into forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

Assuming a ten foot tread, these 6.8 miles represent 8.2 acres. Alternative B therefore 

represents a potential future gain of 8.2 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old across the 

analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects – Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative 

B will produce an estimated gain of 8.2 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. The area 

contains no other future activities that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. As a 

result, the cumulative effect of Alternative B is a potential net gain (3 acres currently 

eliminated plus 8.2 acres added) of 5.2 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this special habitat component 

across the national forests. As a result, Altnerative B is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 

B2. Forest Concern Species 

Purple Sedge 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative B will extirpate the plants found growing in the 

tread of the proposed Trail 5 reroute. Reducing the number of plants in a population may 

also produce indirect effects to neighboring plants. These indirect effects may include both 

reductions in the gene pool as well as reductions in the gene flow among plants, potentially 

resulting in more inbreeding, decreased seed set, and less vigorous seedlings. Due to the 

small size of the population in the proposed treatment area, however, effects to gene flow 

should be minimal and unlikely to influence the viability of any surrounding populations. As 

a result, indirect effects from the proposed activities will not be considered further. 

Cumulative Effects - According to the Forest Plan, forest concern species require a 

determination of effect, which addresses species viability. Because all populations on the 

forest contribute to the viability of a species, viability issues are addressed at the forest level. 

The Biotics Database contains five records for Carex purpurifera, all of which occur on the 

Nantahala National Forest. These records do not include new populations found during the 

Fatback and Thunderstruck projects. 

Five past actions on the Nantahala National Forest may have impacted populations of Carex 

purpurifera since 1997 (Table 3.3.2.1). All of these projects fall within the estimated 20 year 

period for direct and indirect effects from timber management. The effects from the King 

Land Exchange were based on populations assumed to be present on the site. The effects 

from the Cable Cove Waterline probably encompassed a few plants over < 0.1 acre. The 

Thunderstruck project impacted a single clump of plants growing in the bed of an access 

road; the plants were presumably extirpated during road maintenance. The Farmer Branch 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

96 

project contains an extensive population of Carex purpurifera, growing in previouslydisturbed forests. 

Table 3.3.2.1 Past projects potentially impacting populations of Carex purpurifera. The 

determination of effect comes from the Forest Service NEPA analyses for the projects. 

District Project Year Determination of Effect Level of Effect 

Nantahala* Fatback Timber 

Sale 

2007 May impact individuals but no 

trend towards federal listing 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

Tusquitee Thunderstruck 

Timber Sale 

2007 May impact individuals but no 

trend towards federal listing 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

Tusquitee Farmer Branch 

Timber Sale 

2006 May impact individuals but no 

trend towards federal listing 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

Nantahala* King Land 

Exchange 

2002 May impact individuals but no 

trend towards federal listing 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

Tusquitee Cable Cove 

Waterline 

2002 May impact individuals but no 

trend towards federal listing 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

* Formerly the Wayah Ranger District 

The analysis area contains two future Forest Service projects, the Davis Creek Road Paving 

Project and the Fain Ford Bridge Project. Neither of these two projects will impact purple 

sedge plants, and neither project will be discussed further. The analysis area contains no 

other ongoing or foreseeable Forest Service or private actions that may impact Carex 

purpurifera. 

Over the past 20 years, therefore, Forest Service actions have affected five of the seven 

known populations of Carex purpurifera on the national forest. None of the populations, 

however, have been extirpated, and most of the population located in the Tellico OHV 

analysis area will not be affected by the proposed actions. 

Determination of Effect for Carex purpurifera. The national forest contains at least three 

undisturbed populations of Carex purpurifera. At least one population is extensive, and, as 

noted during the Farmer Branch Project, the species appears to be resilient to disturbance. 

As a result, Alternative B may impact individuals, but is unlikely to cause a trend 

toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species.

B3. Non-native Invasive Species 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented under Alternative A, Alternative B 

would construct 1.2 miles of new trails, for a potential increase of 0.5 acre of habitat suitable 

for invasive plants. 

Cumulative Effects - The analysis area, including road and trailsides, contains approximately 

three acres of non-native, invasive plant species. The analysis area contains no other ongoing 

Forest Service projects. The analysis area contains two future Forest Service projects, both of 

which may produce direct effects for non-native, invasive plants. The Davis Creek Road 

Paving project will realign and pave approximately 0.75 miles between the Tennessee state 

line and Trail 5. The Fain Ford Bridge Project will construct a bridge and across the Tellico 

River, realigning the Trail 4 crossing, an estimated distance of 0.1 miles. Using the analysis 

presented above, these two projects will produce a direct effect of 0.85 miles of trail and road 

construction, producing 0.4 acre of suitable habitat for non-native invasive species. The 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

97 

analysis area contains no other foreseeable Forest Service or private projects that would 

potentially create habitat for invasive plant species. 

For Alternative B, therefore, the cumulative effect of Alternative B totals approximately 3.9 

acres of habitat suitable for invasive plants. 

B4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities 

Direct and Indirect Effects -. Same as Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative A. 

B5. Sensitive Species 

Megaceros aenigmaticus (Tusquitee Hornwort) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Using the analysis for Alternative A, Alternative B would directly impact, through either trail 

maintenance or continued current impacts, all three of the populations of Megaceros located 

during the field surveys for the project. 

Alternative B will also decrease the number of blue line stream crossing in the OHV System 

from 25 crossings to 21 crossings. Because impacts are considered proportional to the 

number of blue line crossings, Alternative B should reduce the current impacts to Megaceros

habitat in the Upper Tellico watershed by 16 %. 

Cumulative Effects

Same as Alternative A. 

Alternative C:

C1. Plant Communities and MIS 

Rich Cove Forests and Ginseng. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative C 

would construct no miles of new trail through cove forests, eliminating no acres of rich cove 

forests. Alternative C would also close an estimated 5.0 miles of trail, allowing the 

restoration of 4.9 acres, and pave Trail 1, allowing the restoration of 0.9 acre, for a gain of 

5.8 acres of rich cove forest and ginseng habitat across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to rich cove 

forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative C would reduce the 

area of impact by 5.8 acres over the current condition. The area contains no other future 

activities that will affect rich cove forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative C 

is 3.8 net acres of forest either eliminated or severely impacted. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

98 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative C is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for rich cove forests or ginseng. 

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative C 

would construct no miles of new trail through northern hardwood forests, eliminating no 

acres of northern hardwood forests. Alternative C would close an estimated 4.6 miles of 

trail, potentially allowing the restoration of 11.2 acres of northern hardwoods forest and ramp 

habitat, for a net gain of 11.2 acres across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects 

to northern hardwood forests total 13.8 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. 

Alternative C would reduce the area of impact by 11.2 acres over the current condition. The 

area contains no other future activities that will affect northern hardwood forests. As a result, 

the cumulative effect of Alternative C is 2.6 net acres of forest either eliminated or severely 

impacted. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative C is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for northern hardwood forests or ramps. 

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative C would construct no miles of new trail through 

forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative C would close 0.9 miles of trail crossing forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old that would potentially allow restoration of these communities. 

Assuming a ten foot tread, and an equal amount of silt plumes that would become inactive, 

Alternative C would potentially allow the restoration of 2.2 acres of forest communities ≥

100 yr old. In addition, Alternative C would close 23.3 miles of other OHV trails that could 

also be restored into forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Assuming a ten foot tread, these 23.3 

miles represent 28.2 additional acres. In all, Alternative C represents a potential gain of 30.4 

acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative 

C will produce an estimated gain of 30.4 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. The area 

contains no other future activities that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. As a 

result, the cumulative effect of Alternative C is a potential net gain of 27.4 acres of forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this special habitat component 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative C is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

99 

C2. Forest Concern Species 

Purple Sedge. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Because no Carex purpurifera plants were found in, or adjacent 

to, any trail in the current OHV System, trail proposed for decommissioning, or new trail 

proposed for construction, Alternative C will have no direct or indirect effects to the species. 

Cumulative Effects - In the absence of any direct or indirect effects, Alternative C will have 

no cumulative effects to Carex purpurifera. 

C3. Non-native Invasive Species 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative C would construct no miles of new trails. As a 

result, Alternative C would produce no direct or indirect effects for non-native invasive 

species. 

Cumulative Effects - In absence of any direct or indirect effects, Alternative C would 

produce no cumulative effects for non-native invasive species in the analysis area. 

C4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Same as Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative A. 

C5. Sensitive Species 

Megaceros aenigmaticus (Tusquitee Hornwort) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

By decommissioning Trails 8 and 10A, Alternative C would reduce the current impacts to 

two of the three populations of Megaceros located during the field surveys for this project. 

Current impacts would continue on the population next to Trail 4, which, although closed to 

OHV traffice, would remain as a system road. 

Alternative C will also decrease the number of blue line stream crossing in the OHV System 

from 25 crossings to 3 crossings. Because impacts are considered proportional to the number 

of blue line crossings, Alternative C should reduce the impacts to Megaceros habitat in the 

Upper Tellico watershed by 88 %, in comparison to the no action alternative, Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects

Using the analysis for Atlernative A, the cumulative effects of Alternative C represent 

negative impacts to 11 of the 35 populations of Megaceros documented in western North 

Carolina. On the other hand, undisturbed populations of Megaceros are common in the 

region, and the Upper Tellico watershed may contain additional, undocumented populations. 

Many of the documented populations are quite extensive, and unlikely to be extirpated by 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

100 

current Forest Service direction for stream habitats. As a result, Alternative C may impact 

individuals of Megaceros, but is unlikely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of 

viability for the species. 

Alternative D:

D1. Plant Communities and MIS 

Rich Cove Forests and Ginseng 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative D 

would construct approximately 1.2 miles of new trail through cove forests, eliminating an 

estimated 0.5 acre of rich cove forests. Alternative D would also close an estimated 2.9 

miles of trail, allowing the restoration of 2.3 acres, and pave Trail 1, allowing the restoration 

of 0.9 acre, for a gain of 2.7 acres of rich cove forest and ginseng habitat across the analysis 

area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to rich cove 

forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative D would reduce the 

area of impact by 2.7 acres over the current condition. The area contains no other future 

activities that will affect rich cove forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of this 

alternative is 6.9 acres of forest either eliminated or severely impacted. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative D is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for rich cove forests or ginseng. 

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative D 

would construct no miles of new trail through northern hardwood forests, eliminating no 

acres of northern hardwood forests. Alternative D would close an estimated 3.7 miles of 

trail, potentially allowing the restoration of 9.0 acres of northern hardwoods forest and ramps 

habitat, for a gain of 9.0 acres across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects 

to northern hardwood forests total 13.8 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. 

Alternative D would reduce the area of impact by 9.0 acres over the current condition. The 

area contains no other future activities that will affect northern hardwood forests. As a result, 

the cumulative effect of this alternative is 4.8 acres of forest either eliminated or severely 

impacted. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative D is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for northern hardwood forests or ramps. 

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

101 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative D would construct no miles of new trail through 

forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative D would close 0.8 miles of trail crossing forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old that would potentially allow restoration of these communities. 

Assuming a ten foot tread, and an equal amount of silt plumes that would become inactive, 

Alternative D would potentially allow the restoration of 1.9 acres of forest communities ≥

100 yr old. In addition, Alternative D would close 13.2 net miles of other OHV trails that 

could also be restored into forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Assuming a ten foot tread, these 

13.2 miles represent 16.0 additional acres. In all, Alternative D represents a potential future 

gain of 17.9 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative 

D would produce an estimated gain of 17.9 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. The 

area contains no other future activities that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. As a 

result, the cumulative effect of this alternative is a potential net gain of 14.9 acres of forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this special habitat component 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative D is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 

D2. Forest Concern Species 

Purple Sedge 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Same as Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative B. 

D3. Non-native Invasive Species 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, Alternative D 

would construct 1.2 miles of new trails, for an increase of 0.5 acre of habitat suitable for 

invasive plants. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, the cumulative effect of 

Alternative D totals approximately 3.9 acres of habitat suitable for invasive plants. 

D4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities 

 Direct and Indirect Effects - Same as Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative A 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

102 

D5. Sensitive Species 

Megaceros aenigmaticus (Tusquitee Hornwort) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

By decommissioning Trail 10A, Alternative D would reduce the current impacts to one of the 

three the populations of Megaceros located during the field surveys for the project. Current 

impacts would continue on the populations next to Trails 4 and 8. 

Alternative D will also decrease the number of blue line stream crossing in the OHV System 

from 25 crossings to 23 crossings. Because impacts are considered proportional to the 

number of blue line crossings, Alternative D should reduce the impacts to Megaceros habitat 

in the Upper Tellico watershed by 8 %, in comparison to the no action alternative, 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects

Using the analysis for Alternative A, the cumulative effects of Alternative D represent 

negative impacts to 12 of the 35 populations of Megaceros documented in western North 

Carolina. On the other hand, undisturbed populations of Megaceros are common in the 

region, and the Upper Tellico watershed may contain additional, undocumented populations. 

Many of the documented populations are quite extensive, and unlikely to be extirpated by 

current Forest Service direction for stream habitats. As a result, Alternative D may impact 

individuals of Megaceros, but is unlikely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of 

viability for the species. 

Alternative E:

E1. Plant Communities and MIS 

Rich Cove Forests and Ginseng 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative E 

would construct approximately 2.3 miles of new trail through cove forests, eliminating an 

estimated 0.9 acre of rich cove forests. Alternative E would also close an estimated 1.8 miles 

of trail, allowing the restoration of 1.4 acres of rich cove forest, and pave Trail 1, allowing 

the restoration of 0.9 acre of rich cove forest, for a gain of 1.4 acres across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to rich cove 

forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative E would reduce the 

area of impact by 1.4 acres over the current condition. The area contains no other future 

activities that will affect rich cove forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative E 

is 8.2 net acres of forest either eliminated or severely impacted. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, this alternative is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for rich cove forests. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

103 

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative E 

would construct no miles of new trail through northern hardwood forests, eliminating no 

acres of northern hardwood forests. Alternative E would also close no miles of trail, 

allowing no restoration, for no gain or loss of acres across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects 

to northern hardwood forests total 13.8 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. 

Alternative E will produce no additional net gain or loss of northern hardwood forests. The 

area contains no other future activities that will affect northern hardwood forests. As a result, 

there is no cumulative effect from this alternative. 

As a result, this alternative would not alter the current trend for northern hardwood forests. 

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative E would construct no miles of new trail through 

forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative E would also close no miles of trail crossing 

forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. On the other hand, Alternative E would close 1.6 net miles 

of other OHV trails that could also be restored into forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

Assuming a ten foot tread, these 1.6 miles represent 1.9 acres. Alternative E therefore 

represents a potential gain of 1.9 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old across the analysis 

area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative 

E would reduce the area of impact by 1.9 acres over the current condition. The area contains 

no other future activities that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. As a result, the 

cumulative effect of this alternative is a net loss of 1.1 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr 

old. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this special habitat component 

across the national forests. As a result, this alternative is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 

E2. Forest Concern Species 

Purple Sedge 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Same as Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative B.

E3. Non-native Invasive Species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, Alternative E 

would construct 2.7 miles of new trails, for a potential increase of 1.1 acres of habitat 

suitable for invasive plants. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

104 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, the cumulative effect of 

Alternative E totals approximately 4.5 acres of habitat suitable for invasives. 

E4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Same as Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative A. 

E5. Sensitive Species 

Megaceros aenigmaticus (Tusquitee Hornwort) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Using the analysis for Alternative A, Alternative E would directly impact, through either trail 

maintenance or continued current impacts, all three of the populations of Megaceros located 

during the field surveys for the project. 

 

Alternative E will also decrease the number of blue line stream crossings in the OHV System 

from 25 crossings to 17 crossings. Because impacts are considered proportional to the 

number of blue line crossings, Alternative E should reduce the impacts to Megaceros habitat 

in the Upper Tellico watershed by 32 %, in comparison to the no action alternative, 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects

Same as Alternative A. 

Alternative F: 

F1. Plant Communities and MIS 

Rich Cove Forests and Ginseng 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative F 

would construct approximately 4.5 miles of new trail through cove forests, eliminating an 

estimated 1.8 acres of rich cove forests and ginseng habitat. Alternative F would also close 

an estimated 1.0 miles of trail, allowing the restoration of 0.8 acre of rich cove forest, and 

pave Trail 1, allowing the restoration of 0.9 acre of rich cove forest, for a loss of 0.1 acre 

across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to rich cove 

forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative F would produce 

an estimated additional loss of 0.1 acre of rich cove forests. The area contains no other 

future activities that will affect rich cove forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of 

Alternative F is 9.7 acres of rich cove forest and ginseng habitat either eliminated or severely 

impacted. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

105 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, this alternative is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for rich cove forests or ginseng. 

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, Alternative F 

would construct no miles of new trail through northern hardwood forests, eliminating no 

acres of northern hardwood forests and ramps habitat. Alternative F would also close no 

miles of trail, producing no additional gain or loss across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects 

to northern hardwood forests total 13.8 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. 

Alternative F would produce no cumulative gain or loss of northern hardwood forests or 

ramps habitat. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this biological community 

across the national forests. As a result, the project is unlikely to substantially alter the current 

trend for northern hardwood forests or ramps. 

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative F would construct approximately 0.7 miles of new 

trail through forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Assuming a 20 foot wide, well-constructed 

road corridor that does not produce an equivalent area of silt plumes, these 0.7 miles of new 

trail would destroy 1.6 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative F would close 

no miles of trail crossing forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. On the other hand, Alternative F 

would close 0.6 net miles of other OHV trails that could also be restored into forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old. Assuming a ten foot tread, these 0.6 miles represent 0.7 acre. 

Alternative F therefore represents a potential net loss of 0.9 acre of forest communities ≥ 100 

yr old across the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative 

F will produce an estimated additional loss of 0.9 acre of forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

The area contains no other future activities that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative F is a net loss of 3.9 acres of forest 

communities ≥ 100 yr old. 

The cumulative effects represent a total impact of < 0.02 % of this special habitat component 

across the national forests. As a result, Alternative F is unlikely to substantially alter the 

current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr. 

F2. Forest Concern Species 

Purple Sedge 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Same as Alternative B. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

106 

Cumulative Effects - Same as Alternative B. 

F3. Non-native Invasive Species 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, Alternative F 

would construct 10.1 miles of new trails, for a potential increase of 4.0 acres of habitat 

suitable for invasives. 

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative B, the cumulative effect of 

Alternative F totals approximately 7.4 acres of habitat suitable for invasives. 

F4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities 

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative F will construct a new trail through three 

boulderfield communities, estimated during field surveys at a total of four acres. Tread width 

will be 8 – 10 feet, producing a construction corridor estimated to be 20 – 30 feet. Boulders 

in the construction corridor will either be removed or blasted with heavy equipment. 

Because boulderfield communities are defined by the presence of tightly-packed boulders, 

blasting and removing the boulders removes the community as well. Trail construction, 

therefore, will directly eliminate the communities in a construction corridor approximately 

thirty feet wide. For the two smaller boulderfield of one half acre each, direct effects may 

eliminate 15% of the community. For the larger boulderfield west of Allen Gap, estimated at 

three acres, direct effects may eliminate 8 – 10% of the community. 

In general, the trails will cross the centers of the boulderfields, maximizing the direct and 

indirect effects of the activity. Trail corridors will become continuing sources of pollution, 

primarily siltation and petroleum distillates, as well as human activity. In general, the 

boulderfields are so small, and the disturbance corridors so large in comparison, that species 

sensitive to these impacts are unlikely to find suitable refugia in the remaining portions of 

the boulderfield. As a result, indirect effects may effectively impact the entire boulderfields, 

producing a net loss of four acres of boulderfield community. 

Cumulative Effects - The Biotics Database contains sixteen records for boulderfield 

communities, not including the boulderfields located during the surveys for the Tellico OHV 

project. Three of the boulderfields in the Biotics Database are located on the Nantahala 

National Forest. 

No past actions on the Nantahala National Forest have impacted boulderfield communities 

since 1997. The analysis area contains two other Forest Service projects, the Davis Creek 

Road Paving Project and the Fain Ford Bridge Project. Neither of these two projects will 

impact boulderfield communities, and neither project will be discussed further. The analysis 

area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable Forest Service or private actions that may 

impact boulderfield communities. 

Alternative F may effectively eliminate three boulderfield communities totaling four acres 

through direct and indirect effects associated with the construction of Trail 13. The Forest, 

however, contains at least three examples of boulderfield communities that will not be 

disturbed. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

107 

F5. Sensitive Species 

Megaceros aenigmaticus (Tusquitee Hornwort) 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Using the analysis for Alternative A, Alternative F would directly impact, through either trail 

maintenance or continued current impacts, all three of the populations of Megaceros located 

during the field surveys for the project. Alternative F would also increase the likelihood of 

impacts to potential Megaceros populations in the Bearpen Branch watershed through new 

trail construction. 

Alternative F will also increase the number of blue line stream crossing in the OHV System 

to 25 crossings from 26 crossings. Because impacts are considered proportional to the 

number of blue line crossings, Alternative F will probably increase the impacts to Megaceros

habitat in the proposed trail system by 4 %, in comparison to the no action alternative, 

Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects

Same as Alternative A. 

3.3.3 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON BOTANICAL RESOURCES 

 

Tables 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2 on the following two pages summarize the effects of the 

alternatives on the botanical resources of concern in the Upper Tellico area. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

108 

Table 3.3.3.1. Effects on Plant Communities and Management Indicator Species. 

Rich Cove Forests & 

Ginseng Habitat 

Northern Hardwood 

Forests & Ramps 

Habitat 

Forest Communities ≥

100 years old 

Alternative A

Direct, Indirect & 

Cumulative Effects 

9.6 acres forest 

habitat impacted or 

eliminated 

13.8 acres forest habitat 

impacted or eliminated 

3 acres forest community 

impacted or eliminated 

Alternative B

Direct & Indirect 

Effects Gain 2.2 acres Gain 0.5 acre Gain 8.2 acres 

Cumulative Effects 7.4 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated 

13.3 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated Net gain of 5.2 acres 

Alternative C

Direct & Indirect 

Effects Gain 5.8 acres Gain 11.2 acres Gain 30.4 acres 

Cumulative Effects 3.8 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated 

2.6 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated Net gain of 27.4 acres 

Alternative D

Direct & Indirect 

Effects Gain 2.7 acres Gain 9.0 acres Gain 17.9 acres 

Cumulative Effects 6.9 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated 

4.8 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated Net gain of 14.9 acres 

Alternative E

Direct & Indirect 

Effects Gain 1.4 acres No gain/No loss Gain 1.9 acres 

Cumulative Effects 8.2 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated 

13.8 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated 1.1 acres impacted 

Alternative F

Direct & Indirect 

Effects Lose 0.1 acre No gain/No loss Lose 0.9 acr 

Cumulative Effects 9.7 acres impacted or 

eliminated 

13.8 acres remain 

impacted or eliminated 

3.9 acres impacted or 

eliminated 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

109 

Table 3.3.3.2. Effects on Forest Concern Species, Non-Native Invasive Species, 

Boulderfield Botanical Communities, and Sensitive Species. 

Forest Concern 

Species Carex 

purpurifera 

Non-Native 

Invasive Species 

Boulderfield 

Botanical

Communities 

Sensitve Species 

Megaceros 

aenigmaticus

Alternative A 

Direct & 

Indirect 

Effects 

None 3.0 acres suitable 

for occupation No effect May impact individuals 

Cumulative 

Effects None 3.4 acres suitable 

for occupation No effect 

Unlikely to cause a 

trend toward federal 

listing 

Alternative B 

Direct & 

Indirect 

Effects 

May impact 

individuals 

Potential increase 

of 0.5 acre suitable 

for occupation 

No effect May impact 

individuals 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Unlikely to cause 

a trend toward 

federal listing 

Net 3.9 acres 

suitable for 

occupation 

No effect 

Unlikely to cause a 

trend toward federal 

listing 

Alternative C 

Direct & 

Indirect 

Effects 

No effect No effect No effect May impact 

individuals 

Cumulative 

Effects No effect No effect No effect 

Unlikely to cause a 

trend toward federal 

listing 

Alternative D 

Direct & 

Indirect 

Effects 

May impact 

individuals 

Potential increase 

of 0.5 acre suitable 

for occupation 

No effect May impact 

individuals 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Unlikely to cause 

a trend toward 

federal listing 

Net 3.9 acres 

suitable for 

occupation 

No effect 

Unlikely to cause a 

trend toward federal 

listing 

Alternative E 

Direct & 

Indirect 

Effects 

May impact 

individuals 

Potential increase 

of 1.1 acres 

suitable for 

occupation 

No effect May impact 

individuals 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Unlikely to cause 

a trend toward 

federal listing 

Net 4.5 acres 

suitable for 

occupation 

No effect 

Unlikely to cause a 

trend toward federal 

listing 

Alternative F 

Direct & 

Indirect 

Effects 

May impact 

individuals 

Potential increase 

of 4.0 acres 

suitable for 

occupation 

Lose 4.0 acres 

(the entire extent of 

the communities) 

May impact 

individuals 

Cumulative 

Effects 

Unlikely to cause 

a trend toward 

federal listing 

Net 7.4 acres 

suitable for 

occupation 

3 boulderfield 

communities 

remain undisturbed 

across the Forest 

Unlikely to cause a 

trend toward federal 

listing 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

110 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

111 

3.4 Terrestrial Wildlife 

The area encompassing the Upper Tellico OHV System is a landscape with steep mountains 

covered predominantly by mature hardwood forests. The area receives abundant moisture 

and is riddled with seeps and springs that feed into larger streams and eventually the Tellico 

River itself. It also contains drier upland sites, moist rocky areas, and a small area of 

boulderfield forest. 

The terrestrial wildlife analysis evaluates effects of the six alternatives on three categories of 

species: 

 a) Management Indicator Species (MIS), 

 b) Forest Concern Species (FC), and 

 c) Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS) 

3.4.1a AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – MIS 

The majority of the OHV System is located in either MA 1B or 2C. Smaller portions of the 

trail network are within MA 4D or 4C. Each management area has unique desired conditions 

and expectations for wildlife habitat. The expectation for wildlife habitat in MA 1B is to 

provide for those species that can tolerate some disturbance from motorized vehicles, such as 

ruffed grouse and white-tailed deer. MA 2C, also associated with motorized recreation, 

differs from MA 1B in that forests are expected to be older and provide habitat for species 

that use standing dead trees, such as pileated woodpecker. In MAs 4D and 4C less 

disturbance is desired, and wildlife habitat is expected to provide for animals such as black 

bear that prefer older forests and less disturbance from motorized vehicles. 

None of the proposed alternatives contain activities that will alter forest stand composition or 

age class structure. Therefore, the primary effect from any proposed changes to the trail 

system involves increases or decreases in the amount of noise and disturbance associated 

with use of the trail system. And because of this, this analysis will address potential effects 

from a general wildlife habitat perspective, rather than individual management areas. 

The Tellico OHV area encompasses approximately 8,000 acres of forested habitat. 

Wherever trails are within 100 feet of perennial streams they are in MA 18, riparian areas. 

Riparian areas are located along perennial waterbodies and may serve as travel corridors for 

animals. They are expected to have a diverse assemblage of mature trees which can provide 

large woody material for wildlife and fisheries habitat. Abundant vegetative ground cover is 

desired to help maintain the natural hydrologic function as well as provide food and cover for 

associated wildlife. For example, the Acadian flycatcher is one songbird strongly associated 

with riparian habitat. Riparian areas encompass approximately 8% (652 acres) of the Tellico 

OHV area. 

The Nantahala/Pisgah LRMP lists eight terrestrial wildlife species as potential management 

indicator species (MIS) to help evaluate the effects of proposed actions on wildlife habitat 

across the Forests. Each MIS is associated with particular habitat elements that may (or may 

not) be affected by a project. Table 3.4.1a.1 below lists the eight potential MIS, key habitat 

components, and the rationale for whether or not each is selected for further analysis of 

effects from this project. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

112 

Table 3.4.1a.1. Terrestrial Wildlife MIS: Key habitat components, likelihood of 

occurrence, and rationale for selection (or nonselection) for analysis. 

Species Habitat 

Components 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

Selected for 

Analysis? Rationale 

Black Bear 

Old forest, hard 

mast, sensitive to 

noise and human 

disturbance 

May occur Yes 

Species is sensitive to 

noise and human 

disturbance. 

White-tailed 

Deer 

Grass/forb habitat, 

hard mast, tolerant of 

some level of human 

disturbance 

May occur No 

This project does not 

propose measurable 

changes to key habitat 

components under any 

alternative. 

Pileated 

Woodpecker Standing dead trees Likely to occur No 

This project does not 

propose measurable 

changes to key habitat 

components under any 

alternative. 

Ruffed 

Grouse 

11-20 year old forest, 

down woody material, 

soft mast, tolerant of 

some level of human 

disturbance 

Likely to occur No 

This project does not 

propose measurable 

changes to key habitat 

components under any 

alternative. 

Acadian 

Flycatcher Riparian forests May occur Yes Project activities may 

affect riparian forests. 

Ovenbird 

Large contiguous 

areas of mature 

deciduous forest 

May occur Yes 

Species is sensitive to 

noise and human 

disturbance. 

Pine Warbler Yellow pine forests May occur No 

This project does not 

propose measurable 

changes to key habitat 

components under any 

alternative. 

Rufous-sided 

Towhee 0 – 10 year old forest May occur No 

This project does not 

propose measurable 

changes to key habitat 

components under any 

alternative. 

In summary, three wildlife species were chosen (in bold type) as management indicator species 

based on their sensitivity to activities proposed in the Tellico OHV area. Black bear and 

ovenbird were chosen based on their reliance on older, contiguous forests and sensitivity to 

disturbance. Acadian flycatchers were chosen based on their reliance on intact and functioning 

riparian areas. 

Five species were not selected because none of the alternatives propose to measurably change 

stand age or composition, habitat characteristics these species are sensitive to. These species are: 

white-tailed deer, pileated woodpecker, ruffed grouse, pine warbler, and rufous-sided towhee. 

 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

113 

Selected MIS Trends 

Detailed information about forest-wide MIS habitats and population trends is contained in the 

Management Indicator Species Report (National Forests in North Carolina 2005), which is 

the primary source of information for the summaries below. The analysis of effects will 

indicate if any change in trend is expected as a result of the proposed activities. It is 

understood that these species are not the only species present that may be sensitive to 

changes in the environment, but rather that they serve as indicators for a more general 

wildlife community with the Tellico OHV area. 

Black Bear - According to estimates of suitable habitat and known population data, both 

suitable habitat and populations of black bear are increasing across the Forests, and this trend 

is likely to continue. 

Acadian Flycatcher - Although Acadian flycatcher populations appear to be declining rangewide, they appear to be on a slight upward trend on the Pisgah and Nantahala National 

Forests. Long-term persistence of this species in the Forests is likely given current population 

trends and protection standards for riparian forests identified in the LRMP. 

Ovenbird - Long-term breeding bird studies from the past thirty-five years indicate stable 

populations. However, ovenbird populations were found to be increasing slightly in the 

northern part of the species’ range, and decreasing slightly at the edges of this range, 

including the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is likely that ovenbird populations will persist on the 

Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests given the large amount of suitable habitat and 

standards for proactive management for this and other forest interior birds. 

Proposed Activities that May Affect MIS Habitat 

Proposed activities that may affect terrestrial MIS habitat components include: 

1. The amount of new trail construction and trail decommissioning (habitat lost and habitat 

gained, respectively, expressed as acres of habitat) may affect habitat quantity for black 

bear and ovenbird. 

New trail construction may involve the removal of a few trees that could locally alter the 

quality of old forest condition and hard mast production. Trail decommissioning includes 

correcting entrenchments and planting with herbaceous and woody vegetation. This 

activity would create some short-term grass/forb habitat and eventually restore forested 

habitats to these areas; 

2. The area of concentrated recreation use (level of human disturbance, expressed as road or 

trail density) may affect habitat quality for black bear and ovenbird) by affecting the type 

and amount of noise and human use in the area; and 

3. The same activities, when located within a riparian corridor, may affect habitat quantity 

and quality for the Acadian flycatcher. Trails or other structures (e.g. stream crossings) 

that are added or removed in riparian areas would decrease or increase availability of this 

habitat. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

114 

3.4.1b ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - MIS 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 3.4.1b.1 displays direct effects on terrestrial wildlife habitat components by alternative. 

In this analysis, trail miles are expressed as acres of habitat using the formula: 

miles of trail (expressed in feet) x mean tread width (expressed in feet, from field measurements for each trail) 

43,560 square feet per acre 

 Table 3.4.1b.1. Terrestrial habitat components affected by each alternative. 

Species Habitat Components Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Loss of older forest, hard 

mast producers 

(acres of disturbed habitat) 

52.63 48.79 25.12 37.13 50.12 49.89 

Black 

Bear Changes to level of human 

disturbance (road/trail 

density, mi/sq mi) 

3.07 2.88 1.19 1.99 2.94 3.38 

Loss of contiguous forest 

(acres of disturbed habitat) 52.63 48.79 25.12 37.13 50.12 49.89 

Ovenbird Changes to level of human 

disturbance (road/trail 

density, mi/sq mi) 

3.07 2.88 1.19 1.99 2.94 3.38 

Acadian 

flycatcher 

Loss of riparian habitat 

(acres of disturbed riparian 

habitat) 

8.55 7.39 4.26 6.13 7.62 7.60 

For black bear and ovenbird, contiguous older forest habitat directly affected by each 

alternative is small in comparison to the amount available within the Upper Tellico 

watershed. The same is true for riparian habitats affected when addressing the Acadian 

flycatcher (Table 3.4.1b.2). In terms of direct effects to habitat quantity, none of the 

alternatives results in a detectable amount of affected habitat. And, for black bear and 

ovenbird, any detectable effects across the area are even smaller when considering that the 

small amount of habitat affected is spread across approximately 8,000 acres, and not located 

in a single area. Again, the same relationship is true for Acadian flycatchers and affected 

riparian habitats. 

Table 3.4.1b.2. Percent of contiguous older forest and riparian habitats within the 

Tellico OHV area affected by each alternative. 

 

Species Alt.A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Black bear and 

ovenbird 

(contiguous 

older forest) 

0.66% 0.61% 0.31% 0.46% 0.63% 0.62% 

Acadian 

flycatcher 

(riparian areas) 

1.31% 1.13% 0.65% 0.94% 1.17% 1.17% 

Indirect effects to the species, resulting from the direct effects summarized above, are 

discussed below. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

115 

Black Bear – Slight changes to hard mast and the amount of older forest are overshadowed in 

this area by the high level of human disturbance in the area of the Tellico OHV System. This 

disturbance devalues much of the area as black bear habitat except for Alternatives C and D, 

where human disturbance would decrease to a level where black bear could use portions of 

the area west of the main Trail 1 corridor and southeast of the Trail 5 & 6 corridors (portions 

of these trails will remain open under all alternatives). It is likely that under Alternatives A, 

B, E, and F that black bear would avoid the Tellico OHV area because of higher open road 

densities in the area (and therefore more human disturbance), even though an abundance of 

contiguous older forest is present. Open road density estimates used in this analysis refer to 

habitat suitability for black bear, rather than to LRMP standards for specific management 

areas (since multiple MAs are present within the suitable habitat for black bear). Generally 

speaking, black bear can tolerate open road densities less than one mile per square mile 

before their behavior is altered (Mitchell and Powell 2003; Mitchell et al. 2002; Brody and 

Pelton 1989). Proposed winter closure (Alternatives B through F) will facilitate effective 

black bear denning by reducing disturbance during this critical time. 

Ovenbird – Slight changes to the amount of contiguous older forest are overshadowed in this 

area by the high level of human disturbance that devalues much of the area as ovenbird 

habitat except for Alternative C, where the level of human disturbance may decrease enough 

to support nesting ovenbird populations (highlighted portion of Table 3.4.1b.1). Open road 

density exceeds Forest Plan standards under Alternatives A, B, E, and F. It is likely that 

under any of these Alternatives, ovenbird would avoid inhabiting (and nesting within) the 

area adjacent to the Tellico OHV system, even though there is an abundance of contiguous 

older forest present (Larson et al. 2003, Van Horn et al. 1995). Alternatives C and D both 

achieve open road densities compatible with ovenbird use of suitable habitat. Proposed 

winter closure (Alternatives B through F) will not affect ovenbird populations since they are 

neotropical migrants and are not occupying local habitat during this period. 

Therefore, for black bear and ovenbird, Alternative C proposes to have the greatest benefit 

through reduced open road density, followed in decreasing order by Alternatives D, E, B, A, 

and F. 

Acadian Flycatcher – All alternatives impact a very small amount of riparian habitat within 

the Tellico OHV area (Table 3.4.1b.2). Nonetheless, Alternative C potentially affects the 

least amount of riparian habitat, followed in increasing order by alternatives C, B, E & F, and 

A. 

Cumulative Effects 

While many of the OHV trails that existed prior to federal ownership were closed out years 

ago (and have been largely restored to productivity), much of the area remains undesirable as 

habitat for a number of wildlife species due to the high level of human disturbance. 

Other past (i.e. occurring within the last 5 years), present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions with potentially overlapping impacts to wildlife habitat in the Upper Tellico area (as 

defined above) include: 

1. The Jenks Branch Project regenerated 38 acres of timber in the MA 4D portions of the 

Tellico OHV area, supplemented natural regeneration by planting oak seedlings, and 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

116 

established approximately 0.6 acres of grass/forb habitat (totaling 0.48% of the area). 

These activities improved habitat slightly for black bear, and did not measurably affect 

ovenbird. Acadian flycatcher were not affected since no activity took place within 

designated riparian areas, per LRMP direction. 

2. The Farmer Branch Project will harvest and regenerate 125 acres in five units in the 

Upper Tellico watershed. Three of these units are immediately adjacent to Trail 1 which 

is poor habitat for black bear and ovenbird due to high level of human disturbance. 

Harvest of these units would neither lessen nor improve this habitat since disturbance 

would remain. Harvesting and regenerating the two units farther from the system would 

have a slight benefit to black bear while not measurably affecting ovenbird. Acadian 

flycatcher would not be affected since activity would not take place in the riparian area. 

Cumulative changes to contiguous older forests and riparian areas habitat components 

(positive or negative) are not measurable, except when considering the proposed prescribed 

burning. .Again, slight changes to the amount of contiguous older forest are overshadowed 

in this area by the high level of human disturbance that devalues much of the area as wildlife 

habitat except for Alternative C, where the level of human disturbance may decrease enough 

to support a more diverse wildlife community. Open road density exceeds Forest Plan 

standards under Alternatives A, B, E, and F. It is likely that under any of these Alternatives, 

wildlife diversity is compromised within the Tellico OHV area, even though there is an 

abundance of contiguous older forest habitat present. Alternatives C and D both achieve 

open road densities compatible with increased use of suitable habitat by a more diverse 

community. Proposed winter closure (Alternatives B through F) perpetuates seasonal use of 

the area by a more diverse wildlife community. 

Therefore, cumulatively speaking for black bear and ovenbird, Alternative C proposes to 

have the greatest benefit through reduced open road density, followed by Alternative D. 

Alternatives E, B, A, and F propose less benefit to black bear habitat, respectively. 

And, cumulatively speaking for the Acadian flycatcher, all alternatives impact a very small 

amount of riparian habitat within the Tellico OHV area. Nonetheless, Alternative C 

potentially affects the least amount of riparian habitat, followed by alternatives C, B, E & F, 

and A, respectively. 

3.4.2a AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – FOREST CONCERN SPECIES

Forest concern species initially considered in this analysis are those included in the National 

Forests in North Carolina species list (Attachment 3.4-1). LRMP direction is to manage 

habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative species in order to maintain viable 

populations of such species across the planning area (LRMP, Appendix K). All forty-five 

forest concern terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest 

were considered. Species which are known to occur or are likely to occur were identified 

from this list using known habitat relationships, element occurrence records maintained by 

the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and field data on the activity areas. This 

process resulted in five forest concern terrestrial wildlife species for inclusion in this 

analysis, three mollusks and two mammals (highlighted in Attachment 3.4-1, Table 3.4.2a-1). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

117 

The dark glyph is known to occur within the activity area near Tipton Knob and Rocky 

Knob. The pink glyph is known to occur south of the activity area. The open supercoil 

known to occur adjacent to the Tellico OHV area and is likely to occur in the moist leaf litter 

of older deciduous forests. The rock shrew and Allegheny woodrat are not known to occur in 

the activity area; however, the presence of the boulderfield forest in Alternative F makes 

these two species likely to occur until site-specific surveys can be conducted. 

Table 3.4.2a.1. Forest concern species evaluated for this project (terrestrial wildlife). 

Species Type Habitat description 

Dark glyph 

(Glyphyalinia junaluskana) Snail Rich, moist deciduous forest 

Pink glyph 

(Glyphyalinia pentadelphia) Snail Rich, moist deciduous forest 

Open supercoil 

(Paravitrea umbilicaris) Snail Rich, moist deciduous forest 

Rock shrew 

(Sorex dispar) Mammal Rocky areas: hardwood forest 

Allegheny woodrat 

(Neotoma magister) Mammal Boulderfield forest 

3.4.2b ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – FOREST CONCERN SPECIES

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of the alternatives on the dark glyph, pink glyph, and open supercoil were estimated 

according to the change in mature forest. Loss of mature forest was calculated by the amount 

of new trail construction converted into acres. Decommissioned trail is not expected to 

develop the required habitat characteristics for decades and therefore is not considered. 

Table 3.4.2a.2 summarizes this analysis. 

Effects of the alternatives on the rock shrew and Allegheny woodrat were estimated 

according to the change in boulderfield forest. Table 3.4.2b.1 summarizes this analysis. 

Table 3.4.2b.1. Amount of terrestrial wildlife forest concern species’ habitat disturbed 

by each alternative. Numbers in parentheses represent the percent of total habitat 

available within the Tellico OHV area that will be affected. 

Rich, moist deciduous forest 

(dark glyph, pink glyph, open supercoil) 

Boulderfield forest 

(rock shrew, Allegheny woodrat) 

Alt A 52.63 ac (0.66%) No effect (habitat not present)

Alt B 48.79 ac (0.61%) No effect (habitat not present)

Alt C 25.12 ac (0.31%) No effect (habitat not present)

Alt D 37.13 ac (0.46%) No effect (habitat not present)

Alt E 50.12 ac (0.63%) No effect (habitat not present)

Alt F 49.89 ac (0.62%) 4 ac (100%) 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

118 

Cumulative Effects

Other past (i.e. occurring within the last 5 years), present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions with potentially overlapping impacts to wildlife habitat in the Upper Tellico area (as 

defined above) include: 

1. The Jenks Branch Project regenerated 38 acres of timber in the MA 4D portions of the 

Tellico OHV area, supplemented natural regeneration by planting oak seedlings, and 

established approximately 0.6 acres of grass/forb habitat (totaling 0.48% of the area). 

2. The Farmer Branch Project will harvest and regenerate 125 acres in five units in the 

Upper Tellico watershed. Three of these units are immediately adjacent to Trail 1. 

No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area are known that 

would have overlapping effects on Forest Concern wildlife species with this project. While 

potential effects do vary by alternative, the numbers represent only a tiny fraction of the 

habitats available within the Tellico OHV area and across the Forests, and would likely not 

be measurable on the ground. Alternative F will result in loss of habitat for the Allegheny 

woodrat and rock shrew. 

Determination of Effect

Therefore, while each of the proposed alternatives may impact individuals of the dark glyph, 

pink glyph, and open supercoil, such effects will not impact species viability across the 

Forests, nor lead towards federal listing. Table 3.4.2b.1 summarizes the very small amount 

of habitat potentially affected in relation to the amount available across the Tellico OHV 

area. These percentages are even smaller when compared to the amount of habitat across the 

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests or range of the species. Despite the small numbers, 

Alternative C proposed to disturb the least amount of snail habitat, followed by Alternatives 

D, B, F, E, and A, respectively. 

Alternatives A through E will not impact the rock shrew or Allegheny woodrat since no 

boulderfield habitat will be disturbed. Alternative F will eliminate 100% of the suitable 

habitat within the Tellico OHV area for these two species. This may impact individuals, but 

is not likely to impact species’ viability across the Forests or lead towards federal listing. 

Boulderfield habitat is not common across the Forest; however, the range of each of these 

species indicates that potential loss of individuals will not affect species viability (Handley 

1991, Merritt 1987). 

3.4.3a AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – PETS

The project area is in the Unicoi Mountains, which support several endemic species, 

including a ground beetle (Trechus luculentus unicoi), a nesticid spider (Nesticus sheari), and 

the Tellico salamander (Plethodon aureolus). 

Terrestrial wildlife proposed, endangered, and threatened (PET) species initially considered 

in this analysis are those currently listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are 

included on the National Forests in North Carolina species list (Attachment 3.4-1). Sensitive 

species (S) considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

119 

population viability is a concern (August 2001). These species are also listed in Attachment 

3.4-1. 

Eight federally-listed terrestrial animal species were evaluated for the species’ likelihood of 

occurrence within the Tellico OHV area (Attachment 3.4-1). Species which are known to 

occur or are likely to occur were identified from this list using known habitat relationships, 

element occurrence records maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

(NCNHP) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and field data from the 

activity areas. This process resulted in one federally-listed species, the Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis) being identified as likely to occur based on known records of the species in 

Cherokee and Graham Counties (although no Indiana bats have been found within the 

immediate Tellico OHV area). Therefore, the Indiana bat will be included in this effects 

analysis. 

Twenty-six sensitive terrestrial wildlife species were evaluated for the species’ likelihood of 

occurrence within the Tellico OHV area (Attachment 3.4-1). Species which are known to 

occur or are likely to occur were identified from this list using known habitat relationships, 

element occurrence records maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the 

NatureServe database (NatureServe 2008), and field data from the activity areas. This 

process resulted in nine sensitive species being identified as likely to occur within the Tellico 

OHV area, which will be included in this effects analysis (Table 3.4.3a.1). 

Table 3.4.3a.1: Terrestrial PETS species included in this effects analysis. 

 

Species Type USFS 

Status Habitat Description 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) Mammal Endangered Hardwood forests, snags 

A ground beetle

(Trechus luculentus Unicoi) Insect Sensitive 

Endemic to Unicoi Mountains, 

Beneath rocks and moss in wet 

ravines 

Rock-loving grasshopper 

(Trimerotropis saxatilis) Insect Sensitive Lichen covered rock outcrops 

A nesticid spider 

(Nesticus sheari) Arachnid Sensitive 

Endemic to Unicoi Mtns: northfacing rocky slopes in rich cove 

forest 

Santeetlah dusky salamander

(Desmognathus santeetlah) Amphibian Sensitive Stream headwaters and wet seeps

Tellico salamander 

(Plethodon aureolus) Amphibian Sensitive Endemic to hardwood forests in the Unicoi Mountains 

S. Appalachian salamander 

(Plethodon teyahalee) Amphibian Sensitive Moist forests at all elevations 

Southern rock vole 

(Microtus chrotorrhinus 

carolinensis) 

Mammal Sensitive 

Moist rocky areas in spruce & 

hardwood forests at high 

elevations 

Eastern small-footed bat 

(Myotis leibii) Mammal Sensitive Roosts in hollow trees in summer 

Southern water shrew 

(Sorex palustris punctulatus) Mammal Sensitive Small, high elevation (>3000’) 

streams 12-15' wide 

Proposed activity areas were surveyed for the presence of special habitats, such as wetlands, 

boulderfields, caves or mines that could be adversely affected by project activities. No 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

120 

special habitats except boulderfields were located. No Terrestrial wildlife PETS species are 

associated with boulderfields. 

 

Project-specific surveys were not conducted for the Indiana bat. Indiana bat activity within 

Graham and Cherokee Counties has been and continues to be intensively monitored by the 

Forest Service, USDA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and other cooperators. This extensive 

survey data is relied on for this analysis. 

Project-specific surveys for the eight sensitive species were not conducted. Habitat for these 

species is not limited across the forest, and wildlife habitats within Tellico OHV area is 

identified as general habitat, not necessarily as having a high potential for occupancy for any 

sensitive species. Additionally, actual presence or absence of the species would not change 

the assessment of effects to viability of the population. 

The ground beetle, Trechus luculentus unicoi, is found under moss covered rocks in wet 

ravines and near seeps and springs above 3000'. This species is thought to be endemic to the 

Unicoi Mountains. Effects of the alternatives on this species were estimated according to the 

loss of this habitat, as reflected by the new culverts installed that would cause a disruption of 

the habitat in the area of the culvert. Where culverts are removed during the 

decommissioning process, this habitat would be restored. These results are summarized in 

Table 3.4.3b.1. 

 The rock-loving grasshopper utilizes lichen-covered rock outcrops and boulders. Effects of 

the alternatives on this species were estimated according to the loss of this habitat 

(boulderfield forest). These results are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1. 

The cave spider, Nesticus sheari, utilizes moist rocky areas in rice cove forests on northfacing slopes. The species is thought to be endemic to the Unicoi Mountains. Effects of the 

alternatives on this species were estimated according to the loss of this habitat, as reflected 

by the new culverts installed that would cause a disruption of rocky habitats in the area of the 

culvert. Where culverts are removed during the decommissioning process, this habitat would 

be restored. These results are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1. 

The Santeetlah dusky salamander is found in stream headwaters and seepage areas in the 

Great Smoky, Unicoi, Cheoah and Great Balsam Mountains. Effects of the alternatives on 

this species were estimated according to the loss of this habitat reflected as a measure of new 

culvert installations. Where culverts are removed during the decommissioning process, this 

habitat would be restored. These results are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1. 

The Tellico salamander occurs in hardwood forests, and is thought to be endemic to the 

Unicoi Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina. The southern Appalachian salamander 

is found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations. Effects of the 

alternatives on these species were estimated according to the loss of this habitat from trail 

construction and trails remaining open. Habitat for this species would be restored in 

alternatives where trails or segments of trails will be decommissioned. 

The southern rock vole utilizes moist rocky areas in spruce and high elevation hardwood 

forests. Effects of the alternatives on this species were estimated according to the loss of this 

habitat, as reflected by the new culverts installed that would cause a disruption of the habitat 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

121 

in the area of the culvert. Where culverts are removed during the decommissioning process, 

this habitat would be restored. These results are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1. 

The southern water shrew is known to occur on small first order streams up to 12-15' wide, 

with rhododendron cover across Macon, Swain and Clay counties. There are approximately 

45 acres of suitable habitat in the Upper Tellico watershed. Effects of the alternatives on this 

species were estimated according to the loss of this habitat, reflected as a measure of the 

number of fords or culverts crossing perennial streams (bridge crossings would not impact 

habitat). No new non-bridge crossings are proposed for any alternatives. Impacts would be 

reduced if a non-bridge crossing is eliminated the trail system. These results are summarized 

in Table 3.4.3b.1. 

The eastern small-footed bat is known to occur in a variety of habitats across the Forest. 

They can benefit from small openings which they use as feeding areas at night. Effects of the 

alternatives on this species were estimated to be beneficial where new openings in the canopy 

are created through road or trail construction. Where trails are decommissioned, this habitat 

would be lost. These results are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1. 

Values in Table 3.4.3b.1 summarize net habitat affected (acres gained or lost) for the 

terrestrial wildlife PETS species considered in this analysis. These values were calculated on 

the parameters described above using the formula below, except for the Eastern small-footed 

bat, where existing trail area and new trail area represent habitat gained and trail 

decommissioning represents habitat lost (the inverse of the other PETS species). 

Net habitat affected = total habitat available (i.e. existing condition for the appropriate 

 parameter, as described above) - habitat lost from new trail construction + habitat gained 

 from trail decommissioning 

3.4.3b ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – PETS

Table 3.4.3b.1: Acres of habitat affected by alternative for terrestrial wildlife PETS 

species. 

Species Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Indiana bat No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

A ground beetle No 

Effect 

0.17 

acres 

lost 

0.36 

acres 

gained 

0.15 

acres 

gained 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

Rock-loving 

grasshopper 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

4.00 

acres 

lost 

A nesticid spider No 

Effect 

0.17 

acres 

lost 

0.36 

acres 

gained 

0.15 

acres 

gained 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

Santeetlah dusky 

salamander 

No 

Effect 

0.17 

acres 

lost 

0.36 

acres 

gained 

0.15 

acres 

gained 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

Tellico 

salamander 

52.63 

acres 

lost 

48.79 

acres 

lost 

25.12 

acres 

lost 

37.13 

acres 

lost 

50.12 

acres 

lost 

49.89 

acres 

lost 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

122 

Species Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

Southern 

Appalachian 

salamander 

52.63 

acres 

lost 

48.79 

acres 

lost 

25.12 

acres 

lost 

37.13 

acres 

lost 

50.12 

acres 

lost 

49.89 

acres 

lost 

Southern rock 

vole 

No 

Effect 

0.17 

acres 

lost 

0.36 

acres 

gained 

0.15 

acres 

gained 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

0.27 

acres 

lost 

Southern water 

shrew 

No 

Effect 

0.02 

acres 

gained 

0.03 

acres 

gained 

0.02 

acres 

gained 

No 

Effect 

No 

Effect 

Eastern smallfooted bat 

52.63 

acres 

gained 

48.79 

acres 

gained 

25.12 

acres 

gained 

37.13 

acres 

gained 

50.12 

acres 

gained 

49.89 

acres 

gained 

Cumulative Effects

Other past (i.e. occurring within the last 5 years), present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions with potentially overlapping impacts to wildlife habitat in the Upper Tellico area (as 

defined above) include: 

1. The Jenks Branch Project regenerated 38 acres of timber in the MA 4D portions of the 

Tellico OHV area, supplemented natural regeneration by planting oak seedlings, and 

established approximately 0.6 acres of grass/forb habitat (totaling 0.48% of the area). 

2. The Farmer Branch Project will harvest and regenerate 125 acres in five units in the 

Upper Tellico watershed. Three of these units are immediately adjacent to Trail 1. 

While potential effects do vary by alternative, the numbers represent only a tiny fraction of 

the habitats available within the Tellico OHV area and across the Forests, and would likely 

not be measurable on the ground. Generally speaking, for the terrestrial wildlife PETS 

species considered in this analysis, Alternatives C and D may result in improved habitat 

conditions. Alternative A would result in no change in habitat condition, and Alternatives B, 

E, and F may result in declining habitat quality for terrestrial PETS species. 

Determination of Effect

Activities proposed under all alternatives may affect the Indiana bat, but are not likely to 

adversely affect the species because no suitable snags would be cut between April 15 and 

October 15, and all standards and guides for the protection of this species, as listed in 

Amendment 10 of the LRMP would be followed. Additionally, all Terms and Conditions 

contained within the Biological Opinion issued for the Indiana bat by the USFWS (April 5, 

2005) would be followed. Consultation is not required for this project. 

Table 3.4.3b.2 summarizes the determination of effect of each alternative on the sensitive 

terrestrial wildlife species considered in this analysis. Generally speaking, implementation of 

any alternative may impact individuals of the species but will not impact the species viability 

across the Forests or its range, nor lead to a trends towards listing. 

Table 3.4.3b.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on sensitive terrestrial 

wildlife species. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

123 

Species Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

A ground beetle 

(Trechus luculentus 

unicoi) 

No Impact 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

Rock-loving 

grasshopper 

(Trimerotropis saxatilis)

No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

A nesticid spider 

(Nesticus sheari) No Impact 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

Santeetlah dusky 

salamander 

(Desmognathus 

santeetlah) 

No Impact 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

Tellico salamander 

(Plethodon aureolus) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

Southern App. 

salamander 

(Plethodon teyahalee) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

Southern rock vole 

(Microtus chrotorrhinus 

carolinensis) 

No Impact 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

May impact 

individuals 

(negative) 

Southern water 

shrew (Sorex palustris 

punctulatus)

No Impact 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

No Impact No Impact 

Eastern small-footed 

bat 

(Myotis leibii)

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 

May impact 

Individuals 

(positive) 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

124 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

125 

3.5 Area Visitor Preferences 

3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Two user groups have been identified as key stakeholders in the Upper Tellico OHV System; 

OHV users and trout anglers. Surveys of these groups were conducted during May, June and 

July 2008 by the Human Dimensions Research Lab, Department of Forestry, Wildlife & 

Fisheries, University of Tennessee. Onsite and offsite OHV user surveys were conducted to 

capture information from actual visitors, as well as those who did not visit the OHV Trail 

System during the survey period. Off-site surveys were made available online. Therefore, 

respondents included both those who had visited Upper Tellico previously, and those who 

had not visited but had an interest in the OHV System. Most of the trout angler respondents 

were onsite; responses to the angler survey as posted on the web were minimal. The 

distribution of respondents was as follows: 

Table 3.5.1.1 Summary of Survey Respondents. 

Group Number of 

respondents % of respondents 

OHV users- onsite 192 27 

OHV users- offsite 124 18 

Trout anglers (all but 7 were onsite) 296 42 

Total All Respondents 702 100 

A Note on Terminology 

The trail system is open to trail motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV); as well as utilityterrain vehicles (UTV), modified street legal 4WD vehicles, 4WD rail buggies, and highly 

specialized 4WD rock-crawlers. The later group of vehicles are generally over 50 inches 

wide and referred to as “4WD” in this analysis; collectively, all off-highway vehicles are 

referred to by the acronym “OHV”. 

Demographics 

The area is used primarily by non-North Carolina residents. The majority of respondents are 

residents of Georgia and Tennessee. Anglers use the area 2-3 times more often than OHV 

users, and tend to live locally. This is likely due to numerous other trout fishing 

opportunities in the region, reducing the necessity of traveling long distances for the trout 

angling experience. OHV users tend to live farther away, are 8 to 10 years younger than 

anglers, have completed higher levels of education and have higher annual incomes. 

 Table 3.5.1.2 Summary of Survey Respondent Demographics.

Element OHV Users: 

Onsite 

OHV Users: 

Offsite 

Trout Anglers 

Onsite 

Residency-Highest % GA (34.4%) GA (32.3%) TN (86.8%) 

Residency-2nd Highest % TN (29.2%) TN, SC, FL tied 

(12.9%) GA (7.1%) 

Residency-3rd Highest % NC (14.1%) NC (11.3%) AL (1.7%) 

# visits to Tellico region in last 

12 months 5.11 trips 3.89 trips 11.11 trips 

Age 40.1 years 38.6 years 48.43 years 

Gender Male (89.4% 

Female (10.6%) 

Male (96.8%) 

Female (3.2%) 

Male (94.4%) 

Female (5.6%) 

Post-high School Education 71.1% 93.5% 62.5% 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

126 

Element OHV Users: 

Onsite 

OHV Users: 

Offsite 

Trout Anglers 

Onsite 

Annual Income $50,000-

100,000 51.4% 43.5% 42.6% 

Annual Income $100,000 + 21.9% 42.6% 14.4% 

Reasons for visiting Upper Tellico 

The user groups have more in common when examining the benefits they derive from 

visiting the area. Both groups report a desire for pursuing their activity in a natural setting, 

and using the experience to “get away from it all.” These common motivations are shown in 

bold in the table below. However, OHV use is apparently a more social pursuit, and sharing 

challenges with others is an important part of the overall experience. The table below shows 

the percent of users in each category who thought the listed benefit was moderately or 

extremely important to them. 

Table 3.5.1.3 Summary of Reasons to Visit the Tellico Area.

Benefit OHV Users (%) Trout Anglers 

(%) 

Have fun 99.9 (1) 91.4 (1) 

Escape from everyday stresses 91.2 (2) 84.3 (3) 

Enjoy natural scenery 85.8 (3) 87.0 (2) 

Experience nature 80.4 (4) 78.3 (5) 

Experience personal freedom 78.7 (5) 72.2 (6) 

Rest mentally 72.8 (6) 80.2 (4) 

Reduce depression or anxiety 61.5 56.2 

Get away from crowds 67.3 67.1 

Being with others who enjoy the same thing 88.7 51.2 

Do something challenging 87.1 46.1 

To be alone 15.2 34.6 

Test equipment performance 68.6 12.1 

Explore new places 75.7 27.7 

Talk to new and varied people 70.6 22.4 

Test my skills 75.4 45.5 

Be with friends 91.3 57.4 

Experience excitement 83.1 59.2 

Note: Top six reasons are in bold and ranked. 

Impacts to Natural Resources 

Perceptions concerning negative environmental impacts from OHV use varied by user group. 

Results reflect the sum of those who thought the impact was a moderate or serious problem. 

As a group, trout anglers perceived a greater degree of negative impact than OHV users. 

Within the motorized user group, ATV (ATV/UTV/motorcycle users) expressed a greater 

degree of awareness than 4WD users that other resources might be impacted by OHV use. 

Table 3.5.1.4 Perceived Impacts of OHV Use to Certain Resources.

Perceived 

OHV impacts 

to: 

OHV Users 

All (%) 

4WD (Buggy/rock 

Crawlers) only (%) 

ATV 

(ATV/UTV/Motorcycle) 

Only (%) 

Trout 

Anglers 

(%) 

Water Quality 11.8 11.3 17.5 42.4 

Vegetation 8.8 6.2 16.1 Not asked 

Soil 14.3 13.7 21.1 Not asked

Wildlife 5.2 3.0 12.5 Not asked
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

127 

Support for temporary closures and fee increases 

Support for various management tools varied among onsite and offsite users. By and large, 

support for seasonal and storm event closures was not strong; onsite users were more 

supportive of storm event closures than offsite users, perhaps because they tend to be from 

the local area. This is possibly due to a greater potential for being able to adapt travel plans 

on short notice. Support for fee increases at some level was much higher among offsite users. 

The fees shown in Table 3.5.1.6 were derived from the financial analysis. They were not 

available to the survey respondents. It is likely that there would be less support for the higher 

fees calculated for Alternatives E and F. 

 Table 3.5.1.5 Percent User Support for Certain Management Tools 

Management Tools OHV Users- onsite OHV Users-offsite 

Seasonal Closures 22.9 22.9 

Storm Event Closures 38.2 28.7 

Fee Increases 35.7 72.8 

Potential Fee Increases 

In chapter 3.11, costs of operating the trail system are calculated with both current fee levels 

and increased fees. Fee increases are considered in the analysis in acknowledgment that 

future management of the Trail System would require increased revenue over current levels. 

Fee increases would be based on a combination of the enhancements built into the trail 

system and the amount of increased revenue required to maintain the system as proposed in 

the respective alternative. The table below shows the fee increases analyzed for each 

alternative. It should be noted that recreation fee increases are proposed, analyzed and 

reviewed in a specific process outside the scope of this project. Fee increases are presented 

to the Regional Recreation Advisory Committee periodically and reviewed to determine 

appropriateness and consistency across the Southern Region of the Forest Service before 

approval. 

Table 3.5.1.6 Potential Fee Increases 

Alternative Daily User Fee ($) Annual User Fee ($) 

A 10 60 

B 20 120 

C 0 0 

D 15 90 

E 40 240 

F 40 240 

Based on the responses shown in Tables 3.5.1.5 and 3.5.2.1 it appears that users of high 

challenge areas are more likely to support fee increases. 

3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Four factors were selected to analyze the effects that the six alternatives could have on the 

social environment. They were selected for their potential to identify significant differences 

among the alternatives. 

• Trail preference 

• Preferred trail experience level 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

128 

• Decision to continue using the area 

• Preference for alternative uses 

Trail Preference 

The table below shows trail preferences by user type. An assumption is made that the 

preference is based on their current trail experiences; or, if the preferred trail was closed 

during the survey period, their most recent use of the trails. Among all OHV users, there was 

a high degree of correlation of preferred trails between onsite and offsite users. However, 

offsite uses had a higher representation of preference for the most difficult trails. As two of 

the five preferred trails were closed during the survey period, it is logical to assume that more 

of the offsite respondents were not using the trail system. The onsite respondents’ 

preferences were for more difficult trails, rather than the most difficult trails. This is 

interesting in that the question did not relate to which trails they actually used, but which 

they preferred. It may indicate that, in spite of the closed trails, there is a segment of users 

who prefer a more diversified experience while in the trail system. 

Table 3.5.2.1 Summary of Trail Preference by User Type.

Enjoy using 

Trail # 

Experience 

Level 

Onsite 

%

Offsite 

%

ATV (ATV/UTV/ 

motorcycle) %

4WD(Buggy/modified

/ rock crawler) %

1 Easy 18.7 13.9 24.4 14.8 

Lower 2 Most 46.7 (5) 70.4 (2) 19.5 64.1 (4) 

Upper 2 Most 44.0 52.2 (5) 11.1 56.1 (5) 

3 More 27.1 18.3 33.3 22.2 

4 More 49.4 (3) 55.7 48.9 (2) 56.1 (5) 

5 More 40.4 46.1 40.0 (4) 45.0 

6 Most 43.4 41.7 48.9 (2) 44.4 

7 Most 32.9 48.7 9.8 45.9 

8 More 26.5 27.0 28.9 27.0 

9 Most 49.3 (4) 69.6 (4) 22.0 65.2 (3) 

10 More 16.9 14.8 31.1 12.2 

10a More 21.7 6.1 53.3 (1) 5.3 

11 Most 62.7 (2) 70.4 (2) 40.0 (4) 72.0 (2) 

12 Most 63.3 (1) 73.9 (1) 31.1 73.5 (1) 

Note: Top five preferred trails are shaded and ranked. 

Among ATV users, there was a preference for more difficult trails, with preferences fairly 

evenly distributed among various experience levels. The 4WD users expressed a strong 

preference for the most difficult trails. 

Preferred Trail Experience Level 

Total miles of preferred trail experience were taken from Tables 3.6.2.6 through 3.6.2.11, to 

determine the number of miles of preferred user experience level provided in each 

alternative. These are shown in the analysis for each alternative. 

Decision to continue using the area 

Miles of preferred trail experience helps determine the potential loss of users depending on 

which alternative is selected. Two measures that impact users were selected: trail closures 

(loss of preferred experience) for OHV users, and sedimentation for anglers. Trout anglers’ 

decisions as to whether to continue fishing in the Tellico River appear to be little affected by 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

129 

sedimentation levels. On the other hand, over half of the offsite OHV users who responded 

to the survey indicated they would ride in the area less often if there are trail closures 

Table 3.5.2.2 Summary of Recreation Choice Threshold by User Type.

Visit frequency OHV Users-on 

site % 

OHV Usersoffsite % Anglers 

% 

Ride less often with trail closures 33.6 53.6 

Ride the same with trail closures 62.0 34.0 

Will fish less often due to sedimentation 9.1 

Will fish the same due to sedimentation 82.8 

Preference for other uses 

In the survey of off-highway vehicle users, 73.8 % of respondents report participating in 

other activities in addition to OHV recreation while in the area. In a similar survey of trout 

anglers, 83.9% report participating in activities other than fishing while visiting the Tellico 

River. Each alternative was analyzed as to whether 80% of the preferred uses (other than the 

primary reason for visiting) would still be available. A standard of motorized access to the 

use was applied, consistent with the Forest Plan direction for the area. Specifically, almost 

all of the trail system is located in Management Areas 1B and 2C. MA 1B direction includes 

“motorized access for traditional forest uses and recreation, including off-highway vehicles.” 

MA 2C emphasizes providing a quality visual experience, motorized recreation opportunities 

favoring driving for pleasure, and providing public vehicular access on forest roads. 

Therefore, motorized access was considered to be the appropriate level of access for the 

alternative uses. 

Preference between the two user groups for other uses was remarkably similar. The percent 

for the most preferred “other recreation activities” are showing in bold in the table below. 

 Table 3.5.2.3 Summary of Preferred Other Activities by User Type.

Other Recreation Activities OHV Users 

 % 

Trout Anglers 

% 

Camping 54.3 (1) 56.2 (1) 

Photography 41.9 (2) 26.7 

Sightseeing 39.3 (3) 35.3 (3) 

Picnicking 30.4 (4) 41.1 (2) 

Hiking/Backpacking 22.7 (5) 27.7 (5) 

Swimming 18.5 32.5 (4) 

Trout fishing 20.1 

Animal/bird watching 14.1 21.2 

Hunting 2.9 23.6 

OHV driving 10.3 

Mountain biking 6.7 5.1 

Horseback riding 1.9 3.8 

Note: Top alternative activities are in bold and ranked. 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

OHV users would have access to all trails available in 2007. OHV users would have 10.6 

miles of the most difficult trails; ATV users would have 22.2 miles of the more difficult 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

130 

trails. Use levels by all three user groups would remain similar to 2007. Access for preferred 

other uses would remain the same as 2007 levels. 

Note: Use levels from 2007 are considered the baseline. In 2007 fees were increased, but no 

trails were closed. 2006 levels would not be as relevant because of lower fees, while 2008 

use levels have been reduced in part by temporary closure of certain popular trails. 

 

 Table 3.5.2.4 Summary of Effects of Alternative A

Factor 4WD Users ATV Users Anglers 

Trail preference- have access 

to 80% of preferred trails 

Yes Yes N/A 

Miles of preferred trail 

experience level* 

10.6 22.2 N/A 

Will ride or fish less often No No No 

Have motorized access to 

80% of preferred other uses 

Yes Yes Yes 

* Cross-referenced with Table 3.6.2.6 

Alternative B: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

4WD users would see a 5.7 mile reduction in most difficult trails. ATV users would see a 

reduction of 5.0 miles of more difficult trails. 4WD users would ride less often, whereas use 

by ATVs and anglers would likely remain at similar levels. Some ATV users would be 

concerned about lack of access to the trail system from Allen Gap. On the other hand, some 

ATV users would be able to make better use of Trail 11 with the construction of challenge 

area bypasses. Access to other uses such as those in Table 3.5.2.3 would be similar to 2007 

levels. Some users would be negatively affected by seasonal and storm event closures (see 

Table 3.10.1.5). Restrictions on camping would reduce but not eliminate access for preferred 

other uses. 

Table 3.5.2.5 Summary of Effects of Alternative B

Factor 4WD users ATV users Anglers 

Trail preference- have 

access to 80% of 

preferred trails 

No Yes N/A 

Miles of preferred trail 

experience level * 4.9 17.2 N/A 

Will ride or fish less often Yes No No 

Have motorized access to 

80% of preferred other 

uses 

Yes Yes Yes 

* Cross-referenced with Table 3.6.2.7 

Alternative C: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

All of the more and most difficult trails would be eliminated. All trail users would be 

negatively affected. Users would have access to preferred other uses, but at a reduced scale. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

131 

Other uses could be accessed via Davis Creek Road and portions of the forest roads currently 

designated as Trails 2, 4, 5, and 6. Motorized access to angling in tributaries of the Tellico 

River, such as Peckerwood, Mistletoe and Bob Creeks, would be eliminated. There is 

insufficient data at present to determine if other uses would begin to replace motorized trail 

use. 

Table 3.5.2.6 Summary of Effects of Alternative C

Factor 4WD users ATV users Anglers 

Trail preference- have 

access to 80% of 

preferred trails 

No No N/A 

Miles of preferred trail 

experience level * 0 0 N/A 

Will ride or fish less often Yes Yes No 

Have motorized access to 

80% of preferred other 

uses 

Yes Yes Yes 

* Cross-referenced with Table 3.6.2.8 

Alternative D: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

4WD users would see an 8.4 mile reduction in the most difficult trails. ATV users would see 

a reduction of 3.9 miles of more difficult trails. 4WD users would ride less often; use by 

ATV’s may remain at similar levels; however, some users may stay away with the closure of 

Trail 10A. There would be little effect on the use by most anglers; however motorized 

access to angling in tributaries of the Tellico River, such as Peckerwood, Mistletoe and Bob 

Creeks, would be eliminated. Access to other uses would be less than 2007 levels, but the 

reduction in motorized use may make non- motorized use more desirable. Some users would 

be negatively affected by seasonal and storm event closures (see Table 3.5.1.5). 

Table 3.5.2.7 Summary of Effects of Alternative D

Factor 4WD users ATV users Anglers 

Trail preference- have 

access to 80% of 

preferred trails 

No Yes N/A 

Miles of preferred trail 

experience level* 2.2 13.3 N/A 

Will ride or fish less often Yes No No 

Have motorized access to 

80% of preferred other 

uses 

Yes Yes Yes 

* Cross-referenced with Table 3.6.2.9 

Alternative E: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

4WD users would see a 4.4 mile reduction of most difficult trails. ATV users would see a 

reduction of 0.7 miles of more difficult trails. OHV users may ride less often due the loss of 

Lower Trail 2 and Trail 12. However, construction of a new challenge area on Trail 11, 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

132 

retaining access to the Slickrock section of Trail 9, and providing 4WD access to Trail 10 

may prompt previous users to return, or recruit new users. ATV use may remain at similar 

levels, however, some users may not like increased 4WD use of Trail 10. There would be 

little effect on the use by anglers. Access to other uses would be similar to 2007 levels. 

Users would be positively affected by the lack of storm event closures and elimination of 

additional camping restrictions. 

Table 3.5.2.8 Summary of Effects of Alternative E

Factor 4WD users ATV users Anglers 

Trail preference- have 

access to 80% of 

preferred trails 

No Yes N/A 

Miles of preferred trail 

experience level* 6.2 21.5 N/A 

Will ride or fish less often No No No 

Have motorized access to 

80% of preferred other 

uses 

Yes Yes Yes 

* Cross-referenced with Table 3.6.2.10 

Alternative F: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

4WD users would see a 4.4 mile reduction of most difficult trails. ATV users would see a 

reduction of 0.7 miles of more difficult trails. 4WD users may ride less often due to the loss 

of Lower Trail 2 and Trail 12. However, construction of a new challenge area on Trail 11, 

retaining access to the Slickrock section of Trail 9, and providing 4WD access to Trail 10 

may prompt previous users to return, or recruit new users. ATV use may remain at similar 

levels, however some users may not like increased 4WD use of Trail 10. They would be 

positively affected by the construction of the 7.3 mile Trail 13, even though it would be 

constructed for an easy experience level. There would be little effect on the use by anglers. 

Access to other uses would be similar to 2007 levels, or enhanced by the construction of 

Trail 13 in a new area. Users would be positively affected by the lack of storm event 

closures and elimination of additional camping restrictions. 

Table 3.5.2.9 Summary of Effects of Alternative F

Factor 4WD users ATV users Anglers 

Trail preference- have access to 

80% of preferred trails No Yes N/A 

Miles of preferred trail 

experience level* 6.2 21.5 N/A 

Will ride or fish less often Yes No No 

Have motorized access to 80% 

of preferred other uses Yes Yes Yes 

*Cross-referenced with Table 3.6.2.11 

Comparison of alternatives 

Comparing alternatives for a range of users provides mixed results, even within user groups. 

For example, Alternative E eliminates some favored challenge areas for 4WDs, but creates 

new opportunities elsewhere. Alternative F requires ATV users to share Trail 10 but creates 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

133 

a new trail dedicated to their use. The assessments below are based on a synthesis of the 

overall impact to the 4WD, ATV and angling experiences. 

Table 3.5.2.10 Summary of Effects on User Types

Effect of 

alternative on: Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F 

4WD users No 

change Negative Negative Negative Positive Positive 

ATV users No 

change Mixed Negative Negative 

Mixedmore 

shared use 

Positive 

Anglers No 

change No change Mixed- less 

access 

Mixed-less 

access No change No change 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives

Various actions have occurred or are planned in the Trail System vicinity: 

• Rough Crossing Bridge: This bridge spans the Tellico River on Trail 5, and marks a 

transition in experience level on segments of Trail 5 from easy to more difficult. The 

bridge was installed in 2005 to reduce road-related sedimentation in the river. 

• Fain Ford Bridge: This planned bridge would span the Tellico River on Trail 4. A 

decision was signed to construct it and it is in the design stage. Funding for construction 

has not been confirmed. A decision to proceed with the project is pending the outcome 

of the current Trail System analysis. 

• Illegal routes: A number of illegal trails were identified both in routine maintenance and 

during the 2007-2008 condition surveys. All identified routes have been closed 

following a June 2008 contract maintenance project. Some of these routes had facilitated 

travel around most-difficult trail segments. Others provided access to the trail system 

from adjacent private land. 

• User fee increase: An increase from $5 to $10 per day was instituted in May 2007. 

Another fee increase on the heels of this one should be considered as an additional effect. 

• Tellico River corridor camping: Camping is prohibited by Supervisors Order along Trail 

1 in North Carolina. The Cherokee National Forest provides developed campsites along 

the Tellico River immediately north of the Trail System in Tennessee. Significant capital 

improvements were completed in 2005 to provide managed camping areas while 

protecting water quality in the middle Tellico River. 

• Davis Creek Road paving: 4000 feet of Davis Creek Road/Trail 1 is planned, from the 

State Line to the Tipton Creek Bridge. This section of road is immediately adjacent to 

the Tellico River; paving will reduce sheet erosion and sedimentation from the road and 

manage runoff more effectively. Associated with the current analysis, this paving project 

is also the first step in a long term plan to pave all of Davis Creek Road. This could 

impact ATV access to certain portions of the Trail System, while enhancing access to 

privately owned parcels in the Tipton Creek Community. 

In addition, examination of similar opportunities within a one day drive influences the overall 

effect of the various alternatives: 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

134 

• Other OHV Opportunities: Table 3.6.2.4 (Chapter 3.6) shows other OHV, 4WD, ATV 

and motorcycle opportunities within an 8 hour drive of the OHV System, located on 

federal, state and county lands. OHVs have access to 721 miles of more to most difficult 

trails within this radius; 4WDs have access to 519 miles of more to most difficult trails 

within this radius, and ATVs have access to 971 miles of easy to most difficult trails. Of 

the 54 other trail systems inventoried, only 8 have more than 25 miles of total trail 

experience; smaller trail systems are much more typical. As mentioned in Chapter 3.6, 

“General consensus among OHV System planners and managers is that a minimum of 25 

miles is necessary to provide a full day of trail riding opportunities.” Few existing trail 

systems provide that degree of experience, regardless of difficulty level. Average size of 

the 54 trail systems is 19.5 miles. The six mile Anderson Creek OHV Trail System was 

closed in July 2008. It was located on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest 

between Blue Ridge and Dahlonega GA, which is approximately 2.5 hours driving time 

from the Upper Tellico OHV Trail System. 

Alternative A 

The Rough Crossing and Fain Ford Bridges would continue to provide access to trails 

preferred by all users. Illegal routes would continue to be created around the most difficult 

trail segments, as there would not be any viable alternatives provided by the managed trail 

system itself. Additional review would be required to determine the feasibility of continuing 

to allow ATV traffic on the paved section of Davis Creek Road. Continued camping 

restrictions on Trails 1 and 5 would be mitigated partially by the camping provided on the 

Cherokee National Forest. 

Alternatives B-E 

Further paving of Davis Creek Road would impact ATV user access to the trail system from 

the south, as well as ATV access from the Tipton Creek Community. However, it would 

improve access to Tipton Creek Community by passenger vehicles, and potentially promote 

use of Davis Creek Road as a scenic byway connecting North Carolina and Tennessee. Other 

preferred uses (see Table 3.5.2.3) may increase with improved access to the area. Travel 

speeds on Davis Creek Road are likely to increase, requiring appropriate engineering and 

safety design features. 

Alternative B 

OHV users would become more dependent on other trail systems in the region for more to 

most difficult experiences. Developed camping on the Cherokee National Forest would 

become more important as camping restrictions are expanded in the Trail System, or users 

would become more dependent on commercial overnight facilities in the area. A fee increase 

implemented so recently after the last one could create hardship among some users, or cause 

them to choose other sites for OHV recreation. 

Alternative C 

OHV users would become completely dependent on other trail systems in the region for more 

to most difficult experiences. Developed camping on the Cherokee National Forest would 

become more important as vehicular access to camping opportunities in North Carolina are 

limited, or users would become more dependent on commercial overnight facilities in the 

area. The Rough Crossing Bridge would continue to provide access to picnicking and fishing 

on a portion of Trail 5, but the Fain Ford Bridge would not be built. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

135 

Alternative D 

OHV users would become completely dependent on other trail systems in the region for most 

difficult experiences, especially during the implementation period when the entire system 

would be temporarily closed. 

Alternative E 

More OHV use would be retained in the trail system, instead of shifting to other trail systems 

in the region. Creation of illegal routes would be less likely as the trail system would provide 

alternative routes around the most difficult segments. A significant increase in user fees so 

soon after the last increase might prompt some users to visit less often or not at all, but would 

also draw additional users who prefer the most difficult trail experience. Not adding more 

camping restrictions would disperse camping around the area, reducing the dependence on 

the developed camping in the Cherokee National Forest. 

Alternative F 

Cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative E. ATV use would likely increase due to 

the addition of new opportunities on Trail 13 and improved access to the trail system. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

136 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

137 

3.6 Recreation Opportunities 

Note: All mileages cited in section 3.6 are 2D GIS miles, which differ slightly from 

measured 3D mileages used in engineering, hydrology, and fisheries analysis, 

and as described in Chapters 1 and 2. 

3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Trail History and User Experience: 

The Upper Tellico tract was acquired by the US Forest Service in the early 1980’s; the OHV 

trail system was established a few years later. Miles of abandoned logging roads existed in 

the area prior to FS acquisition and had been used by 4WD enthusiasts, hunters, and 

fishermen for years. Many of today’s local “off-roaders” speak of being the third generation 

of Upper Tellico users. However, Upper Tellico’s popularity goes far beyond those local 

users and has become nationally recognized as one of the country’s most challenging offroad trail systems. Users drive or trailer off-road vehicles from the Rocky Mountain region, 

the West Coast, and even Canada. Upper Tellico is commonly compared to the Rubicon Trail 

in California and Moab in Utah. 

The trail system is open to trail motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV); as well as utilityterrain vehicles (UTV), modified street legal 4WD vehicles, 4WD rail buggies, and highly 

specialized 4WD rock-crawlers. The latter group of vehicles are generally over 50 inches 

wide and referred to as “4WD” in this analysis; collectively, all off-highway vehicles are 

referred to by the acronym “OHV”. 

Though Upper Tellico has historically attracted 4WD vehicle users, motorcycle and ATV 

riders frequent the area as well. There are even some trails designated as ATV-only. These 

trails are narrower, are rated Easy to More Difficult, and generally have a more natural 

appearance. The ATV user group generally prefers this type of trail, with low to moderate 

challenges, obstacles less than 2 feet high, and a narrower overall width. However, Upper 

Tellico does have one challenge area on an ATV-only trail; but it is bypassed by most users 

on unauthorized user-created trails. 

Conversely, challenge areas are a major attraction to the 4WD user group. Some of the more 

popular challenge features are “The Rock Garden”, “Slickrock”, “Helicopter Pad”, and 

“Guardrail”. In these areas 4WD enthusiasts experience trails scattered with 5-foot diameter 

boulders, a series of 6-foot bedrock ledges, or 45 degree rock cliffs reaching 30 feet in 

height. These challenge areas are only attempted by the most experienced drivers. With 

heavy 4WD use and subsequent erosion, challenge areas have become more difficult over 

time. This has limited the access to less experienced users and less capable equipment. Being 

too difficult for ATVs to negotiate, there are many unauthorized user-created trails bypassing 

these obstacles. Bypass trails are often in unsustainable locations and create additional 

erosion problems. 

There are three categories of trail difficulty that relate to user experience. The categories are 

Easy, More Difficult, and Most Difficult. Trails are rated with a standard system in use 

throughout the recreation industry. Ratings are assigned under ideal conditions and are based 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

138 

on difficulty compared to other routes in the area. Conditions are always subject to change 

due to weather and other acts of nature. 

(Easy) These routes are appropriate for novice through advanced users. They generally 

follow obvious, well-marked trails and roads. Grades are gentle, and fewer obstacles will 

be encountered. 

(More Difficult) These routes are appropriate for intermediate through advanced users. 

Terrain may be steeper and trails narrower. Frequency, size, and difficulty in negotiating 

obstacles may be greater. 

(Most Difficult) These routes are recommended for advanced to expert users only. Terrain 

is steep, obstacles may be very difficult to negotiate, and routes are not always well 

marked. Users should have considerable skill in the chosen activity, as well as knowledge 

of navigation and survival before attempting these trails. 

To some users Most Difficult rated trails are an attraction, to others an Easy trail is more 

appealing. Upper Tellico OHV Trail System has a broad range of difficulty levels for all 

types of motorized trail experience. The following table identifies miles of trail by difficulty 

level and number of challenge areas: 

Table 3.6.1.1 Existing Upper Tellico OHV Trail Experience Opportunities 

Trail Number Allowed Use Difficulty 

Level 

GIS 

Miles 

Number of 

Challenge Areas 

1 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Easy 5.3 0 

2 (lower segment) 4WD, Motorcycle Most 1.0 1 

2 (upper segment) 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Most 2.2 1 

3 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV More 3.9 0 

4 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV More 4.8 0 

5 (lower segment) 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Easy 1.1 0 

5 (upper segment) 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV More 0.5 0 

6 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Most 2.2 0 

7 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Most 0.6 1 

8 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV More 5.8 0 

9 4WD, Motorcycle Most 0.7 1 

10 ATV More 4.5 1 

10A ATV More 2.8 0 

11 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Most 2.7 3 

12 4WD, Motorcycle, ATV Most 1.2 2 

Existing motorized use allowed on each system trail is indicated on the Upper Tellico OHV 

System map published and sold by the Nantahala National Forest. Allowed motorized uses 

are also shown on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), which is a free publication 

available for all National Forest units. The MVUM publications identify roads, trails, and 

areas designated for motor vehicle use under 36 CFR 212.51 for the purpose of enforcing the 

prohibition at 36 CFR 261.13, and is a product of the Forest Service travel management 

regulation. However, both of these map products contain errors due to incomplete or 

outdated GIS data or changes in trail system management. Trail data contained is this EA 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

139 

represents the most accurate information based on recent GPS inventories and current trail 

system management. 

Vehicle types identified in this document describe allowed motorized trail use in common 

terms, such as 4WD, ATV and motorcycle. These terminologies relate to those used on the 

Upper Tellico OHV System map, but differ from those on the MVUM publication. The 

following table provides a crosswalk between vehicle types referenced in this analysis and 

allowed uses indicated on the Tusquitee Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

 

Table 3.6.1.1a. Upper Tellico Trail System Vehicle Type Terminology 

MVUM Allowed 

Use Vehicle Type Referenced in EA General Description 

 Open to All 

Vehicles 4WD, UTV, ATV, Motorcycle 

Highway-Legal or Non-Highway-Legal 

Vehicle, Greater than or less than 50 inches 

in width 

Special Vehicle 

Designation ATV Only All Terrain Vehicle, less than 50 inches in 

width 

Dispersed Recreation and Trails Management Direction:

Although there are specific regulations or restrictions in some areas, dispersed recreation 

such as camping, fishing, and hunting is allowed on most National Forest lands. Open Forest 

Development Roads and motorized trails provide vehicular access for these activities. 

In addition to motorized use on Forest Development Roads, system trails accommodate a 

range of use types that are specifically designated for various motorized and non-motorized 

uses. All National Forest trails are open to hiking, and unless otherwise posted, all open and 

gated Forest Development roads are open to bicycle and equestrian use. 

 The Travel Analysis for the Upper Tellico watershed indicates that visitors using the area 

include trout fishermen, campers, local residents and people driving for pleasure, and 

hunting. Deer hunting is not common; however, bear hunting remains popular. Roads and 

trails important to bear hunters from mid-October through late November include NFSTs 

420-1, 420-2, 420-3, 420-4, 420-6 and 420-10. 

The Nantahala Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) includes management 

direction to provide a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities across the Forest. 

Dispersed recreation and trails management standards specify Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) settings, types of suitable recreation activities, and desired trail density to 

insure adequate trail opportunities in appropriate locations. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

classifications applicable to this project are Roaded Natural 1 (RN1) and Roaded Natural 2 

(RN2), and are defined below: 

• RN1 – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing environment with 

evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidences usually harmonize with the 

natural environment. Interaction between users is moderate. Evidence of other users is 

prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize 

with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in 

construction standards and facility design. Motorized recreation opportunities 

predominate. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

140 

• RN2 - Area is characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing environment with 

moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidences usually 

harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low, but with 

evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are 

evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Opportunities for both motorized 

and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible, but non-motorized opportunities 

predominate. 

Dispersed recreation and trail management direction is defined for each Management Area 

(MA). The analysis area includes general forest areas in MA 1B, 2C, 4C, 4D; developed 

recreation sites in MA 12; and riparian zones in MA 18, which is embedded within other 

management areas. Applicable recreation management direction for each MA is summarized 

below: 

MA 1B

• Provide motorized recreation opportunities favoring driving for pleasure. Provide some 

non-motorized opportunities including viewing wildlife, hunting, and access for fishing. 

Manage for RN1 conditions, including a high level of public vehicular access on Forest 

Development roads. 

• Provide Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) opportunities on designated routes. Use traffic 

service level D roads to enhance or expand these opportunities if such use does not 

adversely impact other resources. Provide opportunities in response to identified needs to 

an approximate density of 2 miles per square mile in any management area unit. 

• Provide trails that emphasize hunting and fishing access, and provide some hiking 

opportunities. 

MA 2C

• Provide motorized recreation opportunities favoring driving for pleasure. Provide some 

non-motorized recreation opportunities including day-use hiking, viewing wildlife, and 

access for fishing. Manage for RN1 conditions, including public vehicular access on 

forest development roads. 

• Provide OHV opportunities on designated routes. Use traffic service level D roads to 

enhance or expand these opportunities if such use does not adversely impact other 

resources. Provide opportunities in response to identified needs to an approximate density 

of 2 miles per square mile in any management area unit. 

• Provide some opportunities for horse and bicycle travel on closed roads. 

MA4C & 4D

• Provide non-motorized recreation opportunities including hunting, access for fishing, 

viewing wildlife, horseback riding, and hiking. Manage for RN2 conditions, including a 

low level of vehicular access on forest development roads. 

• Provide hiking opportunities and trails for viewing wildlife, hunting, and access for 

fishing. Use a desired density level of 2 miles of trail per square mile. 

MA12 (Developed Recreation Sites) 

• Manage developed sites to support dispersed recreation opportunities, and provide trail 

opportunities as appropriate. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

141 

MA 18 (Riparian Zones)

• Emphasize non-motorized recreation opportunities. Manage for RN1 or RN2 conditions 

depending on type of recreation opportunity in adjacent management areas. 

Trail density standards are specified in the LRMP to indicate a desired amount and type of 

trail opportunity in each Management Area. The identified miles per square mile are 

estimates of an appropriate density for the use type and ROS setting and are not intended as 

an absolute maximum or minimum. The following table summarizes LRMP trail density 

standards: 

Table 3.6.1.2 Summary of LRMP Trail Density Standards 

ROS Setting Management Area Managed Use Type Miles / Square Mile 

RN1 1B OHV 2 

RN1 2C OHV 2 

RN2 4C Hiking 2 

RN2 4D Hiking 2 

Note: Since MA 4C and 4D are managed primarily for non-motorized trail opportunities, 

LRMP density standards for these management areas are for hiking trails rather than 

motorized trail opportunities. 

3.6.2 CONSEQUENCES

Consequences of the various alternatives to recreation opportunities are evaluated based on 

the following: 

• Trail Density – Compliance with LRMP standards for motorized trail miles per square 

mile of each contiguous management area within the project analysis area. 

• Motorized Forest Access and Dispersed Camping Opportunities – Miles of open or 

seasonally open system roads on Nantahala and Cherokee National Forest’s, Tusquitee 

and Tellico Ranger Districts which lie within areas managed for a RN ROS setting; and 

identification of dispersed camping opportunities in the surrounding area. 

• Storm-Event and Seasonal Closures – Estimated number of annual closure days based 

on rainfall data from nearby weather stations, and duration of seasonal closure.

• Other OHV Opportunities – Miles of other OHV trails within a one-day drive of 

Murphy, NC; categorized by allowed use, difficulty level and/or challenge opportunities.

• Use Fees – Comparison with fees for other OHV systems, and public opinion of fee 

amounts as determined by user surveys. 

• Trail Experience - Miles of Upper Tellico OHV trails categorized by difficulty level and 

number of challenge areas. 

Trail Density

The following table summarizes proposed miles of motorized trail per square mile of MA for 

each Alternative, and the amount of deviation from LRMP standards. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

142 

Table 3.6.2.1 Summary of Proposed Trail Density by Alternative 

Proposal Management 

Area 

Proposed 

Use Type 

Miles per 

Square Mile 

Deviation from LRMP 

Standard (in miles) 

1B OHV 3.4 +1.4 mi. OHV 

2C OHV 4.8 +2.8 mi. OHV 

4C OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

Alternative A 

4D OHV* 0.3 -2.0 mi. Hike; + 0.3 mi. OHV 

1B OHV 2.0 Standard Met 

2C OHV 3.5 +1.5 mi. OHV 

4C OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

Alternative B 

4D OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

1B OHV 0 -2.0 mi. OHV 

2C OHV 0 -2.0 mi. OHV 

4C OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

Alternative C 

4D OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

1B OHV 1.3 -0.7 mi. OHV 

2C OHV 2.7 +0.7 mi. OHV 

4C OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

Alternative D 

4D OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

1B OHV 2.0 Standard Met 

2C OHV 4.7 +2.7 mi. OHV 

4C OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

Alternative E 

4D OHV* 0 -2.0 mi. Hike 

1B OHV 2.7 +0.7 mi. OHV 

2C OHV 4.7 +2.7 mi. OHV 

4C OHV* 0.5 -2.0 mi. Hike; + 0.5 mi. OHV 

Alternative F 

4D OHV* 0.1 -2.0 mi. Hike; + 0.1 mi. OHV 

*MA 4 is managed primarily for non-motorized trail uses, LRMP densities are for hiking trails. 

Motorized Forest Access and Dispersed Camping Opportunities 

In Alternatives B, C, D and E, where OHV trail miles are reduced or eliminated, there will be 

a loss of motorized access to National Forest lands. However, the Nantahala and Cherokee 

National Forests offer many additional miles of open or seasonally open system roads. On 

the Tusquitee Ranger District (Nantahala NF), there are 165 miles of open road in a RN1 and 

RN2 settings. The adjacent Tellico Ranger District (Cherokee NF) offers another 132 miles 

of open road. 

These system roads (or Forest Development Roads) are maintained, aggregate-surfaced roads 

suitable for high-clearance vehicles; and in many cases are passable by passenger vehicles. 

They do not offer the challenge of OHV trails and are only open to highway-legal vehicles; 

but they provide access to thousands of acres of National Forest lands in the Upper Tellico 

vicinity. Motorized access to National Forest lands provides opportunities for family-oriented 

recreation activities such as hunting and fishing; and is often the only means of access for 

users with impaired mobility. Under all alternatives these opportunities will continue to be 

available along 297 miles of open Forest Development Roads on the Tusquitee and Tellico 

Ranger Districts. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

143 

With its current management Upper Tellico OHV System is open to trailside camping along 

all trails except lower Trail 5 and Trail 1 (Davis Creek Road); this would continue under 

Alternative A. Alternative F increases OHV trail miles open to dispersed camping. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E reduce trail miles and/or close the area to camping; and would 

reduce or eliminate motorized access for dispersed camping within the OHV System. The 

following table summarizes miles of OHV trail open to camping in each Alternative: 

Table 3.6.2.2 Summary of OHV Trail Miles Open to Dispersed Camping 

Proposal Camping Restrictions Miles of OHV Trail 

Open to Camping 

Alternative A No camping along TR1 (Davis Ck Rd) & Lower TR5 32.8 

Alternative B No camping along any OHV trails or system roads 0 

Alternative C OHV System closed 0 

Alternative D No camping along any OHV trails or system roads 0 

Alternative E No camping along Davis Ck Rd & Lower TR5 28.6 

Alternative F No camping along Davis Ck Rd & Lower TR5 35.3 

Dispersed camping opportunities are not limited to the OHV System. Many other camping 

opportunities exist along open Forest Development Roads in Nantahala and Cherokee 

National Forests. Suitable campsites near roads (or trails) are limited by terrain, proximity to 

streams, vegetation, etc.; and in a few cases dispersed camping on open system roads is 

restricted to designated sites. Alternatives where no OHV trailside camping is allowed do not 

necessarily eliminate dispersed camping opportunities in the vicinity. 

Storm-Event and Seasonal Closures 

The following table summarizes estimated annual days of OHV System closure for each 

Alternative. Storm-event closure estimates are based on rainfall data from a nearby weather 

station. 

 

Table 3.6.2.3 Summary of Estimated Annual Storm-Event & Seasonal Closure Days 

Proposal Estimated Annual Days 

of Storm-Event Closure 

Annual Days of 

Seasonal Closure 

Total Estimated Annual 

Closure Days 

Alternative A 0 0 0 

Alternative B 24* 90 118 

Alternative C 0 Yearlong Closure 365 

Alternative D 24* 90 118 

Alternative E 0 90 90 

Alternative F 0 90 90 

*Based on 12 storm events of ≥ 1” rain, 2 days closure per event. 

Other OHV Opportunities 

In Alternatives where OHV trail miles are reduced, where challenge areas are eliminated, and 

where the system is closed completely, overall use will be displaced. Presumably the amount 

of displaced use would be proportional to the reduction in trail miles. Alternatives with fewer 

or no challenge areas would reduce the number of 4WD users, while elimination of ATVonly trails would affect use from that group. 

To evaluate impacts associated with a potential reduction or loss of OHV trail miles in some 

Alternatives, it’s critical to identify other OHV opportunities in the region. If sufficient OHV 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

144 

opportunities are available within a reasonable driving distance, then impacts to the OHV 

community would be limited. If few opportunities exist, then reduction or loss of Upper 

Tellico OHV trail miles would have a greater impact. 

An internet search was conducted to identify other OHV systems within an 8-hour drive of 

Murphy, NC. The following table summarizes OHV opportunities on Federal, State and 

County trails. Most of these trail/roads are within the Southern Appalachian and foothills 

region and offer terrain similar to Upper Tellico. 

Daily trail-use fees range from $5 to $30, and on-site or nearby camping is usually available. 

These trail systems provide a range of difficulty levels from Easy to Most Difficult, allow 

various vehicle types, and offer challenge areas for the more experienced users. 

The internet search revealed several privately owned OHV parks, but they are not included in 

the summary because of special membership requirements or lack of trail-specific data. 

Note: 

• All mileages are approximate 

• < 2-Hour Drive = 0-100 miles from Murphy, NC 

• 2 to 4-Hour Drive = 100-200 miles from Murphy, NC 

• 4 to 8-Hour Drive = 200-400 miles from Murphy, NC 

Table 3.6.2.4 Summary of Other Federal, State & County OHV Opportunities 

Use Type – Driving Distance – Difficulty Level Available Trail Miles 

Total OHV Miles < 8-Hour Drive 1053

OHV Miles < 2-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 60

OHV Miles 2 to 4-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 55

OHV Miles 4 to 8-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 217

OHV Miles < 2-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 190

OHV Miles 2 to 4-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 159

OHV Miles 4 to 8-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 372

Total 4WD Miles < 8-Hour Drive 584

4WD Miles < 2-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 16

4WD Miles 2 to 4-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 17

4WD Miles 4 to 8-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 32

4WD Miles < 2-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 130

4WD Miles 2 to 4-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 67

4WD Miles 4 to 8-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 322

Total ATV Miles < 8-Hour Drive 971

ATV Miles < 2-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 36

ATV Miles 2 to 4-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 31

ATV Miles 4 to 8-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 190

ATV Miles < 2-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 190

ATV Miles 2 to 4-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 152

ATV Miles 4 to 8-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 372

Total Motorcycle Miles < 8-Hour Drive 993
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

145 

Use Type – Driving Distance – Difficulty Level Available Trail Miles 

Motorcycle Miles < 2-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 44

Motorcycle Miles 2 to 4-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 38

Motorcycle Miles 4 to 8-Hour Drive (Easy to More Difficult) 190

Motorcycle Miles < 2-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 190

Motorcycle Miles 2 to 4-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 159

Motorcycle Miles 4 to 8-hour Drive (More to Most Difficult) 372

As shown in the preceding tables, there are approximately 1053 miles of OHV trail 

opportunities within an 8-hour drive of Murphy, NC. Under Alternative C, a loss of 

approximately 39 miles of Upper Tellico OHV trail represents 4% of total available OHV 

trail miles within a one-day drive. Alternatives B, D, E and F represent proportionally 

smaller percentages. Detailed internet search results, including trail system location, 

available miles, and driving distance from Murphy are shown in Appendix A. 

Trail Experience

In OHV trail systems like Upper Tellico, trail difficulty levels and availability of challenge 

areas can be considered an indicator of potential user experience. Overall length of an OHV 

system also affects user experience. General consensus among OHV trail system planners 

and managers is that a minimum of 25 miles is necessary to provide a full day of trail riding 

opportunities. Systems with less than 25 miles may have additional impacts from overuse, 

users may tend to create trails or “play” areas, and the system may lose its attraction to nonlocal users. 

Although many other factors such as scenery, wildlife encounters, and sense of remoteness 

contribute to the OHV experience, difficulty, challenge, and length of system are the primary 

factors. Miles of each trail experience are shown in the following Direct and Indirect Effects 

sections for each Alternative. 

 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following table summarizes miles of proposed trail by allowed use type, difficulty level, 

and the number of available challenge areas: 

Table 3.6.2.6 Summary of Alternative A Trail Experience by Use Type 

Allowed Use Difficulty Level GIS Miles Number of Challenge Areas 

Easy 6.4 

More 15.0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle, ATV 

 Most 8.9 

6 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle 

 Most 1.7 

3 

Easy 0 

More 7.2 

 

ATV 

 Most 0 

1 

TOTAL 39.2 10 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

146 

Alternative B:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this Alternative, the overall trail system length is slightly less than the minimum 

desired length of 25 miles. The following table summarizes miles of proposed trail by 

allowed use type, difficulty level, and the number of available challenge areas: 

Table 3.6.2.7 Summary of Alternative B Trail Experience by Use Type 

Allowed Use Difficulty Level GIS Miles Number of Challenge Areas 

Easy 2.0 

More 13.3 

 

4WD, Motorcycle, ATV 

 Most 4.9 

3 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle 

 Most 0 

0 

Easy 0 

More 3.9 

 

ATV 

 Most 0 

0 

TOTAL 24.1 3 

Alternative C:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following table summarizes miles of proposed trail by allowed use type, difficulty level, 

and the number of available challenge areas: 

Table 3.6.2.8 Summary of Alternative C Trail Experience by Use Type 

Allowed Use Difficulty Level GIS Miles Number of Challenge Areas 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle, ATV 

 Most 0 

0 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle 

 Most 0 

0 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

ATV 

 Most 0 

0 

TOTAL 0 0 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

147 

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this Alternative, the overall trail system length is 7.5 miles less than the minimum 

desired length of 25 miles. The following table summarizes miles of proposed trail by 

allowed use type, difficulty level, and the number of available challenge areas: 

Table 3.6.2.9 Summary of Alternative D Trail Experience by Use Type 

Allowed Use Difficulty Level GIS Miles Number of Challenge Areas 

Easy 2.0 

More 13.3 

 

4WD, Motorcycle, ATV 

 Most 2.2 

0 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle 

 Most 0 

0 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

ATV 

 Most 0 

0 

TOTAL 17.5 0 

Alternative E:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following table summarizes miles of proposed trail by allowed use type, difficulty level, 

and the number of available challenge areas: 

Table 3.6.2.10 Summary of Alternative E Trail Experience by Use Type 

Allowed Use Difficulty Level GIS Miles Number of Challenge Areas 

Easy 2.0 

More 18.8 

 

4WD, Motorcycle, ATV 

 Most 4.9 

4 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle 

 Most 1.3 

1 

Easy 0 

More 2.7 

ATV 

ATV 

 Most 0 

0 

TOTAL 29.7 5 

Alternative F:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following table summarizes miles of proposed trail by allowed use type, difficulty level, 

and the number of available challenge areas: 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

148 

Table 3.6.2.11 Summary of Alternative F Trail Experience by Use Type 

Allowed Use Difficulty Level GIS Miles Number of Challenge Areas 

Easy 2.0 

More 18.8 

 

4WD, Motorcycle, ATV 

 Most 4.9 

4 

Easy 0 

More 0 

 

4WD, Motorcycle 

 Most 1.3 

1 

Easy 6.7 

More 2.7 

 

ATV 

 Most 0 

0 

TOTAL 36.4 5 

Alternatives A through F:

Cumulative Effects

All past, current, and foreseeable future actions within the analysis area were considered for 

cumulative effects to recreation resources. These include paving a 4000 ft. segment at the 

North end of Davis Creek Road and constructing a bridge across the Tellico River at Fain 

Ford on Trail 4. 

The paving project would have no additional cumulative effect to recreation resources in 

Alternative B, C, D, E, or F; because these alternatives include paving the entire road and 

removing it from the trail system. Under Alternative A, paving of Davis Creek Road would 

change the character and the OHV user experience over the 4000 ft. section. The “Easy” 

difficulty level would not necessarily change, but users would be traveling on an asphalt 

surface rather than the existing aggregate. 

Constructing a bridge at Fain Ford would eliminate the experience of fording the Tellico 

River; this would be true for Alternatives A, B, D, E, or F. No bridge would be constructed 

under Alternative C. 

SUMMARY OF TRAIL EXPERIENCE BY ALTERNATIVE 

Table 3.6.2.12 Size of the trail system and types of opportunities under various alternatives 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F 

GIS Miles of Trail* 39.2 24.1 0 17.5 29.7 36.4 

Miles ATV only Trail 7.2 3.9 0 0 2.7 9.4 

Most 10.6 4.9 0 2.2 6.2 6.2 

More 15.0 13.3 0 13.3 18.8 4.9 

Miles by 

Difficulty 

Level of Trail 

(4WD) Easy 6.4 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Number of 

Challenge Areas 10 3 0 0 5 5 

*GIS miles in this table are 2-dimensional computer vary somewhat from the 3-dimentional measured 

miles.
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

149 

3.7 Scenery 

3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Scenery consists of the combination of landforms, geologic features, water bodies, and 

vegetation as seen across the landscape. Although considered a “common landscape” within 

the Southern Appalachian character type, the Upper Tellico area has a diverse mix of 

hardwood and coniferous forests, rock outcrops, and waterways; including the Tellico River. 

Existing modifications to the landscape can be seen on public lands in the form of clearings, 

roads, trails, bridges, developed recreation areas, and timber harvests. In addition to the 

motorized trails, open and gated roads, many abandoned logging roads exist from when the 

tract was private timber land. Most of the old logging roads have healed, and are now 

covered with vegetation. Of the designated motorized trails, many are eroded with deep 

entrenchment and exposed bedrock. Extensive vegetation damage has occurred around some 

challenge areas and numerous user-created bypass trails exist. All of these human-caused 

impacts affect scenic quality. 

Upper Tellico OHV Trail System is contained within six Management Areas (MA) identified 

in the LRMP. These are MA 1B, 2C, 4C, 4D, 12, and 18. Each MA is assigned a Visual 

Quality Objective (VQO) based on methodology described in the USDA Forest Service 

Visual Management System Handbook (VMS). Definitions of VMS terminology can be 

found in the LRMP Appendix “G”. 

Visual Quality Objectives are determined by various combinations of three components: 

Variety Class, Sensitivity Level, and Distance Zone. 

Variety Class identifies areas based on their value as scenic landscapes. The three 

classifications are: 

• Variety Class A – These are distinctive landscapes where the composition of landforms, 

water bodies, rock outcrops, and vegetation has unusual or outstanding scenic qualities. 

• Variety Class B – These landscapes are common within the landscape character type. 

They contain a variety of features, forms, and patterns; but are not unusual or outstanding 

scenic landscapes. 

• Variety Class C – These areas have minimal variety of features, and include all areas not 

considered Variety Class A or B. 

The Upper Tellico area is classified as Variety Class B. 

 

Sensitivity Level is a measure of viewer concern for scenic quality. Classifications are: 

• Sensitivity Level 1 (SL1) - Highest level of viewer concern. This occurs on primary 

travel routes or use areas where at least 25% of users have a major concern for scenic 

quality; or secondary routes/areas with at least 75%. 

• Sensitivity Level 2 (SL2) - Average level of viewer concern. This occurs on primary 

routes/areas where 1%-25% of users have a major concern for scenic quality; or 

secondary routes/areas were 25%-75% have a major concern. 

• Sensitivity Level 3 (SL3) - Lowest level of viewer concern. This occurs on secondary 

routes/areas where less than 25% of users have a major concern for scenic quality. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

150 

Distance Zones are classified by the distance at which activities are viewed. Classifications 

are: 

• Foreground (FG) - From viewer to a maximum of 1/2 mile. 

• Middleground (MG) - From FG to a maximum of 5 miles 

• Background (BG) - From MG to the horizon. 

Within each MA the assigned VQO varies depending on Distance Zone and Sensitivity Level 

for a specific viewpoint. Visual Quality Objectives for project MA’s are: 

• Retention (R) – Management activities are not visually evident; objective must be met 

within one growing season. 

• Partial Retention (PR) – Management activities remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape; objective must be met within two growing seasons. 

• Modification (M) – Management activities may visually dominate the characteristic 

landscape; objective must be met within three growing seasons. 

The following table shows the assigned VQO for each of the project Management Areas 

based on Distance Zone and Sensitivity Level: 

 Table 3.7.1.1 Summary of VQO Assignments by Management Area. 

MA FG 

SL1 

FG 

SL2 

FG 

SL3 

MG 

SL1 

MG 

SL2 

MG 

SL3 

BG 

SL1 

BG 

SL2 

BG 

SL3 

1B M M M M M M M M M 

2C R PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 

4C R R PR R PR PR R R PR 

4D PR M M PR M M M M M 

12 Meet a range of VQO’s from R-M depending on site characteristics 

18 R if adjacent MA is R; PR if adjacent MA is PR or M 

All motorized trails in Upper Tellico OHV area would be considered Sensitivity Level 3; 

except Davis Creek Road and FR402 which would be Sensitivity Level 2. The Tellico River 

and its tributaries would be classified as SL 2 and SL 3, respectively. Even though the Tellico 

River is eligible as a Wild and Scenic River, the outstanding resource values worthy of 

designation are recreational, not scenic; therefore dictating a SL2 classification (see Ch 3.7, 

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility). 

3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Scenery Analysis: 

Environmental consequences to scenery are evaluated based on a proposed activity’s ability 

to meet assigned Visual Quality Objectives from identified viewpoints. Some viewpoints 

analyzed are at specific locations others are from corridors. All open roads, existing trails, 

proposed trail locations, developed recreation areas, fishable streams, and the Tellico River 

were considered for viewpoints. The following chart shows viewpoint locations analyzed for 

all Alternatives and their associated Management Areas, Distance Zones, Sensitivity Levels, 

and assigned VQO’s. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

151 

Table 3.7.2.1 Summary of Assigned VQO’s for Each Viewpoint Location 

Viewpoint Location MA DZ SL VQO 

Tellico River 18 (2C) FG 2 PR 

Fishable Streams 18 (1B) FG 3 PR 

“ 18 (2C) FG 3 PR 

“ 18 (4C) FG 3 PR 

Davis Creek Road (Trail 1) 1B FG 2 M 

“ 2C FG 2 PR 

“ 4D FG 2 M 

FR402 (Trail 2) 1B FG 2 M 

Trail 2 (not on FR402) 1B FG 3 M 

“ 4D FG 3 M 

Trail 3 1B FG 3 M 

“ 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 4 1B FG 3 M 

“ 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 5 & Relocation 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 6 & Trail 5 Connector 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 7 & Relocation 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 8 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 9 & Relocation 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 10 1B FG 3 M 

“ 2C FG 3 PR 

Trail 11 1B FG 3 M 

Trail 12 1B FG 3 M 

Trail 13 (new location) 1B FG 3 M 

“ 4C FG 3 PR 

“ 4D FG 3 M 

Allen Gap Trailhead 12 FG 3 R, PR or M 

Stateline Trailhead 12 FG 3 R, PR or M 

Trail 4 Trailhead (new location) 1B FG 3 M 

Fain Ford Bridge: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

A bridge constructed at Fain Ford would be visible from the Tellico River and Trail 4. 

Effects of construction were considered in a previous decision and are outside the scope of 

the current analysis. 

Davis Creek Road Paving: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Paving of Davis Creek Road would change the character of the road and driving experience, 

but Visual Quality Objectives would be met. 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Erosion resulting from trail entrenchment and inadequate maintenance has created scenery 

impacts in many locations. Trails and associated drainage features in MA 2C are required to 

meet PR VQO; badly eroded segments of Trail 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 do not currently meet this 

standard. Trails in MA 1B are so severely damaged that even M VQO is not being met on 

segments of Trail 2, 10, 11 and 12. Continuation of current management and maintenance 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

152 

routines would allow further erosion, resulting in additional scenery degradation. In many 

locations, scenery management standards would not be met with this Alternative. 

Alternative B:

Direct and Indirect Effects

In this Alternative, newly constructed trails, reconstructed trails, and associated drainage 

features would be visible from many locations in MA 1B and 2C; as would several miles of 

trail proposed for closure and rehabilitation in MA 1B, 2C, and 4D. Construction of trail 

relocations and reconstruction of existing routes conforming to the appropriate FS OHV trail 

design standards, and rehabilitation of damaged trail segments and some challenge areas, 

would improve overall scenic conditions from all viewpoints analyzed. With the following 

mitigation, assigned VQO’s would be met for all proposed activities. 

Mitigation Measures: 

• To the extent possible, stabilize and re-vegetate failed slopes adjacent to challenge areas. 

• Reconstruct, or relocate and rehabilitate, existing challenge area bypass trails. 

• Create barriers to prevent user-created bypass trails around challenge areas. 

• Where possible, create hardened observation areas adjacent to challenge areas to prevent 

uncontrolled soil and vegetation damage in the surrounding landscape. 

Alternative C: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

With closure and rehabilitation of the entire trail system, all assigned VQO’s would be met. 

Alternative D: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Same as Alternative B. 

Alternative E: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Same as Alternative B, with the following additions: 

• Upgrading the southern end of Trail 4 to road standards would improve overall 

appearance of the corridor. 

• The proposed trailhead parking area at Trail 4 and 11 intersection utilizes a site that 

would require minimal cut/fill, and is located in an area only visible from system trails. 

Both of these serve to minimize scenery impacts. 

• Retaining the “Slickrock” challenge area may perpetuate existing scenery impacts on this 

site; therefore mitigation measures cited for challenge areas in Alternative B would 

apply. 

With mitigation, implementation of this Alternative would meet assigned VQO’s. 

Alternative F: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Same as Alternative E, with the following addition: 

• New construction of Trail 13 would be done to ATV trail standards, which are narrower 

than 4WD trail standards. The narrower width would minimize scenery impacts along its 

length and at intersections with Davis Creek Road and Trail 4. As with other proposed 

trail construction, a trail built to standard would meet the assigned VQO’s. However, the 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

153 

MA 4C segment is proposed in an area managed for scenery and non-motorized 

recreation (See section 3.6, Recreation Opportunities). Limited 4WD use is allowed, but 

is not the primary management objective. 

Cumulative Effects

All past, current, and foreseeable future actions within the analysis area were considered for 

cumulative effects to scenery resources. In the following section, these effects are discussed 

for each activity and Alternative. 

Construction of a bridge at Fain Ford would introduce additional man-made elements to the 

Tellico River corridor. The bridge would be seen in conjunction with other proposed 

activities in Alternatives B, D, E and F, specifically improvements to Trail 4 on its 

approaches to the river. Under these Alternatives and Alternative A, bridge construction 

would eliminate OHV damage to river banks and scenery impacts would be reduced. Under 

Alternative C, no bridge would be built. 

Paving of a 4000 ft. section at the North end of Davis Creek Road would be seen in 

conjunction with other proposed management activities along the corridor. Under Alternative 

A, the character and appearance of that segment of Davis Creek Road (Trail 1) would change 

from that of an aggregate surfaced road to asphalt, but assigned Visual Quality Objectives 

would still be met. For Alternatives B, C, D, E, or F, no additional cumulative effects would 

occur because these alternatives include paving the entire road. 

Alternative A trail proposal: As users ride through the OHV trail system there are/would be 

repeated views of erosion, soil compaction, and vegetation damage. Cumulative impacts to 

scenery under this Alternative would not meet assigned VQO’s. 

Alternative B, D, E, or F trail proposal: Newly constructed trails, reconstruction, and 

rehabilitation efforts would be visible continuously as users ride the system. All of these 

activities would serve to improve scenic quality and have a positive overall cumulative 

effect. Assigned VQO’s would be met, even where multiple 

construction/reconstruction/rehabilitation activities would be seen. 

Alternative C trail proposal: Trails would be closed and rehabilitated. Trail viewpoints would 

no longer exist. Scenery viewed from Tellico River and Davis Creek Road would be 

improved. All assigned VQO’s would be met. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

154 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

155 

3.8 Wild and Scenic River Suitability 

3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

In 1994 the Cherokee and Nantahala National Forests prepared the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study Report on the Hiwassee and Tellico 

Rivers (DEIS) to determine suitability for their inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. The study identified 22.8 miles of the Tellico River as suitable for a 

Recreational River designation; from its headwaters in North Carolina to McDaniel Bridge 

near Tellico Plains, Tennessee. The North Carolina segment of the Tellico River is 5.8 miles 

long. 

Eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System is based on the 

following Criteria. The river must be free-flowing and posses one or more of the following 

outstandingly remarkable resource values: scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, 

historical and cultural, or other values including ecological. The study identified recreation, 

fish and wildlife, historical and cultural, and botanical resources as having distinctive 

characteristics along the 5.8 mile Tellico River segment within North Carolina. 

There are three classifications of rivers or river segments in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System; Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. Classification is based on the condition of 

the river and adjacent lands at the time of the study. The following are some of the criteria 

used in determining classification: 

• Wild River - The river should be free from impoundments and the shoreline should be 

essentially primitive with little or no evidence of human activity. There should be little or 

no evidence of past timber harvest and the river should be generally inaccessible except 

by trail. There should be no roads or other provision for vehicular access within the river 

corridor. Water quality meets criteria of federally approved state standards. 

• Scenic River - The river should be free from impoundments and the shoreline should be 

largely primitive with no substantial evidence of human activity. Evidence of past or 

current timber harvest is acceptable if the forest appears natural. The river may be 

accessible by roads which occasionally reach or bridge the river. Poor water quality does 

not preclude classification provided a water quality improvement plan exists or is being 

developed. 

• Recreational River – The river may have some development with substantial evidence of 

human activity. This development may include residential and commercial structures, a 

range of agricultural uses, and forest management with evidence of past and ongoing 

timber harvest. The river may be readily accessible by roads and the existence of parallel 

roads and bridge crossings within the river corridor is acceptable. Poor water quality does 

not preclude classification provided a water quality improvement plan exists or is being 

developed. 

Appendix “A” of the DEIS contains the Wild and Scenic River Study Report which 

documents the findings of suitability for a Recreational River classification of the 5.8 mile 

Tellico River segment in North Carolina. In reference to this segment the study states, 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

156 

“Current land uses and management on National Forest and private lands are compatible with 

potential river classifications”. 

The Nantahala Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 5 (LRMP) provides 

general direction and standards for eligible Wild and Scenic River (WSR) management on 

pages III-11 & III-14 through III-19; portions of which state the following: 

• Provide interim protection for eligible rivers which are recommended for further study by 

precluding management activities whose effects could foreclose the potential 

classification. Continue interim protection through the study period and until the rivers 

are designated or released from consideration. (p. III-11 & 14, WSR Management 

General Direction #2) 

• Use the NEPA process to assess probable effects of proposed management activities 

within the 1⁄4 mile corridor. Insure proposed activities do not reduce potential 

classification of the river segments. (p. III-14, #4 & 4a) 

• Manage the Tellico River corridor on Forest lands to retain the values which qualify it for 

the potential classification of Recreation. (p.III-18, #12) 

• Limit motorized vehicles to open roads and trails. (p.III-19, #12c) 

• Allow construction of structures and facilities for intensive recreation use and 

construction of new roads provided the identified outstandingly remarkable values are 

protected. (p. III-19, #12d & 12f) 

In the existing 39.3 mile Upper Tellico OHV Trail System there are 15.3 miles of motorized 

trail and open road within the 1⁄4 mile Tellico River corridor in North Carolina. Those trails 

and roads cross the River 5 times with bridges and once with a ford. It is important to note 

that the trail system was in existence during the 1994 WSR study in essentially the same 

configuration as the current system. Two exceptions to that are the construction of the “New 

Bridge” on Trail 5 to replace “Rough Crossing” ford, and the addition of ATV-only Trail 

10A; 2.5 miles of which are in the river corridor. 

 

3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmental consequences to Wild and Scenic River eligibility are evaluated based on the 

following: 

• Compliance with LRMP management direction and standards for eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers; including provisions for use of NEPA process to assess effects and interim 

protection of outstandingly remarkable values which qualify the Tellico River for WSR 

Recreational classification. 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

With recurrent heavy OHV use on existing trail locations and a continuation of past levels of 

maintenance, water quality may deteriorate. Since this Alternative does not propose 

development of a water quality improvement plan as cited in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System Recreational classification criteria, it could be argued that this component of 

the criteria would not be met. If so, outstandingly remarkable values would not be maintained 

and compliance with LRMP direction would not be possible. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

157 

Alternatives B, C, D, E & F: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roads, motorized trails, bridges, structures and recreation facilities within the eligible WSR 

corridor do not preclude the Tellico River from retaining its classification as a Recreational 

River segment under guidelines of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Activities proposed in Alternatives B, C, D, E & F comply with LRMP WSR management 

direction and standards; and would maintain outstandingly remarkable recreation values 

identified in the WSR Study. 

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives A-F

All past, current, and foreseeable future actions within the analysis area were considered for 

cumulative effects to the Tellico River’s Wild and Scenic River eligibility. Other proposed 

actions include paving a 4000 ft. segment of Davis Creek Road at its Northern end, and 

construction of a bridge on Trail 4 where it crosses the Tellico River at Fain Ford. Even if 

implemented in conjunction with Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, or F, neither the paving nor 

bridge would affect Tellico River WSR eligibility. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

158 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

159 

3.9 Heritage Resources 

3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The name “Tellico” derives from the Cherokee word “Talikwa” (Mooney 1891) which has 

been interpreted to mean “plains” (Bassett 1999) or possibly wide river bottoms. This is a 

most plausible explanation for determining the name origin of Tellico Plains, Tennessee. 

Tellico Plains occupies the former site of the Cherokee town of Great Tellico, which was one 

of the more important towns of the Overhill Cherokee during the 18th century. Two 

important roads met at Great Tellico, the Trading Path and the Seneca Trail Warrior Path 

(Duncan 2003:242). Several very important treaties affecting the future of settlement and 

land ownership were signed at Tellico. The heritage resources analysis area addressed in this 

discussion consists of the presently existing and authorized Upper Tellico River OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) routes, potential new routes, re-routes, parking areas and their 

contiguous acres between Allen Gap, Rocky Top, the Graham County line, the Tennessee 

State line and Jenks Knob. 

The headwaters of the northwest flowing Tellico River originate within the Upper Tellico 

OHV Area. The southwest flowing Beaverdam and Davis Creek headwaters of the Hiwassee 

River originate within the OHV area and pass through the historic Cherokee towns of 

Grandview, Hanging Dog, Unaka and Ogreeta, in Cherokee County, North Carolina. The 

1884 USGS Murphy quadrangle map includes roads and trails that are closely followed by 

the present day routes of Trails #1 and #2. In addition the historic map shows a road along 

the Stateline Ridge. No structures or other cultural improvements other than names of 

watercourses and topographic features are noted within the OHV analysis area on this map. 

Information accumulated from heritage resources / historic properties recorded to date 

demonstrates a long and diverse series of human occupation and land use that spans at least 

the last 12,000 years on the Nantahala National Forest. There more than 700 formally 

recorded archeological sites in Cherokee County, North Carolina. These sites include 

prehistoric (before AD 1500) and historic (after AD 1500) sites. Tribal groups known to use 

the analysis area prehistorically and historically include tribes of the Cherokee and Creek and 

possibly other tribes of the Muskogeon dialect. Contact with European cultures altered the 

human occupation of the region beginning with the influx of European diseases and cultural 

assimilation and finally culminating in the removal of the Cherokee in 1838 along the Trail 

of Tears. Subsequent Euro-American settlement of the area focused on farming, livestock 

grazing, and, to a lesser degree, mining, finally culminating in unregulated commercial 

logging of the analysis area in the period extending from approximately 1900 to 1930. 

Remnants of all these activities and events, both historic and prehistoric, can be found 

throughout the analysis area. Site types range from temporary prehistoric hunting and 

gathering sites such as campsites, hunting sites, and stone quarries and sites of semisedentary or sedentary settlement, to historic sites such as farmsteads, mining sites, and 

lumbering camps. Connecting many of these sites and environments are a network of 

prehistoric and historic Indian trails, trade and military routes, railroad beds, and wagon 

roads and turnpikes (after Bass 2002). In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Tellico 

Plains became the base of operations for logging operations of the Tellico River basin, 

conducted by the Babcock Lumber Company (http://en.wikipedia.org). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

160 

The Upper Tellico OHV Area is a portion of 9,200 acres Tract N-632 acquired from the 

Nature Conservancy in August of 1981. Prior to Conservancy ownership the Tract was 

owned by the Dabo Development Company following Champion and Bemis timber 

companies’ ownership. At the time of Forest Service (FS) acquisition there were 

approximately 80 miles of logging and skid roads, in addition to railroad beds (FS Land 

Files). 

Previous Surveys and Known Heritage Resources 

Thirteen heritage resources have been located within the Upper Tellico OHV area. Eight of 

these are managed as NRHP eligible sites, to be preserved, protected or mitigated prior to 

any impact. Ten additional sites have been reported or are expected based upon high 

probability landforms within the OHV area. See Table 3.8.1b. Prehistoric archeological 

sites 31CE110 and 31CE111 were recorded along Trail 1, Davis Creek Road, in 1979 by 

Forest Service archeologists prior to road reconstruction. The survey for proposed bridge 

replacement along Trails 6 and 7 in 1992 recorded site 31CE312, a well-preserved section of 

historic narrow-gauge logging railroad trusses. In 1993 archeological survey for proposed 

Trails 1, 4 and 5 maintenance located prehistoric site 31CE347. In 2008 sample inventory 

and monitoring for the present project showed that this site and 2 additional prehistoric sites 

along Trails 4 and 11 have been impacted. An additional site was located along Trail 5. In 

1993, survey for the nearby Farmers Branch Timber Sale located prehistoric archeological 

site 31CE330 in proximity to Trail 2. The 1998 Stateline Pay Station archeological survey 

located no heritage resources in the affected portions of Trails 1 and 6. The Archeological 

Survey for Proposed Trail Maintenance in 1999 located 31CE651, a historic logging site and 

yarder along Trail 8 and prehistoric archeological site 31CE650 along Trail #2. Prehistoric 

archeological site 31CE654 was recorded along Trail 8 during the 2000 Tellico Survey for 

Proposed Dispersed Campsite Improvements. Also conducted in 2000, the Heritage 

Resources Survey for the Proposed Jenks Branch Timber Sale, west of Trail 2, located no 

sites. The 2005 Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Farmer Branch Timber Sale, 

west of Trail 1, located no heritage resources. Recent 2008 surveys for reroutes and 

connector trails located no additional sites. Proposed new Trail 13 survey also has been 

completed and 2 sites were located. In addition, 5 sites are in proximity, all of which are 

easily accessible if users drive off the proposed trail. Trail 10A has not had a survey 

conducted along its route and portions of Trails 4, 6 and 8 are un-surveyed. Un-surveyed is 

3.079 acres over .257 mile of trail. It is expected that there are 6 additional unrecorded sites 

along these routes. 

Heritage Resources Surveys

Heritage resources field surveys presently conducted are dependent upon probability, the 

likelihood of a site being present in the expected area of potential effect (APE). Because of 

the historic impacts of OHVs outside trail prisms, re-routing around obstacles, camping along 

trails, and trail maintenance activities that further impact the area, an OHV corridor 100 feet 

in width is considered the APE. The corridor is 50 feet either side of the trail centerline and 

includes all contiguous areas with a 20% or less slope. Probability is based upon the 

following factors including landform, slope, distance to water and stream rank, and resources 

available for use and /or extraction. Probability ratings are developed in consultation with 

the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). Some early surveys did not 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

161 

fully address secondary or indirect impacts and only took into consideration the actual trail 

tread which often consisted of an old road bed or designated user-created trail. Many of 

these routes were not as deep or wide when first surveyed as they are today. Adjacent high 

and moderate probability areas were often not surveyed to determine potential impacts from 

future maintenance, braiding of routes to avoid areas, and unauthorized user created trails. 

The 2008 inventory and monitoring has documented that previously unrecorded sites have 

been impacted and exposed along trails crossing high and moderate probability areas 

adjacent to some previously surveyed trails. 

Table 3.9.1a. Slope Factors for Determining Site Probability and Heritage Resources 

Survey Needs and Intensity

High Probability Moderate Probability Low Probability 

0 – 5% slope 5+ - 20% slope and <30% 

slope within 100 feet of water 

>20% slope and >30% slope 

more than 100 feet from water 

Table 3.9.1b. High and Moderate Probability Ratings For Trails: Miles of Trail 

Crossing Areas of 20% or < Slope and Survey Results 

Trail 

High (0 - 5% slope) & Moderate 

(5+ - 20% slope) Probability 

Mileage 

Percent 

Surveyed 

Site(s) 

Located to 

Date 

1 Tipton Creek 0.640 100% 2 

2 Tipton Knob 0.830 100% 1 

3 Bearpen 0.356 100% 0 

4 Fain Ford 0.706 90% 3 

5 Tellico River 0.580 100% 1 

6 State line Loop 0.240 95% 0 

6 to 5 Connector 0.052 100% 0 

7 Peckerwood 0.026 100% 1 

7 & 5 Reroute 0.103 100% 0 

8 Bob Creek 1.299 90% 0 

9 Mistletoe 

Connector 

0.124 100% 0 

9 Reroute 0.044 100% 0 

10 Round Mountain 0.509 100% 0 

10A Upper Tellico 

River 

0.385 0% 0 

10 Reroute 0.006 100% 0 

11 Chestnut 

Mountain 

1.134 100% 1 

12 Hawk Knob 0.593 100% 0 

13 new trail 0.485 100% 4 

3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Effects to heritage resources can result from all activities that disturb or put use pressure on 

the land. These impacts destroy context by moving and mixing artifacts. Artifacts are often 

broken and no longer identifiable. Previously preserved materials and sites can be destroyed 

by changes in soil depth and moisture content along with exposure to the elements and 

unauthorized collection. 

All activities increase the opportunities for discovery of previously unknown heritage 

resources. Road and trail construction can cause direct impacts to heritage resources. 

Increased access to an area also increases the likelihood of vandalism at archeological sites. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

162 

Recreation developments, construction, and use can directly affect cultural resources. Trail 

construction for OHVs can impact archeological sites as can associated parking lots and 

facilities. 

Environmental consequences to heritage resources are determined based on the current 

resource condition and potential impacts to the resource from exposure, use, and physically 

disturbing activities. Driving across, digging through and excavation are considered direct 

effects, adverse impacts to heritage resources. Construction of parking lots and campgrounds 

as well as all other related facilities are direct effects. Decommissioning of trails may be a 

direct effect to heritage resources. Soil movement, soil compaction, flooding and erosion 

resulting from these activities are direct adverse effects. The removal of vegetation or 

change in species age or type may be an adverse effect on the setting of a historic site. 

Increased access or access at certain times could be adverse impacts to Traditional Cultural 

Properties (TCPs). Recreational use, OHV riding and camping are direct effects. 

Indirect effects may occur when artifacts unintentionally exposed are subjected to 

unauthorized collection, a violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

(ARPA). Increased access to areas is also an indirect effect, making it easier to locate and 

loot sites. Erosion and sedimentation of sites may be an indirect effect from activities in 

other parts of the project’s watershed. 

The cumulative impact of an alternative is the incremental effect of the direct and indirect 

effects of the alternative in the context of the overlapping effects from past, other present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Increased access to and continued exposure of 

artifacts over time and their unauthorized collection can be a cumulative adverse effect. 

The intent of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

1988 and 1999 (NHPA) is to protect National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible 

sites, properties, from adverse effects. 

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Current trail use, off-trail use, maintenance, erosion, and unauthorized artifact collection 

affects heritage resources. Alternative A affects 89.06 acres of high and moderate 

probability landforms known and likely to contain heritage resources over 7.42 miles of the 

trail routes. Nine known sites, 5 of which are considered NRHP eligible and requiring 

mitigation are being impacted. 

 

Cumulative Effects

The currently planned Farmer Branch Timber sale and recent paving of 4,000 feet of Davis 

Creek Road increased access therefore potential exposure of heritage resources. Continued 

use of the 7.42 miles of trail on high or moderate probability landforms would add additional 

likely exposure and potential illegal collection of artifacts. 

Alternative B:

Direct and Indirect Effects
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

163 

Trail use, off-trail use, maintenance, erosion, reroutes (Trails 5, 6 & #7), trail 

decommissioning and unauthorized artifact collection affects heritage resources. 

Decommissioning can be designed and implemented to avoid adverse impacts and preserve 

heritage resources. Alternative B affects 66.6 acres of high and moderate probability 

landforms known and likely to contain heritage resources over 5.55 miles of the trail routes. 

Nine known sites, 5 of which are considered NRHP eligible and requiring mitigation are 

being impacted, and 8 expected/predicted/probable sites requiring mitigation are likely being 

impacted. Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trail use but may result in an increase 

by non-street legal OHVs of user-created trails to access the area, impacting sites in 

proximity to designated trails. 

Cumulative Effects

The currently planned Farmer Branch Timber sale and recent paving of 4,000 feet of Davis 

Creek Road increased access therefore potential exposure of heritage resources. Continued 

use of the 5.55 miles of trail on high or moderate probability landforms would add additional 

likely exposure and potential illegal collection of artifacts. 

Alternative C:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Paving Trail 1 and eliminating all OHV use will decrease effects to heritage resources. 

Decommissioning all other trails may affect 65.36 acres of high and moderate probability 

landforms known and likely to contain heritage resources over 5.477 miles of the trail routes 

that would be converted to system road. Decommissioning can be designed and 

implemented to avoid adverse impacts and preserve heritage resources. Decommissioning by 

disturbing only previously surveyed non-site areas would help preserve significant sites. 

Five NRHP known eligible sites and 8 predicted sites may be impacted. Covering and 

reseeding would help preserve sites. 

Cumulative Effects

The currently planned Farmer Branch Timber sale and recent paving of 4,000 feet of Davis 

Creek Road increased access therefore potential exposure of heritage resources. Continued 

use of the 5.477 miles of trail (converted to system road) on high or moderate probability 

landforms would add additional likely exposure and potential illegal collection of artifacts. 

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trail use but may result in an increase by nonstreet legal OHVs of user-created trails to access the area, impacting sites in proximity to 

designated trails. Trail use, off-trail use, maintenance, erosion, reroutes, trail 

decommissioning and unauthorized artifact collection affects heritage resources. Heavy 

maintenance increases the chances of impacting significant heritage resources. 

Decommissioning can be designed to avoid adverse impacts and preserve sites. Alternative 

D may affect 66.3 acres of high and moderate probability landforms known and likely to 

contain heritage resources over 5.525 miles of the trail routes. Five NRHP known eligible 

sites may be impacted. 

Cumulative Effects
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

164 

The currently planned Farmer Branch Timber sale and recent paving of 4,000 feet of Davis 

Creek Road increased access therefore potential exposure of heritage resources. Continued 

use of the 5.525 miles of trail on high or moderate probability landforms would add 

additional likely exposure and potential illegal collection of artifacts. 

Alternative E:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trail use but may result in an increase by nonstreet legal OHVs of user-created trails to access the area, impacting sites in proximity to 

designated trails. Trail use, off-trail use, maintenance, erosion, reroutes, reconstruction, 

parking lot construction, and unauthorized artifact collection affect heritage resources. 

Heavy maintenance increases the chances of impacting significant heritage resources. 

Alternative E affects 71.76 acres of high and moderate probability landforms known and 

likely to contain heritage resources over 5.813 miles of the trail routes. Five NRHP known 

eligible sites will be impacted 

Cumulative Effects

The currently planned Farmer Branch Timber sale and recent paving of 4,000 feet of Davis 

Creek Road increased access therefore potential exposure of heritage resources. Continued 

use of the 5.813 miles of trail on high or moderate probability landforms would add 

additional likely exposure and potential illegal collection of artifacts. 

Alternative F:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trail use but may result in an increase by nonstreet legal OHVs of user-created trails to access the area, impacting sites in proximity to 

designated trails. Trail use, off-trail use, maintenance, erosion, reroutes, reconstruction, 

parking lot construction, challenge area construction and unauthorized artifact collection 

affect heritage resources. Heavy maintenance increases the chances of impacting significant 

heritage resources. Alternative F affects 77.64 acres of high and moderate probability 

landforms known and likely to contain heritage resources over 6.3 miles of the trail routes. 

Nine NRHP known eligible sites would be impacted. 

Cumulative Effects

The currently planned Farmer Branch Timber sale and recent paving of 4,000 feet of Davis 

Creek Road increased access therefore potential exposure of heritage resources. Continued 

use of the 6.3 miles of trail on high or moderate probability landforms would add additional 

likely exposure and potential illegal collection of artifacts. 

The measure used to weigh the effects of alternatives is the amount of acreage or linear 

distance to be impacted, disturbed, or subjected to other use compared with the probability or 

likelihood of site presence (High, Moderate or Low Probability). 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

165 

Table 3.9.2a Comparison of Trail System Risk by Alternative 

Alternative Miles of High 

& Moderate 

Site 

Probability 

Acres of High 

& Moderate 

Site 

Probability 

Number of 

Known NRHP 

Eligible Sites 

Affected 

Overall 

Calculated 

Risk 

A 7.420 89.06 5 Moderate 

B 5.550 66.60 5 Moderate 

C 5.447 65.36 5 Moderate 

D 5.525 66.30 5 Moderate 

E 5.813 69.76 5 Moderate 

F 6.300 77.64 9 High 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

166 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

167 

3.10 Human Health and Safety 

3.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Human health and safety is analyzed for two very different environments; conditions 

associated with Trail 1, and conditions associated with the remainder of the OHV System 

(Trails 2-12). 

Trail 1 is a double lane mixed-use road open to all traffic year round. It extends from Allen 

Gap parking area to the NC-TN state line. It has dual designation as both forest road and 

forest trail, allowing both highway-legal and non-highway-legal vehicles on it. It is rated for 

travel at 20 mph; however, there are numerous locations where slower speeds are necessary. 

It is maintained regularly; in February 2008 a maintenance contract addressed critical needs 

on the portion of Trail 1 that accesses private property, as well as sections of Davis Creek 

Road (the extension of Trail 1 southward toward the Hanging Dog community). Further work 

was done in June 2008 to grade, add surface material and improve drainage along Trail 1 

north of Allen Gap within the trail system. In some sections of the road, the travelway is 

narrow, curved, and steep with very limited sight distance and sharp switchbacks. 

Trails 2-12 range from level, well graveled one lane two-wheel drive roads to deeply 

entrenched boulder fields which require specialized four-wheel drive equipment to traverse. 

In some cases it is only possible to travel in one direction on the trail. Deeply entrenched 

sections may be incised as much as 15-20 feet below ground level, with unstable banks and 

large trees with unstable root systems perched overhead. 

Accidents and injuries in the OHV System are rarely if ever reported to the agency. Lowspeed vehicle rollovers are common, as regularly documented on several Internet video 

websites such as Youtube.com, IH8mud.com, Liveleak.com, etc. It is likely that there are 

numerous minor injuries associated with these rollovers that are not reported. Anecdotal 

information indicates that there may be a higher proportion of accidents and injuries 

associated with ATVs than with OHVs; however, there is no clear documentation to support 

this. A review of Cherokee County Emergency Medical Services records did not show a 

clear trend in accidents and injuries (Cherokee Emergency Services, 2008). The table below 

shows EMS calls originating in either the Tellico area or an unspecified address on Davis 

Creek Road, and are listed as wrecks, traffic incidents, missing persons or trauma. 

Table 3.10.1.1 Summary of Tellico-area Emergency Calls to Cherokee County EMS 

Year “Wreck” “Traffic 

Incident” 

“Missing 

Person” 

“Trauma” Unspecified 

2003 2 

2004 1 3 

2005 1 

2006 

2007 2 2 1 

2008 

During maintenance contract implementation in June 2008, certain segments of the trail 

system were found to be unsafe to work in. Safety concerns are described in a letter from the 

contractor (Satterfield 2008). It states “the trail (Trail 12) is very dangerous due to the fact it 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

168 

is steep and about 10 feet in a gulley with large trees that have exposed stumps and root 

systems overhanging the trail with large bedrock in most of the trail. The large size and 

amount of rock would make it necessary for dirt pads to be used to stabilize the equipment 

with dirt from existing bank and that runs a great risk of bringing down the trees onto the 

trail, operators and equipment. The steepness of the terrain will not allow room to dig water 

breaks to the outside of the trail or silt basins without trail widening. Water breaks in the 

existing trail would require tree and vegetation removal to remove borrow dirt for 

construction. ” 

Additional trail segments not referenced in the letter were also deemed by the contractor to 

be unsafe, and therefore were not included in the maintenance work done in June 2008 

(Jones, email correspondence, 2008). These include: 

Table 3.10.1.2: Trail miles not maintained by contractor due to safety concerns 

Trail Distance not 

maintained (miles) 

2 0.38 

7 0.07 

8 0.68 

9 0.09 

11 0.87 

12 1.2 

Total 3.29 

3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative A: 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The human health and safety environment would either not change, or would deteriorate over 

time. Minor incidents would continue, with an occasional more serious accident. The highest 

potential for serious accident or injury is on Trail 1, where there is mixed use of ATV’s, non 

street legal 4WD’s, OHVs and standard street legal vehicles of all types. 

Maintenance and use of segments identified in Table 3.10.1.2 would continue to present a 

safety hazard to contractors, employees, partners and the public. 

 Alternative B:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proportion of most difficult trails as compared to more difficult and easy trails would 

decrease. The likelihood of conflict between vehicle types would be reduced on Trail 1, as 

ATV’s and other non-highway-legal vehicles would be removed. Trailering of OHVs/ATVs 

vehicles north to the Trail 6 trailhead parking area would increase, potentially increasing 

conflicts on sharp curves if speed limits and caution signage are not obeyed. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

169 

With paving, travel speeds on Trail 1 are likely to increase, regardless of the posted speed 

limit. Motorcycle use is likely to increase, adding diversity in speed and maneuverability 

among vehicles on the road. Road design for correct banking and surfacing, guardrail 

installation and caution signage would be critical. Law enforcement patrolling would need to 

be increased. Access and response times for emergency services would be improved. 

Maintenance of challenge areas on Trail 11, as identified in Table 3.10.1.2 would continue to 

present a safety hazard to contractors, employees, and partners. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

All ATV and other non-highway- legal vehicles would be removed from the trail system. 

The majority of use would be on Trails 4, 5 and 6. These trails would be rated as easy and 

less conducive to accidents and injuries. 

The effect of paving Trail 1 would be the same as for Alternative B. This alternative 

eliminates the maintenance safety hazards associated with the trail segments shown in Table 

3.10.1.2. 

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects would be generally the same as for Alternative B. However, this alternative 

eliminates the maintenance safety hazards associated with the trail segments shown in Table 

3.10.1.2. 

Alternative E 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Eliminating non-highway- legal vehicles on Trail 1 while adding parking capacity on Trail 4 

would reduce trailering of ATVs and other vehicles to the Trail 6 parking area. The potential 

for accidents on Trail 1 involving mixed-use vehicles would be reduced. The frequency of 

low speed rollovers and associated injuries on the most difficult trail sections would be 

similar to Alternative A. 

The effect of paving Trail 1 would be the same as for Alternative B. 

Maintenance of challenge areas on Trail 11, as identified in Table 3.10.1.2 would continue to 

present a safety hazard to contractors, employees, and partners. Other non-maintainable areas 

referenced in Table 3.10.1.2 would be stabilized and present less of a safety hazard to 

contractors, employees, and partners. 

Alternative F 

Direct and Indirect Effects
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

170 

The effects would be the same as for Alternative E. 

All Alternatives 

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that should be analyzed in the context 

of human health and safety include: 

• Davis Creek Road paving: 4000 feet of Davis Creek Road/Trail 1 will be paved in 2009, 

from the State Line to the Tipton Creek Bridge. This section of road is immediately 

adjacent to the Tellico River; paving will reduce erosion and sedimentation into the 

Tellico River, and manage runoff more effectively. There are no immediate plans to 

restrict non-highway-legal vehicles from this portion of Davis Creek Road/Trail 1, 

pending the results of the current analysis and decision. Associated with the current 

analysis, this paving project is also the first step in a proposal to pave all of Davis Creek 

Road where it traverses National Forest lands. 

• Farmer Branch Timber Sale: This sale is located within the project area, and consists of 

106 acres across six sale units. One unit is immediately adjacent to the Allen Gap 

parking area, one is accessed by Forest Road 403 which leads off of the Allen Gap 

parking area, and three units are immediately adjacent to Davis Creek Road/Trail 1. The 

sale will commence in Fall 2008, and extend through Fall 2011. The timber sale contract 

will include maintenance of sale-related impacts to Forest Road 403, Allen Gap parking 

area and Davis Creek Road. 

Alternatives B, D, E, F 

Timing of the Davis Creek Road paving should be coordinated with timber sale activities, to 

ensure that loading and hauling of forest products does not damage new road surface, reduce 

the benefits of the paving or create safety issues. Mixed use on the portion of Trail 1 to be 

paved in 2009 may temporarily affect safety if posted travel advisories are not complied with 

Table 3.10.2.1 Summary of Trail System Safety by Alternative. 

Alternative Safety- Trail and Road Users Safety- Maintenance and Management

A Less safe as system deteriorates- expect 

challenge area injuries 

Less safe as system deteriorates 

B Safer than A – requires traffic control 

compliance 

Increase- eliminates most nonmaintainable segments 

C Safer than A– requires traffic control 

compliance 

Increase- eliminates all nonmaintainable segments 

D Safer than A– requires traffic control 

compliance 

Increase- eliminates all nonmaintainable segments 

E Safer than A– requires traffic control 

compliance- expect challenge area injuries 

Increase- non-maintainable areas 

would be stabilized 

F Safer than Alt A – requires traffic control 

compliance-expect challenge area injuries 

Increase- non-maintainable areas 

would be stabilized 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

171 

3.11 Economics 

3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (Current Economic Conditions)

This section discusses the benefits of the trail system to the local economy and is based on 

site- specific sources of information. A study of local businesses and forest visitors was 

conducted by the University of Tennessee in the summer of 2008 (English, Menard and 

Jensen 2008). 

Businesses 

The survey of businesses resulted in 78 responses from Cherokee County NC, and 8 

responses collectively from Clay County NC, Fannin County GA, Monroe County TN and 

Polk County TN (Fly 2008). The majority of respondents represented real estate sales 

(34.4%), rental cabins (26.2%), retail (18.9%), construction (10.0%), automotive 

repair/service (7.8%). Reported percentages of sales to OHV and ATV users varied, with no 

statistically supportable trends. Sales to “rock crawlers-rail buggies” ranged from zero (53% 

of respondents) to 10% (9.4% of respondents). Sales to “dirt bike/ATV owners” ranged 

from zero (45.3% of respondents) to 20% (10.9% of respondents). 

Impact of Fuel Costs 

In the current economic environment, attitudes related to fuel prices and the impact they may 

have on future use and revenue are relevant. Of businesses surveyed, 81% reported a decline 

in sales from April-June 2008 as compared to the same period in 2006 and 2007. Businesses 

attributed the decline primarily to the general economy, gasoline prices and trail closures. 

The three campground owners or operators who responded listed the trail closures as the 

most important contributing factor to the sales decline; the other businesses listed the general 

economy and gasoline process as more important. 

Users in the survey discussed in Chapter 3.5 reported different perspectives on the impact 

that fuel prices had on their recreation decisions. Onsite OHV/ATV users, by virtue of being 

in the area during the survey period, were demonstrating that they would continue to use the 

area at least to some degree. However, there was only a small difference between their 

responses and those of the offsite users. Fuel prices seem to have the most effect on the trout 

anglers. This is consistent with the annual income data summarized in Table 3.5.1.2. 

OHV/ATV users are less influenced by increases in fuel prices than anglers, who report 

lower mean annual incomes. Offsite users are somewhat more affected than onsite users. 

Table 3.11.1.1 Summary of Influence of Fuel Prices. 

Effect of fuel prices OHV/ATV users Onsite OHV/ATV users Offsite Trout anglers 

Ride/fish less often 17.9 23.1 31.7 

Ride/fish about the same 80.5 73.6 65.9 

Ride/fish more often 1.6 3.3 2.4 

Influence choice of location 15.3 27.5 16.5 

During the survey period, gasoline prices for the area were averaging $3.90-$4.00 per gallon 

(New York Times, June 9, 2008). Price increases well into the $4.00-$5.00 range and beyond 

are likely to have a more significant impact on visitor choices than were reflected in the 

survey, especially for non-local users. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

172 

Comparison of Economic Impacts 

OHV users generate roughly four times the economic impact to the region as trout anglers. 

Within the OHV user group, the “rock crawler” group generates four to five times the 

economic impact of ATV users. These proportions hold true whether examining the annual 

value of goods and services (industrial output) or employee compensation, income, and 

various taxes (value added). Overall, “rock crawlers” generated roughly 68% of the direct 

expenditures among the users surveyed. The economic impact analysis indicates that OHV’s 

contribute over $3 million annually in direct impacts to the three-county area, generating 

about $320,000 in indirect business taxes. Trout anglers contribute around $ 735,000 

annually, generating about $81,000 in indirect business taxes. 

To put this in perspective, it is important to examine the total economic picture for the three 

county area studied. Tourism in the three county study area contributes 8.6% of the total 

economy. According to English, et al, this includes scenic and sightseeing transportation and 

support activities; motion picture/video industries; independent artists, writers, and performers; 

promotion of performing arts/sports; museums, historical sites, and parks; fitness and recreational 

sports centers; other amusement, gambling, and recreational industries; hotels/motels; 

campgrounds; and restaurants. Within the tourism-related sector of the economy, OHV use and 

trout angling represent a relatively small segment of the economy.

Table 3.11.1.2 Summary of Economic Contributions. 

County Total 

Economy 

(in million 

$) 

Contribution 

from 

Tourism (in 

million $) 

Contribution 

from 

Tourism 

(%) 

Contribution 

from OHV 

(million $/ 

%) 

Contribution from 

Trout Anglers 

(million $/ 

%) 

Cherokee County 

NC 1,269.5 43.7 3.4 

Graham County 

NC 348.3 23.0 6.6 

Monroe County TN 2,656.0 302.8 11.4 

Three county study 

area 4,273.8 369.5 8.6 4.8 

0.1 

1.1 

0.03 

Following is a breakdown of the economic impact by user type. Locally the impact may be 

significant, particularly related to job creation. One mitigating factor is that the number of 

jobs reflects portions of jobs which may also support other segments of the economy. The 

economic benefit study assumed a multiplier of 0.37; that is, for every job created by 

expenditures based on OHV use, another 0.37 job is created in other industries in the region. 

From a regional perspective, the impact is relatively small. 

Table 3.11.1.3 Summary of Annual Economic Impacts by User Type 

Economic Indicators Total 

Impacts 

Total Industrial Output ($) 

Trout Angler 1,137,561

All OHV 4,790,698

Total Value Added ($) 

Trout Angler 661,822

All OHV 2,736,093
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

173 

Employment (# jobs) 

Trout Angler 18

All OHV 54

Terms used in Table 3.11.1.3, are defined as follows: 

Total Impact (ie. positive impact, benefit or contribution) figures shown include: 

Direct Impacts: attributable specifically to new expenditures in the region, such as a visitor 

from outside the region renting a cabin 

Indirect Impacts: businesses expenditures on raw materials, supplies and other operating 

expenditures, such as a local restaurant purchasing food supplies to serve visitors 

Induced Impacts: new income that is spent and re-spent within the local economy, such as 

local store employees who serve visitors, spending their salary within the community 

Economic Indicator Unit of Measure 

Total Industrial Output: annual dollar value of goods and services produced by OHV- and 

angler-related tourism. 

Total Value Added: estimated employee compensation, proprietary income, other income, 

and indirect business taxes (consists of excise taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, and sales 

taxes paid by businesses) 

Employment: estimated number of total wage and salary jobs (both full and part time as 

well as self-employed) created through direct, indirect or induced expenditure- this includes 

portions of jobs which add up to the number shown. 

The economic analysis examined the overall economic impact of each use surveyed. The 

use-specific impact value was determined by dividing the total impact value shown in Table 

3.11.1.3 by the number of anglers or OHV vehicles. As shown in the table below, rock 

crawlers generate the most economic impact of the three types of use. 

Table 3.11.1.4 Summary of Total Economic Impact by Vehicle or User 

User Type Estimated economic impact 

Rock-Crawler - per vehicle $ 413 

ATV- per vehicle $ 308 

Trout Angler $ 143 

Vehicle Type 

Rock-Crawler only: Dune buggies, rail buggies, modified street-legal 4-wheel drive 

vehicles/trucks, and rock-crawler vehicles 

ATV only: Off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, and utility terrain vehicles (Mule, Rhino, 

Kubota, etc.) 

Proportion of Forest-wide Recreation Users Served

According to the US Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report 2006 

revision, the National Forests in North Carolina has approximately 8,564,000 site visits annually. 

In fiscal year 2008, 7,488 vehicle passes were sold for Upper Tellico OHV Area. With an 

estimated 85% fee compliance and a multiplication factor of 1.5 users per vehicle, Upper Tellico 

OHV Area receives approximately 13,214 site visits annually. As compared to the overall 

National Forests in North Carolina visitation, this represents just 0.0015% of National Forest 

recreation use in the state. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

174 

Other Uses

The two primary user groups of the Upper Tellico OHV Trail System and surrounding area were 

the focus of this economic analysis. There are many other uses of the area. Some of them are 

discussed in Chapter 3.5, and include camping, picnicking, photography, hiking, hunting and 

others. To some extent these uses are embedded in the responses from OHV users and trout 

anglers, as they conduct many of these activities while pursuing their primary interest. 

Additional economic benefits are derived from vegetation management activities in the area, 

with the most recent example being the Farmer Branch Timber Sale. A discussion of the 

economic impacts of that project is presented in the environmental assessment (Farmer Branch 

Project, 2006, page 51). 

3.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The economic impact analysis is based on a “snapshot in time” during the 2008 survey 

period. Comparison of alternatives considers probable trends in economic impact based on 

future management (same, more, less than 2008). User survey results discussed in more 

detail in Chapter 5 (Tables 3.5.2.2 and 3.5.2.4-9) support these conclusions. 

Economic data was collected in 2008, a year that has been atypical compared to 

impacts/benefits common in 2007 and before. Contributing factors include trail closures, 

public concern over future trail system management, and general economic conditions. 

However, Alternative A is based on 2007 trail management, which does not include trail 

closures. Therefore, Alternative A may generate increased economic benefits relative to 

2008. 

There would likely be a long term benefit from Alternatives B-F in expanding the region’s 

scenic drive network, though it is difficult to quantify at this point in time. Additional studies 

would be required to determine the level of interest and type and number of users who are 

likely to be attracted to this opportunity. 

Capital improvement expenses range from $468,750 for Alternative A to $5,545,794 for 

Alternative F. Capital improvement expenses (depending on the alternative) include 

upgrading Tipton Creek Road, constructing trails, upgrading roads to meet standards, and 

improving parking areas. Capital improvement expenses also include (depending on the 

alternative) closing and decommissioning roads and trails, and stabilizing the 

decommissioned routes to eliminate future sedimentation. Capital improvement expenses 

would provide a one-time benefit to the region in contracting, salary, materials and supplies, 

and other expenditures. 

Average annual maintenance expenses range from $ 221,056 for Alternative C to 

$ 1,241,328 for Alternative F. Operations, maintenance and program management expenses 

include on-the-ground maintenance, patrolling, monitoring of the trail system and other 

resources, and oversight. These expenditures would be distributed over time. With external 

(non-appropriated) revenue sources funding the expenses, the impact to other segments of the 

recreation, trails and roads programs on the Nantahala National Forest would be minimal. 

However, without significant long term commitment of external revenue sources, there 

would be a commensurately higher impact on other segments of those programs. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

175 

Competition for limited grant funds would divert funding from other OHV trails in North 

Carolina. 

Impacts of each alternative 

In evaluating the economic impact (or benefit) of each alternative, the estimated “Utilized 

Rider Days” from the Financial Analysis Model discussed in more detail in Appendix C 

(Wright 2008) is used as the basis for predicting the level of use for each alternative. Using 

the per-vehicle impact above, Table 3.11.1.5 shows the impact by alternative. 

Note: $308 per trip is used as a conservative estimate of economic impact, rather than $413. 

There is no data available to predict quantitatively the number or proportion of future rock 

crawlers vs. ATV users based on alternative. Use by rock crawlers would generate increased 

impact over what is shown below. 

Economic impact of angler use by alternative is not examined here. Survey results indicated 

that angler use would not vary dramatically based on future management of the area (see 

Table 3.5.2.2). Therefore, it is not of use in comparing alternatives. 

 

Table 3.11.2.1 Summary of Impact/Benefit from OHV Use by Alternative 

User Type Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F 

a. Utilized Rider Days 11,117 7,698 0 6,506 15,159 15,159 

b. Avg # of riders per vehicle 1.75 1.5 0 1.5 1.75 1.75 

c. # Vehicle-days (a /b) 6,353 5,132 0 4,337 8,662 8,662 

d. Impact per vehicle ($) 308 308 0 308 308 308 

e. Total impact (c x d) 1,956,724 1,580,656 0 1,335,796 2,667,896 2,667,896

Alternatives A-F 

External economic factors such as higher fuel prices may influence the effects of all 

alternatives. According to Table 3.11.1.1, 23.1% of the OHV and ATV users surveyed off 

site responded that they would use the area less often with increased fuel prices, though no 

threshold was identified. This factor likely influences Alternatives A, E, F more, where the 

trail system would be more attractive to users traveling from outside the region, but the 

difference in effect would be difficult to quantify. 

Alternatives B-F: 

These alternatives include the upgrade and paving of Tipton Creek Road. It is likely that this 

action will draw more visitors to the area seeking a scenic driving experience with streetlegal vehicles such as passenger cars and motorcycles. The Cherohala Skyway and other 

scenic routes are nearby, and this route could become a logical extension of the regional 

scenic travelway network. In addition, the route would draw those seeking a shorter or 

alternative route between Monroe County TN and Cherokee County NC. The overall effect 

of this action is likely to have a positive, and potentially important impact on the region’s 

economy. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

176 

Alternative A: 

Economic benefits to the region would likely increase compared to 2008 levels, but remain 

comparable to historic levels. 

Alternative B:

Economic benefits to the region would likely decrease compared to 2008 levels. Initial 

implementation would cost $2,863,098 (from Appendix C). This implementation expense 

would provide a short-term influx of funds generated by contracting, purchase of materials 

and similar actions. In the long run, revenue is likely to decrease due a smaller user base. 

Alternative C: 

Economic benefits to the region would likely decrease compared to 2008 levels. Initial 

implementation would cost $1,946,273 (from Appendix C). This implementation expense 

would provide a short-term influx of funds generated by contracting, purchase of materials 

and similar actions. In the long run, revenue is likely to decrease due a smaller user base. 

OHV-based revenue would be eliminated, but may be compensated for to some extent by an 

increase in other uses, as discussed above. 

. 

Alternative D:

Economic benefits to the region would likely decrease compared to 2008 levels. Initial 

implementation would cost $2,858,483 (from Appendix C). This implementation expense 

would provide a short-term influx of funds generated by contracting, purchase of materials 

and similar actions. In the long run, revenue is likely to decrease due a smaller user base. 

. 

Alternative E:

Economic benefits to the region would likely increase over 2008 levels. Initial 

implementation would cost $4,211,396 (from Appendix C). This implementation expense 

would provide a short-term influx of funds generated by contracting, purchase of materials 

and similar actions. In the long run, revenue would continue to increase due to an expanded 

user base. 

Alternative F:

Economic benefits to the region would likely increase over 2008 levels. Initial 

implementation would cost $5,545,794 (from Appendix C). This implementation expense 

would provide a short-term influx of funds generated by contracting, purchase of materials 

and similar actions. In the long run, revenue would continue to increase due to an expanded 

user base. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

177 

List of Preparers and Agencies/Persons Consulted

Preparers: 

Candace Wyman Project Coordinator 

Ruth Berner Planning Team Leader 

James B Jones Engineering 

Sheryl Bryan Aquatic Wildlife/Terrestrial Wildlife 

Brady Dodd Soil and Water 

Erik Crews Recreation and Scenery 

Jason Farmer Aquatic Wildlife 

Steve Hendricks Recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Duke Rankin Plants 

Doreen Miller Terrestrial Wildlife 

Rodney Snedeker Heritage Resources and Tribal Relations 

Drew Selig Cartography 

Bill Champion Operations Forester 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

178 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

179 

References Cited 

Alexander, G. R. and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 6: 9-23. 

Argent, D.G. and P.A. Flebbe. 1999. Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory 

streams. Fisheries Research. 39: 253-262. 

Arkoosh, M.R., E. Casillas, E. Clemons, A.N. Kagley, R. Olsen, P. Reno, and J.E. Stein. 1998. 

Effects of pollution on fish diseases: potential impacts on salmonid populations. Journal of 

Aquatic Animal Health. 10: 182-190. 

Ashcraft, A. Scott & Robert O. Noel. 1994. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed 

Farmers Branch Timber Sale. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, 

Asheville, NC. Unpublished report. 

Balon, E. K. 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: A proposal and definition. Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32: 821-864. 

Barrett, J.C., G.D. Grossman, and J. Rosenfeld. 1992. Turbidity-induced changes in reactive 

distance of rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 121: 437-443. 

Bass, Quentin. 2004. In: Cherokee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Bulletin R8-MB 114. Forest Service, USDA, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. 

Bassett, Jill M. 1998. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Stateline Pay Station. Forest 

Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report. 

Bassett, Jill M. 1999. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Tellico OHV Maintenance 

Project. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. 

Unpublished report. 

Bassett, Jill M. 2000. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Jenks Branch Timber Sale. 

Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished 

report. 

Bassett, Jill M. 2000. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Tellico Dispersed Campsite 

Improvements. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. 

Unpublished report. 

Besler, D. A., A.P. Wheeler, M.G. Martin. 2007. A summary of wild trout population 

monitoring in the Tellico River watershed, 1994 – 2006. North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission. Raleigh. 

Borawa, J.C. 1999. Creel survey of South Toe River managed under a catch-and-release singlehook artificial flies only regulation, 1993. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 

Raleigh. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

180 

Borawa, J.C. and M.M. Clemmons. 1998. Evaluation of a wild trout regulation with a natural 

bait allowance. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh. 

Brody, A.J. and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North 

Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17(1):5-10. 

Cherokee County Emergency Services. 2008. Response Register. 

Clark, M.E., K.A. Rose, D.A. Levine, W.W. Hargrove. 2001. Predicting climate change effects 

on Appalachian trout: Combining GIS and individual-based modeling. Ecological 

Applications. 11: 161-178. 

Clinton, Barry D. and James M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four 

road surface types in the southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 

27, No. 1. 

Coats, R.N., Miller, T.O. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watersheds: A hydrologic 

and regulatory dilemma. Environmental Management. 5, 147-160. 

Curry, R.A. and W.S. MacNeill. 2004. Population-level responses to sediment during early life 

in brook trout. Journal of the North American Bethological Society. 23: 140-150. 

Dodson, Stanley I., Timothy F. H. Allen, Stephen R. Carpenter, Anthony R. Ives, Robert L. 

Jeanne, James F. Kitchell, Nancy E. Langston, and Monica G. Turner. 1998. Ecology. 

Oxford University Press, New York. 434 pp. 

Dolloff, C.A., D.G. Hankin, G.H. Reeves. 1993. Basinwide estimation of habitat and fish 

populations in streams. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 

General Technical Report SE-83. 

Duncan, Barbara. 2003. Historic Cherokee Trails. UNC Press, Chapel Hill. 

Durghom, Pamela. 1979. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Davis Creek Road. Forest 

Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report. 

Dyson, David M.& Rodney J. Snedeker. 1992. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed 

Tusquitee ORV Trails & Tellico – Tipton Bridge Replacement. Forest Service, USDA, 

National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report. 

Dyson, David M.& Rodney J. Snedeker. 1993. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed 

Tusquitee ORV Trails Maintenance. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North 

Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report. 

Eaton, J.G. and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in 

streams of the United States. Limnology and Oceanography. 41: 1109-1115. 

Elliott, K.J., J.M. Vose, J.D. Knoepp, D.W. Johnson, W.T. Swank, W. Jackson. 2008. Simulated 

effects of sulfur deposition on nutrient cycling in Class I wilderness areas. J. Environmental 

Quality 37: 1419-1431. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

181 

Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee 

Press. Knoxville, Tennessee. Pages 257-259 and 350-352. 

Forest Service, USDA 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing decisions about managing the National 

Forest Transportation System. Miscellaneous Report FS-643, Washington, D.C. Pp. 48-67. 

Forest Service, USDA. 2001. Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends, 

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Draft Internal Document, National Forests in 

North Carolina, Asheville, NC. 

Forest Service, USDA. 2005. Management Indicator Species Report. National Forests in North 

Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report. 

Forest Service, USDA. 2006. FSM 2364.62 – Management of national rivers inventory rivers. 

Washington DC. 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. Road construction and maintenance. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19: 297-323. 

Goff, F. G., G. A. Dawson, J. J. Rochow. 1982. Site examination for threatened and endangered 

plant species. Environ. Manage. 6: 307-316. 

Handley, C. O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pages 539-616 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's 

endangered species:proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing 

Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellico_Plains%2C_Tennessee. Accessed 2008. 

Jones III, E.B.D., G.S. Helfman, J.O. Harper, and P.V. Bolstad. 1999. Effects of riparian forest 

removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conservation Biology. 13: 

1454-1465. 

Kestler, Maureen A., Thomas Knight, and Audrey S. Krat. 2000. Thaw weakening and load 

restriction practices on low volume roads. US Army Corp of Engineers, Cold Regions 

Research and Engineering Laboratory, ERDC/CRREL TR-00-6. 

Kime, D.E. 1995. The effects of pollution on reproduction in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and 

Fisheries. 5: 52-96. 

Krein, A. and M. Schorer. 2000. Road runoff pollution by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

and its contribution to river sediments. Water Resources. 34: 4110-4115. 

Kulp, M. and S. Moore. Brook trout fishing study summary. 

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/upload/fishing-study.pdf. Accessed August 21, 

2008. 

Mahan, Justin. 2008. Soil Assessment Activities, Upper Tellico OHV Trails 2, 7, and 9 Repost. 

Mountain Environmental Group. August 13, 2008. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

182 

Merchat,C.E. 1993. Geologic maps of Cherokee, Graham, and Swain Counties, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Geological Survey, Asheville Regional Office [internal office report]. 9 pp. 

Merritt, J. F. 1987. Guide to the mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 

PA.

Meyer, C.B., M.D. Sparkman, and B.A. Klatte. 2005. Sand seals in coho salmon redds: Do 

they improve egg survival? North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25: 105-

121. 

Mitchell, Horace L., Dyson. 2005. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Farmer Branch 

Timber Sale. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. 

Unpublished report. 

Mitchell, M.S. , J.W. Zimmerman, and R.A. Powell. 2002. Test of a habitat suitability index for 

black bears in the southern Appalachians. Wildlife Socirty Bulletin. 30(3):794-808. 

Mitchell, M.S. and R.A. Powell. 2003. Response of black bears to forest management. Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 67(4): 692-705. 

Mooney, James. 1982 edition of 1892 publication. Myths of the Cherokee and Sacred Formulas 

of the Cherokees. Bureau of American Ethnology 1890. pages 79 – 81, 84 – 85. 

Moran, J.D. and C.N. Roghair. 2006. Stream channel and habitat attributes in the National 

Forests in North Carolina before and after the hurricane flooding events of 2004. Center for 

Aquatic Technology Transfer. 246 pages. 

Murphy, M.L., R.A. Heintz, J.W. Short, M.L. Larsen, and S.D. Rice. 1999. Recovery of pink 

salmon spawning areas after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society. 128: 909-918. 

NatureServe. 2008. Collective species database maintained by the Nature Conservancy, located 

at www.natureserve.org. 

NC DENR. 2007. NC DENR – Division of water quality “ Redbook” Surface waters and 

wetlands standards, NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200 & .0300. Pp. 

10 & 22. 

NC DFR. 2007. N.C. Division of Forest Resources Forestry Leaflet #WQ–1, December 2007. 

Pp. 2. 

NC DFR. 2006. North Carolina Forestry Best Management Practices Manual to protect water 

quality. FM-08-01. Chapter 8. pages 11 & 117. 

North Carolina Geologic Survey. (unpublished document) and Geologic map of Southwestern 

NC including adjoining southeastern Tennessee and northern Georgia: Leonard S. Weiner 

and Carl E. Merschat. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

183 

NRCS 1998. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Forestry Manual, September 

1998. Pp. 537-6 – 537-8. 

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology (Third Edition). Saunders, New York, New York. 

Roghair, C.N., J.D. Moran, and D.R. Nuckols. 2003. Guide to stream habitat characterization 

using the BVET methodology in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, NC. Center 

for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 26 pages. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Page 8-9. 

Snyder, K.U.; Sullivan, T.J.; Webb, J.R.; Jackson, B. 2004. Availablity of model input data for 

MAGIC model application to acid-sensitive streams in National Forest within 6th level HUC 

watersheds in North Carolina. Report prepared for the USDA Forest Service. E&S 

Environmental Chemistry, Inc., Corvallis, OR. 

Sullivan, T.J. B.J. Cosby, K.U. Snyder, A.T. Herlihy, and B. Jackson. 2007. Model-based 

assessment of the effects of acidic depositon on sensitive watershed resources in the 

National Forests in North Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Report prepared for the 

USDA Forest Service. E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc., Corvallis, OR. see 

http://199.128.173.141/acid_dep/. 

Sullivan, T.J., B.J. Cosby, J.R. Webb, K.U. Snyder, A.T. Herlihy, A.J. Bulger, E.H. Gilbert, and 

D. Moore. 2002. Assessment of the effects of acidic deposition on aquatic resources in the 

southern Appalachian Mountains. Report prepared for the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains Initiative (SAMI). E&S Environmental Chemistry, Inc., Corvallis, OR. 

Sweka, J.A. and K.J. Hartman. 2001. Influence of turbidity on brook trout reactive distance and 

foraging success. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 130: 138-146. 

Trombulak, S. C, C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30. 

USGS Topographic Maps. 1884. 

Van Horn, M.A., R.M. Gentry, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Patterns of ovenbird (Seiurus 

aurocapillus) pairing success in Missouri forest tracts. The Auk. 112(1):98-106. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control. American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 7. pages 81-96. 

White, J.L. and B.C. Harvey. 2007. Winter feeding success of stream trout under different 

streamflow and turbidity conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 

1187-1192. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

184 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

185 

Appendix A

CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION 

Trail 1 – Tipton Creek 

The switchbacks (survey stations 6,400 ft. 

through 8,000 ft.) cannot be maintained 

adequately as an aggregate surfaced road. 

Repeated reconstruction has failed to 

resolve the issues associated with the steep 

grade. The switchbacks make it very 

difficult for ordinary vehicles to traverse the 

road and nearly impossible for vehicles 

with trailers. Sections are in close proximity 

to Tipton Creek. With high traffic volumes 

and unauthorized high speeds, along with 

wheels spinning to gain traction through the 

switchbacks, Trail 1 is a high sediment 

source. Hardening the road surface such as 

with pavement would alleviate much of this 

problem. The drawback, however, is that 

ATVs are not compatible with paved 

surfaces. So an alternate way for ATVs to 

access the system from State Line parking 

area would be required. 

Harden road surface with pavement or 

other appropriate surface material to 

eliminate sedimentation potential and 

reduce maintenance needs. Add trail system 

access for ATVs at the northern entrance 

near the NC-TN state line (if Trail 1 is 

paved ATV’s could not use it to access the 

system). Remove Trail 1 from the OHV 

System but retain as an open through-road 

from North Carolina into Tennessee for 

highway-legal vehicles. 

Trail 2 – Tipton Knob 

The section from its northern intersection 

with Trail 1 for about 3/5ths of a mile is all 

draining into the adjacent Jenks Branch. It 

would require extraordinary engineering 

design at high cost to fix this, since it 

involves the area known as the Rock 

Garden, a wide stretch of entrenched 

bouldery rubble with steep eroding banks. 

The banks would be exceptionally hard to 

stabilize long-term and the cost of 

maintenance of such extreme installations is 

unknown. The remainder of the trail is in 

poor condition and has some deeply 

entrenched areas but is less of a potential 

sediment source due to its location on a 

ridgeline. While it would be expensive to 

repair and maintain for continued OHV 

traffic, this segment accesses private 

property so it would need to remain 

available for the use of the private 

Remove from OHV System. Close and 

rehabilitate the segment north of 

intersection with FS-402 (known as the 

Rock Garden). Add remainder of Trail 2 

(from intersection of FS-402 south to 

Harshaw Gap) to forest road system. Gate 

at Harshaw Gap and Jenks Gap (this 

section would be available only for 

administrative use and landowner access to 

private inholdings.) The section from Jenks 

Gap to FS-402 would be open to highwaylegal vehicles and would be maintained for 

high-clearance vehicles from FS-402 to FS24. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

186 

CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION 

landowners. 

Trail 3 - Bearpen 

Though part of this trail runs parallel to a 

Tellico River tributary, the condition of the 

trail would allow routine engineering and 

heavy maintenance to alleviate the 

sedimentation potential. Scouting of 

possible reroute locations found them more 

problematic than the trail’s present location. 

Part of the sedimentation potential is 

actually the result of sediment coming from 

Trail 12. Reducing or eliminating soil loss 

from Trail 12 would address this. 

Retain as part of the OHV System. Perform 

heavy maintenance including installation of 

additional drainage structures. 

Trail 4 – Fain Ford 

A section of Trail 4 runs parallel to 

Peckerwood Creek, and condition surveys 

located numerous instances where sediment 

could be seen entering the creek. Within 

this section, another location exhibits fillslope failure* and has landslide potential. 

Even fixed, this segment has limited 

potential for long term success. The 

remainder of Trail 4 is fixable with normal 

engineering and heavy maintenance. 

*The outside edge of the road breaks away due to 

factors such as slope, inherent soil characteristics, 

and the inability of water to properly drain. 

Retain as part of the OHV System from 

southern access point to intersection with 

Trail 8 at Fain Ford. Close and rehabilitate 

section north of this intersection with Trail 

8, to the intersection with Trails 6 and 7. 

[The previous decision to construct a bridge 

across the Tellico River at Fain Ford would 

go forward. See Decision Memo for Fain 

Ford Bridge Project on Upper Tellico OHV 

Area signed June 9, 2005, available from 

the Tusquitee District Office, Murphy, NC. 

] 

Trail 5 – Tellico River 

Two areas of high-sediment-potential exist 

near the intersection with Trail 4, as 

sediment is accumulating from a “trail 

stacking “ situation where Trail 12 is 

dumping sediment on a path through the 

woods to Trail 4. Then the sediment runs 

along with additional Trail 4 sediment 

down to Trail 5 and into the Tellico River. 

There is also a series of springs in this area 

adding to the runoff. 

Retain as part of the OHV System with a 

reroute to a new intersection with Trail 4. 

This reroute of approximately 3,500 feet 

would use an existing old road template. 

Close and rehabilitate a section that 

currently intersects with Trail 4. 

[Also see Trail 12 proposal] 

Trail 6 – State Line Loop 

One short section is a major sediment 

source for this trail. Installation of 

oversized culverts on this section along 

Retain as part of the OHV System. Install 

several oversize culverts at a bad section of 

trail (between surveyed stations 3,458 ft. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

187 

CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION 

with heavy maintenance of the whole trail 

would alleviate much of the sedimentation 

potential. 

through 6,888 ft.). 

 A new connector would be constructed off 

Trail 6 from State Line parking area to 

Trail 5 to facilitate access to the trail 

system by non-street-legal vehicles. This 

new access would take this traffic off Trail 

1. 

Trail 7 – Peckerwood Connector 

Not only sediment but other contaminants 

associated with motor vehicles are making 

their way into Peckerwood Creek from the 

“challenge” area on Trail 7. Stabilizing this 

trail segment would require extraordinary 

engineering design and be very expensive. 

Follow-up maintenance requirements would 

be considerable. 

Retain as part of the OHV System from 

intersection with Trail 6 to a point in the 

vicinity of Peckerwood Creek. Construct a 

reroute of approximately 1,500 feet from 

this point to Trail 8 to bypass the “high 

challenge” area. The proposed reroute 

follows an existing old road bed for 900 

feet, leaving 600 feet of new construction. 

Close and rehabilitate the trail east of the 

reroute, including the “high challenge” 

area. 

Trail 8 – Bob Creek 

The first 1.5 miles runs parallel to the 

Tellico River and it is evident that the 

adjacent tributaries do at times overtop the 

trail and even turn the trail itself into a 

stream of sorts. In addition, three bridges 

are rotted out, an old wooden culvert needs 

replacing, and a new bridge is needed at one 

point on the trail. For the most part these 

problems could be fixed with the 

installation of about a dozen oversize 

culverts, four or five new bridges, and a 

shift in the road surface upward. Fixing 

Trail 8 would entail more cost than most of 

the other trail work but it is a major loop in 

the system. The fixes are within the scope 

of normal engineering and heavy 

maintenance. 

The short section of Trail 8 that runs south 

from the Trail 7 intersection contains an 

area worn down to bedrock that can funnel 

water down to Trail 4 and then straight into 

the Tellico River. Attempts to find a 

suitable reroute location were unsuccessful. 

Retain in part and close in part. Keep the 

trail open from its intersection with Trail 4 

at Fain Ford eastward, making a 

counterclockwise loop to its intersection 

with the Trail 7 reroute. Close the short 

section south of its intersection with the 

Trail 7 reroute. Trail 8 would require heavy 

maintenance, some reconstruction and 

possible minor rerouting. Due to proximity 

to the Tellico River this would include 

minor road shifts away from the stream 

course and to minimize the entrenchment. 

Some hardening of the roadway with riprap (quarried rock of a specific size) would 

also occur. Construct four to five bridges 

and install numerous large culverts along 

with other standard drainage features. 

Restore Mistletoe Creek into its original 

channel. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

188 

CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION 

Trail 9 – Mistletoe Connector 

Steep grades, areas of deep entrenchment 

mixed with numerous springs coming out of 

the bedrock area and close proximity to 

unnamed tributaries that feed into the 

Tellico River make Trail 9 among the most 

difficult and expensive to repair and 

maintain. 

Remove from the OHV System. Close and 

rehabilitate. 

Trail 10 (ATV Only) – Round Mountain 

Condition surveys identified three 

especially problematic areas on this ATVonly trail. The first, at the northern end of 

Trail 10, is a steep, deeply entrenched 

section of about 800 feet that is dumping 

onto Trail 8 and rapidly filling a sediment 

trap there. The second is a section of about 

500 feet where the stream is actually 

running in the trail. The third is at the 

“challenge area” where extensive soil 

movement has occurred immediately 

adjacent to the creek. Possible trail 

relocations were scouted but were not 

suitable. The main trail has deteriorated to a 

condition where users have created 

bypasses on poor locations. From an 

engineering perspective any fixes would be 

difficult to maintain in part due to the highimpact ATV traffic. 

Retain from intersection with Trail 10A 

west to intersection with Trail 3 (the 

southernmost section). Remove the 

remainder from the ATV system; close and 

rehabilitate. 

Trail 10A (ATV Only) Round Mountain Spur 

While this trail parallels the Tellico River 

for the majority of its length, good grades 

and lack of entrenchment make it a good 

candidate to retain with routine engineering 

fixes to the drainage features and some 

initial heavy maintenance. 

Retain open to ATVs with reevaluation at 

the end of two years. Reevaluation would 

result in continuation of open status or 

closure depending on effectiveness of 

drainage features in stemming sediment 

flow into the Tellico River. 

Trail 11 – Chestnut Mountain 

While there are some steep, rocky areas and 

some entrenchment and exposed bedrock, 

the trail is far from water and condition 

surveys did not track sediment reaching 

water. However there are three “challenge 

Retain as part of the OHV System 

contingent on successful construction of 

challenge area bypasses. If bypasses are not 

successful, close trail and rehabilitate. 

Retain the challenge areas but also provide 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

189 

CONDITION SURVEY FINDINGS PROPOSED ACTION 

areas” that not many users can traverse, 

thus limiting the capability of the trail to be 

used by ATVs and others looking for a ride 

of moderate difficulty. Bypasses around the 

challenge areas could make the trail more 

useable if suitable locations are found. 

bypasses. [These bypasses are not shown 

on the map.] 

Trail 12 – Hawk Knob 

Trail 12 begins with a long section of deep 

entrenchment followed by exposed bedrock. 

The trail is visibly broadcasting sedimentladen runoff through the woods down to 

Trail 3, across this trail and through the 

woods down to Trail 4 and then Trail 5, 

ending up in the Tellico River. The steep 

mud chute, unstable side-walls with 

undermined trees and root-wads, narrow 

entrenched sections, and high terraced 

bedrock ledges make Trail 12 a poor 

candidate for normal engineering fixes. 

Terrain features limit possible reroutes. 

Remove from the OHV System. Close and 

rehabilitate. 

Forest Plan Amendment Language for the Proposed Action 

Currently, the Forest Plan standards for OHV trail “levels of challenge” and “miles per 

square mile” (trail density) are inconsistent with both the existing trail system and the 

proposed trail system. To remedy this inconsistency, the proposed action would change 

the Forest Plan language as follows: 

Current Forest Plan Language New Forest Plan Language 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide easy to moderate levels of 

challenge;...” 

Pg. III-11: a. Designate routes that will: 

- provide “various levels of challenge:”

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per 

square mile in any management area 

unit. 

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except for 

the Upper Tellico OHV System, where 

densities may be higher.

Pg. III-67: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per 

square mile in any management area 

unit. 

Pg. III-59: 2. Provide opportunities in 

response to identified needs to an 

approximate density of 2 miles per square 

mile in any management area unit except for 

the Upper Tellico OHV System, where 

densities may be higher.
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

190 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

191 

Appendix B

Details of Other OHV Opportunities

The following table lists the complete results of an internet search of public OHV 

systems within an 8-hour drive of Murphy, NC. This data is summarized in Table 3.5.2.4. 

Note: 

• All mileages are approximate 

• Data accuracy dependant on internet source as of 8/26/08 

Table Appendix A.1. List of Federal, State & County OHV Opportunities 

Trail System 

Name Location 

Miles 

from 

Murphy

4WD 

Trail 

Miles

ATV 

Trail 

Miles

Motorcycle 

Trail Miles 

Total 

Miles 

Most 

Difficult or 

Challenge

Badin Lake Uwharrie NF, NC 294 16 16 16 16 Yes 

Brown Mt Pisgah NF, NC 182 6 27 34 34 Yes 

Wayehutta Nantahala NF, NC 64 0 21 21 21 Yes 

 Houston 

Valley 

ChattahoocheeOconee NF, GA 85 0 23 23 23 No 

 Rocky Flats “ 69 3 3 3 3 Yes 

 Windy Gap “ 71 0 4 4 4 Yes 

Tibbs “ 71 0 4 4 4 No 

Milma Creek “ 71 0 4 4 4 No 

Rock Creek “ 63 0 5 5 5 No 

Tatum Lead “ 63 6 6 6 6 Yes 

Davenport 

Mountain “ 21 0 6 6 6 Yes 

Whissenhunt “ 55 0 11 11 11 Yes 

Beasley Knob “ 21 11 11 11 11 Yes 

Oakey/Moates “ 50 0 9 9 9 Yes 

Locust Stake “ 75 0 9 9 9 Yes 

Town Creek “ 139 0 8 15 15 No 

Buffalo Mt Cherokee NF, TN 161 0 13 13 13 Yes 

Horse Creek “ 153 5 0 0 5 No 

Dick Creek Rd “ 155 3 0 0 3 No 

Rich Mt Rd “ 150 9 0 0 9 No 

Unicoi Trail “ 26 0 0 3 3 No 

Smith Mt Tr “ 28 0 0 5 5 No 

Turkey Ck Mt 

Road “ 53 3 0 0 3 No 

Tavern Br Rd “ 55 7 0 0 7 No 

Beaverdam 

Bald Road “ 2 6 0 0 6 No 

Prentice 

Cooper TN State Forests 92 110 110 110 110 Yes 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

192 

Trail System 

Name Location 

Miles 

from 

Murphy

4WD 

Trail 

Miles

ATV 

Trail 

Miles

Motorcycle 

Trail Miles 

Total 

Miles 

Most 

Difficult or 

Challenge

Pickett “ 176 32 32 32 32 Yes 

Royal Blue 

WMA 

TN Wildlife 

Resources 149 29 46 46 46 Yes 

White Sulphur Daniel Boone NF, 

KY 304 0 20 20 20 No 

S-Tree “ 209 0 10 10 10 No 

Turkey Foot “ 209 0 9 9 9 No 

Big Dog “ 209 0 3 3 3 No 

Pine Creek “ 209 0 2 2 2 Yes 

Renfro “ 209 0 4 4 4 No 

Gulf Ridge “ 209 0 2 2 2 No 

Goodwater “ 209 0 3 3 3 No 

Sellers Ridge “ 166 0 2 2 2 No 

Yellow Cliff “ 166 0 2 2 2 No 

Rock Ridge “ 166 0 5 5 5 No 

Straight Ck “ 166 0 2 2 2 No 

Redbird Crest “ 206 5 65 65 65 No 

Turkey Bay Land Between the 

Lakes NRA, KY 320 106 106 106 106 Yes 

Black Mt. Harlan County 

Parks, KY 221 200 200 200 200 Yes 

South Pedlar 

George 

WashingtonJefferson NF, VA 

379 0 19 19 19 Yes 

Patterson Mt “ 341 0 16 16 16 No 

Stony Run “ 357 12 0 0 12 No 

Peavine Mt “ 367 15 0 0 15 No 

Flint Ck Bankhead NF, AL 236 0 15 15 15 Yes 

Kentuck Talladega NF, AL 196 0 23 23 23 Yes 

Wambaw Francis Marion - 

Sumter NF, SC 387 0 40 40 40 No 

Enoree “ 207 0 14 14 14 Yes 

Cedar Springs “ 137 0 12 12 12 No 

Parsons Mt “ 137 0 11 11 11 Yes 

Manchester SC State Forest 311 0 18 18 18 No 

TOTALS 584 971 993 1053 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

193 

Appendix C 

Financial Analysis 

FSM 2353.03 provides direction on implementing the Travel Management Rule 

referenced on page 5 of this document. In particular, it directs the agency to “emphasize 

long-term cost effectiveness and need when developing or rehabilitating trails”, and 

“provide a trail system that is environmentally, socially and financially sustainable.” 

Additionally, the objectives in FSM 7702 include providing “sustainable access in a 

fiscally responsible manner to NFS lands.” The Financial Analysis Model helps inform 

the determination as to what degree each alternative is cost effective, financially 

sustainable, and fiscally responsible. 

Expense estimates for the six alternatives were developed using a trail system financial 

analysis prototype developed under contract with PriceWaterhouse Coopers and its 

subcontractor, CHM-Government Services for the Forest Service Southern Region in 

2006. The model was modified by Southern Region Office staff to specifically address 

the financial analysis needs of the Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental 

Assessment. The model is a partially automated, multi-sheet Microsoft Excel workbook 

summarizing expense data for multiple alternatives across a 10 year period. The base 

data for the model was provided by Forest staff. Base data includes expenses for 

implementation, maintenance for a ten-year period, and long term resource monitoring to 

ensure the selected alternative is successful in addressing the purpose and need for the 

project. 

Partner and cooperating agency contributions and grants are reflected in the Revenue 

section of Tables 3.11.1.6 and 3.11.1.7 in Chapter 3.11. “Other sources” includes 

funding provided by grants such as the Recreation Trails Program (RTP) made possible 

by non-federal in-kind matching contributions. This source of revenue is not shown for 

Alternatives B, C and D, as the Interdisciplinary Team predicted that there would be 

fewer in-kind contributions available from partner groups under those alternatives. “Nonmonetary contributions” include in-kind and other contributions from partners, other 

agencies, universities and other organizations. 

Estimated non-monetary contributions vary among alternatives. Alternative A reflects 

average contributions from 2003-2007, with the high and low years eliminated. 

Alternative B includes some user group contributions, plus fisheries monitoring support 

provided by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) personnel. 

Alternative C eliminates user group contributions, but retains the NCWRC contributions. 

Alternative D is lower due to anticipated decrease in user group contributions and less 

need for monitoring due to trail system configuration. Alternatives E and F assume an 

increase in user group contributions, with the same fisheries monitoring support. 

Table Appendix B.1 Estimated Contributions 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

194 

Alternative Non-monetary 

contributions ($) 

A 40,644 

B 58,254 

C 57,741 

D 41,137 

E 85,582 

F 85,582 

The following assumptions were made in developing the model: 

Capital Improvement/Decommissioning 

All capital improvements are completed prior to Year One except for trailhead 

improvement in Years Five and Ten. 

Operations expenses include law enforcement, trail patrols, monitoring of water, 

fisheries and heritage resources, and fee collection expenses. 

Maintenance expenses include recurring maintenance of bridges, trail surface and other 

trail features such as silt traps, culverts, signage and other trail features. 

Maintenance and operating expenses would generally be higher in the first five years 

after implementation, then decrease. 

Expenses include a 2.9% annual inflation factor (Bureau of Labor Statistics ten year 

average) 

Program Management expenses include program oversight, communications, 

recreation and special use event administration and partnership management. In this 

discussion, operations, maintenance and program management expenses are shown as an 

annual average over a 10 year period. The Financial Analysis Model depicts by 

alternative how expenses may vary over time. For example, in Alternative C total 

operations and maintenance expense to the government would be $327,578 in Year One, 

and taper down to $164,671 in Year Ten as the need for monitoring and other work 

declines. 

Capital expenses include both improving trails and parking areas, as well as trail 

decommissioning, stabilization, and restoration, depending on the alternative. 

Revenue 

Revenue figures include daily and annual fees paid by users. They also include grants 

(such as RTP grants) made possible through partnerships with non-profit groups, as well 

as the value of non-monetary contributions made by partners. Such non- monetary 

contributions may include donated personnel and equipment time and mileage that is not 

reimbursed by a matching grant program. This includes contributions by partners such as 

TVA and other agencies and groups that help with environmental monitoring, which 

explains why this “revenue” appearing even in Alternative C where the trail system is 

closed. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

195 

Volunteer Hours: Alternative A is based on Southern Four Wheel Drive Association 

estimated hours for the last five years, minus the highest and lowest years (average of 

middle 3 years) at a GS5-6 cost-to-government rate. Alternatives E & F show an 

increase of 15% due to increased miles/features. 

Grants would be used only for Alternatives A, E, F due to availability of matching 

contributions. Alternatives B and D are less likely to recruit in-kind contributions. 

Fees increase 25% in Years Five and Ten. 

Daily/Annual Pass Percentage – a slightly higher proportion of daily passes is calculated 

for Alternatives B, D, E, F. It is assumed that less users will buy the annual pass due to 

the increased expense if fees are increased, and based on the district’s experience in 2007 

when the pass price increased from $30 to $60. 

Percentage of riders who are Fee Compliant - Higher compliance is calculated for 

Alternatives E & F due to more law enforcement & visitor contacts. 

Average Number of Riders 

Average number of riders per tow vehicle – There would be a greater number of UTVs in 

Alternatives B & D than Alternatives A, E, and F due to trail design and opportunities. 

Therefore, a factor of 1.5 persons per vehicle is used instead of the 1.75 used in 

Alternatives A, E, and F. 

Days Open 

In Alternatives B and D the system would be open 255 days: 3 winter months plus 20 wet 

weather closure days. 

In Alternatives E and F the system would be open 275 days: 3 winter months without 20 

additional wet weather closure days 

Table Appendix B.2 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenses by AlternativeWith no fee increase (All values in $$)

Variable Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F 

Revenue

Fees 87,255 60,917 0 51,488 127,020 127,020

Other sources 55,000 0 0 0 55,000 55,000

Non-monetary 

contributions 

40,644 58,254 57,741 41,137 85,582 85,582

Total 

Revenue 

182,899 119,171 57,741 92,625 267,602 267,602

Expense

Operations, 

Maintenance, 

Program 

Management 

(average 

annual 

expense over 

10 years) 

419,077 1,126,086 278,797 862,017 1,238,209 1,508,930

Summary

Net Annual 

Expense* 

236,178 1,006,915 221,056 769,392 970,607 1,241,328

One-time 

Capital 

468,750 2,863,098 1,946,273 2,858,483 4,211,396 5,545,794 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

196 

Variable Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F 

Improvement/ 

Closure 

Expense

• Net Annual Expense: The amount of appropriated or additional funds from other sources 

required to maintain the trail system under the specified alternative. 

It may be helpful to review those portions of the capital improvement expenses that are 

attributable to rehabilitation and improvement (paving) of Tipton Creek Road (Trail 1), 

as that action is common across Alternatives B-F. In addition, monitoring is an 

appreciable portion of the annual expenses, and may be considered separately. The 

monitoring expenses below include the average annual expense of water, fisheries and 

heritage resource monitoring. 

Table Appendix B.3 Breakout of Tipton Creek Road Improvement Expenses and 

Monitoring Expenses (all values in $$) 

Variable Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F 

Expense

Operations, 

Maintenance, 

Program 

Management 

(average 

annual 

expense over 

10 years) 

419,077 1,126,086 278,797 862,017 1,238,209 1,508,930

Monitoring 

(average 

annual 

expense over 

10 years) 

96,748 161,190 131,268 143,018 146,709 151,126

Total Annual 

Expense 

without 

monitoring* 

323,329 964,896 147,529 718,999 1,091,500 1,357,774

One-time 

Capital 

Improvement/ 

Closure 

Expense 

468,750 2,863,098 1,946,273 2,858,483 4,211,396 5,545,794 

Tipton Creek 

Road (Trail 1) 

Improvement 

 637,613 637,613 637,613 637,613 637,613 

Total Capital 

Improvement 

Expense 

without TC 

Road 

Improvement 

468,750 2,225,485 1,308,660 2,220,870 3,573,783 4,908,181 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

197 

User survey respondents indicated at least some support for increasing fees to help 

manage the System. Table 3.5.1.5 shows that 35.7 % of on-site OHV users supported fee 

increases; 72.8% of off-site OHV user supported increases. Therefore, the alternatives 

were also analyzed based on projected fee receipts given the fees shown below. 

Table Appendix B.3 Summary of Annual Revenue and Expenses by AlternativeWith variable fees (All values in $$) 

Variable Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt F 

Revenue

Daily Fee/ 

Annual Pass 

10/60 20/120 0 15/90 40/240 40/240

Fees 87,255 121,833 0 77,232 372,593 372,593

Other sources 55,000 0 0 0 55,000 55,000

Non-monetary 

contributions 

40,644 58,254 57,741 41,137 85,582 85,582

Total 

Revenue 

182,899 180,087 57,741 118,369 513,175 513,175

Expense

Operations, 

Maintenance, 

Program 

Management 

(average 

annual 

expense over 

10 years) 

419,077 1,126,086 278,797 862,017 1,238,209 1,508,930

Summary

Net Annual 

Expense* 

236,178 945,999 221,056 743,648 725,034 995,755

One-time 

Capital 

Improvement/ 

Closure 

Expense

468,750 2,863,098 1,946,273 2,858,483 4,211,396 5,545,794

*Net Annual Expense: The amount of appropriated or additional funds from other sources 

required to maintain the trail system under the specified alternative. 

The following pages display tables generated from the Financial Analysis Model 

workbook. These tables show the itemized revenue sources and expenses associated with 

implementing the six alternatives. 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

198 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

199 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

200 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

201 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

202 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

203 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

204 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

205 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

206 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

207 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

208 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

209 
Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009 

210