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 AssessmentUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of ra ce, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientat ion, 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 cont act USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discriminati on, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Buildi ng, 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 – Purp ose and Need ..................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and N eed................................................................1 1.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................4 1.3 Scop ing ...............................................................................5 1.4 Significant Issues Relate d to the Propos ed Action ...................5 1.5 Other Issues ........................................................................7

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Incl uding the Propos ed Action.............. 9 2.1 Alternatives Cons idered in Detail ...........................................9 Alternativ e A ...................................................................9 Alternativ e B....................................................................9 Alternativ e 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 Conseque nces ....................... 19 3.1 Soil and Water .................................................................19 3.2 Aquati c Wildlif e ................................................................63 3.3 Pl ants..............................................................................85 3.4 Terrestrial Wildli fe ..........................................................111 3.5 Area Visi tor Prefer ences ..................................................125 3.6 Recreation Opportuni ties................................................. 137 3.7 S cenery .........................................................................149 3.8 Wild and Scenic River Suit ability ...................................... 155 3.9 Heritage Resour ces ........................................................ 159 3.10 Human Health and Sa fety ...............................................167 3.11 Econom ics .....................................................................171

List of Preparers and Agen cies/Persons Consulte d.................. 178

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

Appendix A – Conditio n Survey Fi ndings .................................. 185

Appendix B - Details of Other OHV Oppo rtuniti es .................... 191

Appendix C – Financia l Model Info rmation ............................... 193

[Graphics Supplement is a separate docu ment 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 Ro ad and Trail System (OHV System, or Tellico OHV System) is located in Cherok ee 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 w ithin 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 a nd on into Tennessee. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in 1991 classifi ed 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 Nation al 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 mana gement 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 ex isting 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 li kely to cause considerab le 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 accord ance with the Travel Management Rule (Federal Register, November 9, 2005), the fore st conducted an areawide Travel Analysis, concurrent with this OHV Trail System Anal ysis. The Travel An alysis addresses the general and specific criteria for designating roads and trails in the Upper Tellico watershed, including a wide range of resource and use consider ations. The findings of the Travel Analysis are incorporated into th is Environmental Analysis, and vice versa.

There is a need to stem the flow of sedime nt 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 Resour ce 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 conducte d 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) in clude 2000 trail dr ainage featureswaterbars, broad-based dips , grade sags, ditches, cro ss drain culverts, outsloping, and sediment traps.

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

• Poorly designed, located, and maintain ed 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 sev erely 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 th at erosion of the trail is expected, the trail requires freq uent 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 de signs, 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 con tinuously compromised due to the sheer number of sediment control features ( 2000) that must rece ive very frequent maintenance due to the seve re soils and heavy rainfall.

• It is virtually impossible to remove th e water from deeply entrenched trail sections using standard road and trail e ngineering or drainage structures. If the trail becomes worn down to bedrock it may also expose springs that add to water flow and thus potential se dimentation. Several trail s ections 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 expe rience frequent freezing and thawing.

4) North Carolina standards for turbidity are being violated.

• In 1991, the North Carolina Wildlife Resour ces 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 go verning the proper de sign, 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 Pl an 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 incr eases in fine sediment deposits.

• Toxicity tests near three high challenge ar eas 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 waters hed 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 like lihood of long-term persiste nce 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 tr ails 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 prov iding approximately two miles per square mile of OHV trails.

• The current system is currently ove r 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 ame nded to allow higher de nsity 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 promul gated that addresses the administration of motorized vehicle use and travel on Nationa l 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 provi de “a variety of trai l opportunities, settings, and modes of travel consistent with the appl icable land management plan”, the directives also charge the agency with emphasizing long-term cost-effectiveness and need when developing or rehabilitating trai ls, and providing a trail syst em that is environmentally, socially and financiall y 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 wate rshed, 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 existi ng problems with an in itial intense period of heavy maintenance; and managing the c onditions 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 clos ures to reduce damage to the trail surfaces;

• Pave Trail 1;

• Remove Trail 2 from the system and rede signate 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 c onditionally, 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 st andards in the Forest Plan that specify approximate trail densities and difficulty le vels for this OHV System. See Chapter 2 for details.

Trail-by-trail details of findi ngs 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 th e proposed action and solic iting comments was mailed and/or e-mailed to individuals, organizations, and agencies th at 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 comme nt 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 major ity of responses to scoping were “form emails” that came through efforts of various special-interest organi zations. Many of the individually generated respons es contained helpful ideas and suggestions for ways to improve the OHV System and reduce sediment ation. The Interdisciplinary Team drew heavily on public comments received during sc oping to identify issues and develop alternatives to the proposed act ion to address these issues.



### 1.4 Significant Issues Rela ted to the Proposed Action

Issues serve to highlight effects or unin tended 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 a pparent to the public a nd the decision-maker. Eight significant issu es were identified:

1. Concern that state water qua lity 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 co nstructing needed crossings and associated water control devices so as to: minimize the amount of sediment that enters the stream from the construc tion; not obstruct stre am flow; restrainUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

6 accelerated erosion and prevent visible se diment 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 th eir long term effectiveness.

In response, each alternative will be evaluated in Chapter 3 based on the likelihood of restraining accelerated er osion 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 eva luated 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 discusse d in the analysis of effects.

3. Concern that the OHV System should be cl osed until all the needed repairs are finished, in order to prevent additional acceler ated erosion of the trails into the Tellico River and its tributaries a nd 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 Fore st Plan or the Forest Plan must be amended. Each alternative either meet s Forest Plan direct ion 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 recreationa l uses, thereby reduci ng the ability of the public, especially families and people with le ss mobility, to enjoy the national forests.

In response, each alternative will be eval uated 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 dr aws people to Upper Tellico.

In response, each alternative will be eva luated 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 no t non-highway-legal OHVs (including ATVs) could access the trail system from the s outhern end. This information is included in the descriptions of the alternatives in Chapter 2.

8. Concern that the proposed storm-event clos ures and new camping restrictions would be burdensome on OHV trip planning, fa mily experiences, and special event planning. Also, there are concerns as to how these might be implemented.

Alternatives vary as to whether or no t storm-event closures and/or additional camping restrictions are included. This info rmation 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 addresse d 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 pr ovide more OHV opportunities.

2. Concern that the proposed action should be to study what the real sources of sedimentation are and what the re al threats to the trout are.

Response: Extensive studies have already identified that numerous sources of sediment ARE from the OHV System (S ee Condition Survey data available in the project record). Also, threats to tr out populations are well described in the scientific literature and sediment is recognized as a known threat.

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

Response: This standard comes directly from State of North Carolina water quality guidelines, and Section 313 of th e 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 ac ross the region and the country.

Response: The cumulative effects of th e proposed action and alternatives are analyzed in the environmental assessment Chapter 3. This includes an analysis of cumulative eff ects 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 propos ed 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 th e proposed action and alternatives are displayed in an appendix to th e environmental assessment.

7. Concern that a ban on fishing and/or fish st ocking would more clearly address a threat to native trout populations than implementing the proposed action.

Response: Such a ban would not add ress 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 interdiscipl inary team in response to th e 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 “N o Action” alternative. The OHV System would remain as is, with 39.3 miles of trails, existing high chal lenge opportunities, curre nt 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 Ro ck Garden segment. Re mainder 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 rehabilit ate 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 amen dment 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-termUpper 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 ope n for foot travel. In this alternative:

• Trail 1 would be paved and kept open as a through route for highw ay 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 alte rnative 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 Rehabilit ate (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 wi th 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 rehabilit ate (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 shor t 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 (deco mmission). 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 NAUpper 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 amen dment 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 th e trail system from 39.3 miles to 17.6 miles. This alternative was developed to meet the current OHV standards inthe 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 alte rnative 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 Re habilitate (decommission). 0 Closed 10A Round Mountain Spur - Close an d Rehabilitate (decommission). 0 No 11 Chestnut Mountain - Close and Reha bilitate (decommission). 0 Closed 12 Hawk Knob – Same as Alter native B. Close and Rehabilitate (decommission). 0 ClosedUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

13 2.1.5 Alternative E

Alternative E reduces th e 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 partia l reroute) for full-sized OHV use;

• Adding a new parking lot at th e intersection of Trails 4 and 11 and reconstructing a piece of Trail 4 from its intersection with Tr ail 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 alte rnative 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. Reconstruc t 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 amen dment 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 al l 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 alle viate many of the current sedimentation concerns. It is similar to Alternative E, excep t 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 ne w 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 partia l reroute) for full-sized OHV use;

• Adding a new parking lot at th e intersection of Trails 4 and 11 and reconstructing a piece of Trail 4 from its intersection with Tr ail 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 alte rnative 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 ClosedUpper 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 amen dment 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 appropr iate as part of whatever alternative is selected:

1. To reduce impacts to Heritage Resources, comp lete surveys of all trails with high and moderate probability of site s 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 lik ely to be impacted by OHV use. This may include covering or hard ening sites with prot ective fabric, gravel and soil, erecting physical barriers, or other appropriate measures. Include inspection of these sites in the OHV System monitoring plan. Avoid advers e 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 suitabl e snags would be cut between April 15 and October 15.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009162.2 Comparison of the AlternativesTable 2.2.1. Actions by alternativeTrail #AlternativeAAlternative BAlternative CAlternative DAlternative EAlternative FRoad.Miles39.324.613.324.934.834.8OHV TrailMiles39.324.0017.630.237.515.3 miroad/trail nochange5.3 mi.paved road only5.3 mi.paved road only5.3 mi.paved roadonly5.3 mi.paved road only5.3 mi.paved road only23.2 mi.road/trailno change0.8 mi open road,1.4 mi. closedroad for pvtaccess0.8 mi open road, 1.4 mi.closed road for pvtaccess0.8 mi openroad, 1.4 mi.closed roadfor pvt access0.8 mi open road, 1.4 mi.closed road for pvtaccess0.8 mi open road, 1.4mi. closed road for pvtaccess34.1 mi.road/trailno change4.1 mi. road/trailno change0 mi. traildecommission4.1 mi.road/trailno change4.1 mi. road/trailno change4.1 mi. road/trailno change44.8 mi.road/trailno change3.9 mi road/trailpartial closure0 mi. trail, 2.6 mi.roadopen seasonally(decommissionremainder)3.9 miroad/trailpartial closure4.8 mi. road/trailimprove southern endfrom Trail 1 to a newparking lot at intersectionwith 114.8 mi. road/trailimprove southern endfrom Trail 1 to a newparking lot atintersection with 1151.6 mi.road/trailno change1.7 mi. road/trailpartial reroute0 mi. trail,1.0 miles road open1.7 mi.road/trailpartial reroute1.7 mi. road/trailpartial reroute1.7 mi. road/trailpartial reroute6-5 connector n.a.0.2 ATV trailconstructn.a.0.2 ATV trailconstruct0.2 ATV trailconstruct0.2 ATV trailconstruct62.2 miroad/trailno change2.2 mi. road/trailheavymaintenance0 mi. trail, 2.2 mi. roadopen seasonallyheavy maintenance2.2 mi.road/trailheavymaintenance2.2 mi. road/trailheavy maintenance2.2 mi. road/trailheavy maintenance70.5 mi.road/trailno change0.5 mi. road/trailpartial closure &reroute0 mi. trail/ 0.1 mi closedroad for pvt access(decommissionremainder)0.5 mi.road/trailpartial closure& reroute0.5 mi. road/trailpartial closure & reroute0.5 mi. road/trailpartial closure & reroute85.8 miroad/trailno change5.0 mi. road/trailreconstruction/partial closure0 mi.decommission5.0 mi.road/trailreconstruction/partial closure5.0 mi. road/trailreconstruction/ partialclosure5.0 mi. road/trailreconstruction/ partialclosureUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 200917Trail #AlternativeAAlternative BAlternative CAlternative DAlternative EAlternative FRoad.Miles39.324.613.324.934.834.8OHV TrailMiles39.324.0017.630.237.590.7 mi.road/trailno change0 mi.decommission0 mi.decommission0 mi.decommission2.0 mi. road/trailreroute2.0 mi. road/trailreroute104.5 mi ATVtrailno change1.0 mi. ATV trailpartial closure0 mi.decommissiondecommission4.3 mi. road/trailreroute/reconstruct4.3 mi. road/trailreroute/reconstruct10A2.7 mi. ATVtrailno change2.7 mi. ATV trailno change0 mi.decommissiondecommission2.7 mi. ATV trail nochange2.7 mi. ATV trailno change112.7 mi.road/trailno change2.7 mi. road/trailconstructbypasses0 mi.decommissiondecommission2.7 mi. road/trailreconstruct/add challengearea2.7 mi. road/trailreconstruct/addchallenge area121.2 mi.road/trailno change0 mi.decommission0 mi.decommission0 mi.decommission0 mi.decommission0 mi.decommission13 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.7.3 mi ATV trailnew constructionSeasonalclosureNo Yes Applies to 1 mi. of Trail 5 Yes Yes YesStorm-eventclosureNo Yes n.a. Yes No NoNew campingrestrictionsNo Yes No Yes No No4WD lock-in No Yes n.a. Yes No NoPlanAmendmentn.a. Yes Yes No Yes YesUpper 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 wate r 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 stream s 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 syst em 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 Sy stem 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 sh ould 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 sh ould 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 component s 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 acr e Upper Tellico River drainage, a sixth level sub-watershe d (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 M ountains, 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 th e 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 a nnual 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 w ith an average temperature of 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The Andrews area av erages about 66 inches of precipitation annually, while the Upper Tellico area rece ives on average greate r than 80 inches per year (USDA-NRCS 1997), with the wettest period occurring in the m onths of December to March (Figure 3.1.1.1). Prevailing winds and rainfall in western No rth 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 Cree k, 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 lo cated in the headwaters of the Davis Creek drainage. This drainage fl ows 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 landowne rs, including private timber companies.

Between 1950 and 1969, before Forest Service acquisition, extensive ground-based logging with skidders took place in the area, requiring construc tion of numerous road s 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. Rout es constructed pushed the capabilities of the logging equipment producing extremely steep rout es. Compared to current North Carolina industry practices these routes would have ne ver 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 fl ow 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 st eady 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 tra il 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 si milar geology and maintain similar forested landcover as the Upper Tellico Ri ver. 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 Tell ico 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 networ k is present within each draina ge, 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 sedi ment input from the current trail system.

Stream Flow, Stream Channels, and Water Quality

Stream Flow:

Streams within the analysis area have an estimated, averag e 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 reco rd, and mean monthly precipitation at Andrews, NC. Stream flow varies seasonall y 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 disc harge 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 th e Tellico River at Tellico Plains, TN (data from 1925 – 2007) and mean monthly pr ecipitation, 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

MonthStreamflow (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 8Precipitation (inches)

STREAMFLOW

During the winter months, soils are moist a nd experience frequent freezing and thawing where freezing temperatures penetrate into the so il. 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 bedroc k, 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 type s 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 tr ansport a large load of stream materials (both bedload and suspended load) and sediment fr om outside the channel. Therefore, under natural conditions channel habi tat features, such as pools, are expected to maintain themselves without filling with fine sedime nts such as silt and sand size particles.

Water Quality:

The water quality of the Tellico River can gene rally 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 ade quate quality to support all protected uses (NC DWQ 2006). Protected uses for the Upper Te llico 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 stoc ked trout. Water quality in the Tellico River PrecipitationUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

22 downstream from the assessment area fully supp orts protected uses as of the 2006 State of Tennessee water quality assessment of the Li ttle Tennessee River Watershed (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 2006)

.

Existing Condition

Understanding Erosion

The process of erosion is na tural 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 responsib le 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 cata strophic type of erosion associated with large storm events and mass failure of soils. These two types of eros ion 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 di sturbance 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 thawin g. On bare soil, such as a native surfaced road, the force of a raindrop hitting the ground (raindrop splash) can tran sport soil particles several feet under a heavy rainfa ll. The action of flowing wate r can transport soil particles for great distances where the flow is concen trated in gullies and rills (small gullies), depending on the gradient and length of th e slope (NC DFR 2006). St eep 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 thawin g is largely a detachment mechanism caused by the influence of moisture is the soil and so il temperatures that fl uctuate between freezing and thawing. As water freezes in the soil, of ten within the upper few inches, it expands, carrying soil particles with it. When thawing o ccurs, soil particles are deposited in a new location. These detached particle s, now separated from the soil aggregate, are susceptible to further erosion.

Soils and the Erosion Hazard

Soils in the watershed consist primarily of So co 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. A ll these types are typica lly deep, well-drained, acidic, loamy soils derived from weathered metasedimentary rock. Although Ditney-UnicoiRock outcrop complexes are of relatively limite d 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 comple x with fine-loamy Whiteoak soils or, in the steeper coves with slopes of greater than 30 perc ent, coarse-loamy Santeetlah. All map units of these “riparian” soils are descri bed 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 characteri zed 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 gr avity 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 deposit s are potential landslides if set in motion by abundant rainfall and/or man-made activities, such as roads.

Currently, landslides and other forms of ma ss 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 th e 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 boul ders, while sidewalls of the entrenched areas continue to erode. It is es timated 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 curren t trail system occupies many of these old routes, and erosion of the trail system persists. Sections of trail cons idered “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 tra il sections such as these as th e steep sidewalls continue to erode.

Erosion of soils from stream banks occurs infre quently in the watershe d. Several sites have been observed where the stream channel scours the toe of the adjacent side slope. Although infrequent, these sites add to s ources of sediment in the waters hed. On private lands in the Tipton Creek and Peckerwood Creek drainages, development and ro ads are likely to be other sources that add to the sediment load in the Tellico River.

An analysis of the Natural Resource Conserva tion 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 ri sk of soil loss from unsurfaced roads or trails and is based on inherent erodibili ty of the parent material, st eepness 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 indica te that overcoming the risk of erosion would require special road designs, extra mainte nance, 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 displa ys 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 a nd Natural Resources

ND = None Detected

The North Carolina Division of Forest Resour ces recognizes that: “solid waste, oils, and other fluids can be potential po llution 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 vehicl e fluids to prevent them from entering the ground and water. For forestry activities, this includes maintaini ng equipment, preparing for spills, and properly disposing of used materials. On the Uppe r 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 sp ills of any amount (NC DFR 2006).

Trail Condition Surveys

Trail condition surveys and turbidity data clearly indicate that St ate and Forest Plan standards for water quality are not being met in the ar ea impacted by the Tellico OHV System. Visible sediment from the OHV trails is reaching area streams; turbid ity 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 as sessed trail conditions and sediment delivery to analysis area wate rs from the OHV System. The system is predominantly native surfaced. Exceptions include Trail 1 and sections of Trails 4 and 5 which have surfaces ofUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

25 gravel or larger stone. Most trail segments we re originally outsloped, but have become rutted and entrenched (downcut) over many years. Curr ently, 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 percen t of the 2,003 drainage features on the trail system were not properly functioning (Table 3.1.1.2). And as a re sult, 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 de pth 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 ex cessive use have resulted in deteriorated travelways to the point that regular road or tr ail 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 reloca tion methods would be needed to bring most of these trails back to a functional standard wh ere 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 su rfacing); 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 di stances, 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 lo st, 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 53Upper 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 modifi cations have been made on th e Forest landscape. During condition surveys engineers conducted field meas urements to determine the amount of soil that has been displaced within each entrenchment. Field measurements included the width and length of the entrenchment tr ail 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 measuremen ts of trail entrenchment (downcut).

An estimated 74,550 tons of soil eroded from the current trail system since the establishment of the old logging tran sportation system, approximately 50 years ago. To put this into perspective, this volume of sediment woul d 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 to tal trail length, respectively (Table 3.1.1.3). Trails 9 and 12 also have a relatively high percent of tr ail length that has eroded to an entrenched condition, 56.2 and 55.1 percent resp ectively. Some of the greatest volumes of soil erosion occurred on Trails 6, 12, 11, 2, a nd 9. Trail 1 did not have sections of entrenchment and the other trai ls had relatively short sections of entrenchment. However, regardless of length, where entrenched trail cond itions 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 ent renched 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 7,081Upper 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 thos e principles and engine ering 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 de fined by the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality as follows “A practice or combinat ion of practices, that is determined to be an effective and pract icable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations ) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level comp atible with water quality goals” (NC DFR 2007).

The road and trail system was already in plac e when the Forest Service acquired ownership of the Upper Tellico River watershed, and cu rrent BMPs were not used in the system’s location and construction. Trail locations and construction wa s not in conformance with current State and Forest Service standards. A pplying BMPs that are designed for constructing and maintaining trails constructed to today’s standards are not sufficient to correct for the deteriorated conditions identif ied by conditions surveys of the Upper Tellico OHV System.

Figure 3.1.1.4 Photograph of a Constructed Sediment Trap Full of SedimentUpper 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 intens ity, 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 ma intenance and long-term severe erosion that transcends our ability to employ nor mal BMPs. The first four of these factors - sensitive soils, high precipita tion amounts and intensity, a dens e 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, re gular and frequent main tenance is needed and perhaps some wet weather closures. In many cases, retrofitting the trails with functional BMPs would require reconstructi on or relocation – not just mi nor reshaping. Therefore, normal BMPs are limited in their effectivene ss and meeting State Water Quality standards under these conditions would not occu r as long as the trail system remains in its current state.

Monitoring trail BMPs shows that gravel surfaci ng 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 thes e 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. Th e improved gravel segments of Trails 1 and 5 had an average Total Suspende d 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 valu es indicate that the gravel surfaced trail segments produced 40 percent less sediment than the native surfaced segments.

Sediment production from OHV trai ls is higher than from typical forest roads (Welsh 2008). Runoff from trails with gravel surfacing in Tellico produced mu ch higher concentrations of sediment than average values from forest ro ads with gravel surfacing found in a study by the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory on the Chattoog a River Watershed in Georgia and SouthUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

30 Carolina. Runoff from gravel surfaced road s in the Coweeta study had average sediment concentrations of 789.7 and 2,761.1 mg/L/cm depe nding 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 tr aps and below waterbars – two of the most frequently used drainage control devices. Th e data collected shows that sediment traps improved the efficiency of waterbars; by reduc ing sediment runoff 74 percent from gravel surfaces and 60 percent native surf aces. Still, sediment traps ar e not 100 percent effective at retaining sediment.

Two major factors essential for full sediment tr ap efficiency are proper design and adequate maintenance. The state of North Carolina Fo restry 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 r unoff while minimizing soil disturbance. Sizing of the trap is based on the volum e of water drained from the c ontributing area of trail (length x width of trail surface) and a given storm even t, e.g., 1 inch storm. The smaller the storm used for design the smaller the trap and ultimately the more fre quent the maintenance. Along many trails in the analysis area sediment traps have not been designed to standard, and often are not even capable of retaini ng the flow and sediment from a 1 inch storm. Often where trails are close to streams or on relatively steep slopes, site cond itions limit the size of sediment traps. As a result, the frequenc y 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) reco mmends that sediment traps be cleaned out whenever the trap is half full.

Sediment runoff data from July through Oc tober 2008 shows that af ter 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 pe rcent 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 da ta was taken during a period e xperiencing only 60 percent of normal precipitation (based on A ndrews, NC weather data), r unoff 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 ma intenance this would increase maintenance frequency considerably, at a minimum four ti mes 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 a nd intensity, a dense stream network, and shallow groundwater set up any land dist urbing activity for failure unless erosion control measures are forefront in the desi gn of the activity. This concern is even greater for an ongoing activity that continue s 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 adju sting 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 percen t native surfaces. Still, sediment traps are not 100 percent effective at retaining sedi ment even under normal to dry conditions.

• Along many trails in the analys is area sediment traps have not been designed to standards, and often are not ev en 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 concentrat ed 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) desi gned by the State of North Carolina to protect water quality during forestry activitie s. Implementation of these BMPs is intended to help achieve compliance of such activiti es with requirements of the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Wate r 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 st arting point to measure success of the OHV trail system. In addition to forestry BMPs, ex isting road and trail design criteria are used. For example, where forestry BMPs recomme nd 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 beendesigned 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 r oads/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 st reams. For example, the trail condition surveys of 2007 and 2008 showed that existing improveme nts on Trail 1 (conditions survey stations 24+30 to 65+40), including gravel surfacing, rol ling dips, and sediment traps, were only 49 percent effective at preventi ng 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 standa rd). Trail 1 is an example of where intense maintenance efforts have taken place (short of pa ving) 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 deliv ery 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 sedi ment 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 with in 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. Ge ological 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 Rive r, Tipton Creek, Jenks Branch, and Peckerwood Creek. The surveys identified 643 locations where sediment was tracked from the OHV System to the stream netw ork. 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 vegeta tive filtering and trapping of sediment before it reaches water.

Hydrologic Connectivity

Table 3.1.1.2 shows the miles of each trail that ar e connected to the stream channel network. Hydrologic connectivity occurs when storm wa ter 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 ro ad surface and cut-slopes are provi ded an efficient route into the streams (Forest Service, USDA 1999).

Overall, 31 percent of the tra il system is hydrologically c onnected, 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 ha ve the lowest connectivity values per mile of trail over the entire trail length. Connectivity per mile doe sn’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 contributin g an inordinate amount of sediment, due to the nature of the trail a nd 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 (T SS) and turbidity represents the fine-grained materials that are caught up in suspension and ca rried by water during runoff events. This is the suspended sediment load and is differentia ted from the load that moves along the stream bottom called bed load. The suspended load cons ists 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 measur ed in Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU). In comparison, TSS is the concentration of pa rticles in a given volume of water, often measured as milligrams per liter (mg/L) of wate r. Measuring total suspended solids helps us understand the amount of material transported ou t of the stream reach while turbidity gives us an indication of how cloudy or hazy the suspen ded 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 St ate of North Carolina standard for turbidity. The standard states:

“the turbidity in th e receiving water sha ll not exceed...10 NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs designated as trout waters... if tu rbidity 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)... recomme nded by the Designated Nonpoint Source Agency... BMPs must be in full compliance w ith all specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation and mainte nance of such BMPs” (NC DENR 2007).

The standard for turbidity, as well as other sta ndards, is designed to ensure the support of protected uses, in particular aq uatic 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 wa tershed as a result of failed BMPs. Therefore, the turbidity standard is not being met in th e Upper Tellico River wa tershed. Monitoring of suspended sediment (total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity) and sediment deposition (streambed composition and pool filling) identifi ed adverse affects to the aquatic ecosystem (see section 3.2 – Aqua tic Wildlife).

The NFsNC and TVA have monitored the suspen ded 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 pe riod between 2002 and 2004 when a turbidity analysis was completed for that data set. N one of the streams listed in the table are on the appropriate state’s water quality impaired wate rs list. Bald River dr ains federal ownership and is partly in the Bald River Gorge Wild erness. The North River also drains federal ownership, while Turkey Creek drains both federa l 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 Te llico 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 lega cy 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 concentra tions, it did have the hi ghest 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 Ci tico 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 Ri ver 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 th e 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 summa ry of Turbidity in the U pper 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

15

19 175

28 25 47 61

38 33 75

13 43

9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450BOB BRANCHJENKS BRANCHPECKERWOODCREEKTELLICO R. @ BOBBR.TELLICO R. @ FAINFORDTELLICO R. ABVTIPTON CR.TELLICO R. @ROUGH XINGTELLICO R.STATELINETIPTON CR. @MOUTHTIPTON CR. ABV.420-1 CROSSING (TC3) (reference)TIPTON CR. BLWPRIVATE/ABV. JENKSBRCITICO 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, 20 08 (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 (Figur e 3.1.1.3). Sycamore Creek (a re ference site) had a turbidity value of 13.3 compared to Tipton Creek (a t the mouth) and Te llico River (at Rough Crossing) values of 33.7 and 32.6, respectively. Th ese three sites represent similar drainage areas. Citico Creek was not measured during this event.

Thus it is recognized that the st ate turbidity standard can be exceeded in all streams during notable storm runoff events, re gardless 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 Te llico 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 @

mouthTurbidity (NTU)

10 NTU Turbidity Standard

Additionally, both TSS and turbid ity data indicates an increase in suspended sediment loading from the private i nholding 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 meas urements taken on March 4, 2008 at these same sites showed an almost 80 per cent increase in turb idity below the private inholding (Figure 3.1.1.3).

Overall, streams having OHV tra ils nearby have notably higher median concentrations of suspended sediment in comparison to referen ce 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 st reams occurring within the Uppe r Tellico watershed where the trail system is presen t on the landscape. Table 3.1.1.5 re presents a summary of TSS data. The locations of the monitoring sites are disp layed 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 th e sediment load, sediment deposition on the streambed is important to consider for meeti ng protected uses since aquatic organisms in mountain streams require open spaces between ro cks for survival (see section 3.2 – Aquatic Wildlife). When minor amounts of sediment ex ist from temporary sources, temporary pool filling can be flushed during storms. When la rger amounts of continuing sediment occur, pool filling and particle compacti on 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 ha bitat for young fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates, and can adversely affect grav el permeability and the suitability of gravel for spawning (MacDonald, et.al. 1991). Streambe d material is compos ed of sizes ranging from silt/clay to bedrock.

Pebble counts took place on riffle habitat units in the Upper Tell ico River and several of its tributaries and in Citico a nd 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 re ference stream due to th e absence of an active trail in the drainage.

The pebble counts indicate that the median particle sizes (D 50 ) range from large gravel to boulder sizes (Figure 3.1.1.3, Plot A). Focusi ng 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 trai l system than in the three reference streams (Figure 3.1.1.3, Plot B). Jenks Branch and Ti pton Creek (just above the Jenks BranchUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

40 confluence) had the largest fine sediment co mposition 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, respec tively. Pebble counts also indicate an increase in fine sediment deposition below the privat e inholding on Tipton Cree k (from 6 percent at Tipton Creek Upper (same site as Tipton Cr eek-3) to 12.4 percent at Tipton Creek (just above the Jenks Branch conflu ence 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 C reek, 2008. Plot A is the full data set and Plot B is a sub-set of Plot A data to focu s in on the fine sedi ment (<2 millimeters) portion of the data. Fine sediments are higher in streams in fluenced by the OVH System.

Plot A

Comparison of Tellico River Monito ring 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 Sands Silt/Clay Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock

2 mm FINE

SEDIMENT

(SAND, SILT, & CLAY)

D 50Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

41 Plot B

Comparison of Tellico River Monito ring 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 Sands Silt/Clay Gravels

2 mm FINE

SEDIMENT
(SAND, SILT, & CLAY) Jenks Br.

Citico Cr. (REFERENCE)

Pool Filling

The pool filling analysis is based on methodol ogy 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 Uppe r 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 decr ease in 2007 and an increase in 2008. The Tellico River at Rough Crossing site is an exception, showing a small in crease in pool filling from 2005 to 2008. Fine sediment in pools at the Sycamo re 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 StreamsPercent 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 sedi ment 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 th e 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 tr ansport, and therefore it is deposited onto the streambed, in this case on pool habitat. An exception to this genera lization is the Upper Tellico River site above the Rough Crossing Br idge on Trail 5 where moderate to high concentrations of suspended sediments (360 mg /L) are transported mo re efficiently through the reach.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

43 Figure 3.1.1.5. Average pool filling fr om 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 Ci tico 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 StreamsPercent Pool Filling From Fine Sediment

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900TSS 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 Practi ces (BMPs) were noted including features such as rolling dips, water bars, drainage culverts, br idges, 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. Tabl e 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 rang es given the site conditions at hand (Keller, G. and J. Sherar 2003 and NC DFR 2006). Over 2,400 BMP features ar e 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 th e number of drainage features, the likelihood of them being effective decrea ses because of the logistical and financial limitations of increasing maintenanceUpper 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 Bar 1 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 Maintenance 2 < 1 12 < 1 9 12 12 Miles of unpaved road/trail within 100 feet of a stream 2 6.05 3.92 1.58 2.57 4.14 4.20

Likelihood of BMP success 3 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 constructe d 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 th e 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 tra il 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 1,55 0 features; Alterna tive 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 fo r each action alternative with the exception of Alternative C. Maintenance woul d include scheduled and reactiona ry 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 Cr eek 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 Wa ter Quality standards is based on the success of applied BMPs, this measure wi ll 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 restrain ing accelerated erosion (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), through some combination of trail decommissioning, relocation, recons truction, closure, and/or addi tional drainage features, and assuming adequate post-implementation maintenan ce. Although implementation of this type of work would benefit the soil resource in the analys is 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 beingUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

45 successful at minimizing soil loss or erosion. Mo st trail locations in the analysis area are inherently susceptible to possible lapses in se diment 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 cont rolling 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 alte rnative 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 trai l 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 fo r 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 woul d be the same as the existing conditions described in the Affected Environment sec tion. Specifically, these effects would be a continuation of accelerated erosion from th e 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 char acteristics, having a severe hazard of erosion for native surfaced tr ails (Table 3.1.2.2.1). The total 39.3 miles of OHV System trail would be open year round, rega rdless of weather a nd trail conditions, and would not minimize soil damage. Many sections of trail can not be properly maintained, even with the implementation of BMPs. Applie d BMPs would remain largely ineffective.

This alternative would not meet forest plan di rection since it would not minimize soil damage by restraining the current levels of accelerated erosion. Additionall y, 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 stat e guidelines to redu ce 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 assesse d for the Upper Tellico River and the Davis Creek watersheds. Past activities analyzed for cumulative effects do not go back more thanUpper 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 anal ysis area include timber harves t and road construction prior to Forest Service acquisition of the property and on e Forest Service timber sale within the Jenks Branch watershed. Currently, the Farmer Br anch 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 park ing lot will be harvested over the next few years. The effects of logging have been extens ively studied. The Forest Service uses logging techniques designed to minimize erosion and se dimentation. Many of these techniques have been developed at the Coweeta Hydrologic Sta tion 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 highl y effective at minimizing soil erosion and sedimentation. Furthermore, the Tusquitee Rang er District has harvested 38 acres using the 2-age timber harvest method within the Jenks Br anch watershed within the last 10 years. Post harvest monitoring has not located any sediment sources re lated 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 th e Tipton Creek watershed. These activities include the construction of home s, 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 occurri ng as a result of these ongoing private activities and that these activitie s are leading to adverse cumulati ve effects to soil loss and sedimentation in the Tellico River draina ge. 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 pot ential effects of this road network has not been determined.

The Tusquitee Ranger District is also implem enting the paving of approximately 4,000 feet of Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lo wer 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 fu ture actions. There are no other known future actions planned for private lands that would a ffect the soil resources of the project area.

The cumulative effects of Alternative A woul d be continued erosion of the existing 39.3 miles of trails minus the reduction of eros ion 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 wate r 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 w ith inherently erosive characteristics. Trail 1 would be paved, and seasonal and storm-event cl osures would be implemented. Closure ofUpper 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 subseque nt erosion from the trail system. Closures would help protect BMP featur es, therefore requiring less maintenance over time and lower maintenance costs.

Alternative C would reduce the amount of unpave d 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. A lternative D reduces the amount of unpaved road or trail on severe hazard soil ty pes to 18.6 miles; and Alternativ e B reduces it to 25.0 miles. Alternatives B and D would both leave a trail sy stem on the landscape. The reduction in trail miles from each alternative would reduce the er osion 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 ve hicle fluid spills and subsequent soil (and potentially water) cont amination from petroleum products. The elimination of these sites would meet Nort h 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 Altern ative 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 relocati on and reconstruction to meeting the Forest Plan direction and the Stat e standard for turbidity, each alternative would have BMPs implemented on the remaining road a nd trail system that would be designed to frequently remove storm runoff from the tr ail surface (e.g., rolling dips, and outsloping), seasonal and storm-event closur es, 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 diffe rs by alternative. Table 3.1.2.1.1 presents the likelihood of success in genera l terms, ranging from a definite “no chance” of success (Alternative A) to a “high like lihood” of success. The measure of “likelihood of success” is based on miles of trail within 100 feet of str eam and the implementation of trail closures. Therefore, Alternative C is estimated to have the highest likelihood of implementing successful BMPs and meeting Forest Plan st andards. Alternatives B and D would each reduce adverse soil impacts through the decommi ssioning 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 acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. Paving of Tr ail 1 would eliminate many sediment sources. The cumulative effects of Alternatives B, C, and D woul d reduce soil damage by restraining accelerated erosion (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), through decommissioning, reconstr uction, 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 BMPUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

48 success, the greatest cumulative be nefit to the soil resource w ould 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 redu ction 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 subse quent 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 so il damage during these periods is higher than Alternatives B, C, a nd D. Alternative E w ould 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 tra il considered “high challenge” on Trails 2, 7, and 12 would be decommissioned, reducing the risk of soil (a nd potentially water) contamination from petroleum products. Alternative E would reta in the high challenge area on Trail 9, a known source of contamination from ve hicle-derived fluids. The con tinued contamination at this site would not meet North Carolina state guide lines to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution, unless the Forest Service prepares and implements a spill response plan th at facilitates a rapid cleanup of any size spil l (NC DFR 2006).

This alternative would implement BMPs on the remaining road and trail system that would be designed to effectively rest rain accelerated erosion and pr event sediment delivery to streams. BMPs would include such measures as ; gravel and larger size stone surfacing, trail relocation and reconstruction to frequently re move storm runoff from the trail surface (e.g., rolling dips, and outsloping), s easonal closures, properly sized se diment 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 so il 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 woul d be greater. Additiona lly, the likelihood of this alternative meeting the Forest Plan sta ndard, to minimize soil damage, would be met in some places with the decommissioning and improve ments 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 acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. Paving of Tr ail 1 would eliminate many sediment sources. The cumulative effects of Alternative E woul d reduce soil damage by restrain ing accelerated erosion (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Wate r Management, Standard 7c), through the decommissioning and improvements of trails in areas of concern. . However the relatively high miles of trail remaining on sensitive so ils and a low likelihood of BMP success on theUpper 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 gr eater than Alternatives A and F.

Alternative F:

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative F would not reduce th e number of miles of unpaved road and trail on soils with inherently erosive characteristics. Trail 1 would be paved and seas onal closure would be implemented. Seasonal closure of the trail system dur ing 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 clos ure would not be implemented in this alternative. By not implementing a storm event closure, the risk of trail erosion and so il damage during these periods is higher than Alternatives B, C, a nd D. Since Alternativ e 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. Th is alternative would only move the “severe“ potential for erosion from the Tellico Rive r headwaters (above Tipton Creek) to the headwaters of Tipton Creek. However, a re duction in erosion and loss of soil from the existing trail system is expected since tra ils experiencing excessi ve erosion would be decommissioned or rerouted, and the new trail construction (Trail 13) w ould be designed and constructed to minimize trail erosion.

Additionally, sections of tra il considered “high challenge” on Trails 2, 7, and 12 would be decommissioned, reducing the risk of soil (a nd potentially water) contamination from petroleum products. Similar to Alternative E, Alternative F would reta in the high challenge area on Trail 9, a known source of contamination fr om vehicle-derived fluids. The continued contamination at this site w ould not meet North Carolina stat e 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 rema ining road and trail sy stem that would be designed to restrain accelerated erosion and prevent sediment delivery to streams. BMPs would include such measures as; gravel and la rger size stone surfaci ng, trail relocation and reconstruction to frequently remove storm runoff from the trail surface (e.g., rolling dips, and outsloping), seasonal closures, pr operly sized sediment traps, brush barriers, and scheduled and reactionary maintenance.

However, because of a Low likelihood of succes sful 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 like ly 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 acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. Paving of Tra il 1 would eliminate many sediment sources. The cumulative effects of Alternative F woul d reduce soil damage by restrain ing accelerated erosion (Forest Plan, Forest-wide Direction, Soil and Wate r Management, Standard 7c), through the decommissioning and improvements of trails in areas of concern. Because of the relativelyUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

50 high miles of trail remaining on sensitive so ils 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 designe d to minimize soil damage by restraining accelerated erosion (based on Forest Plan di rection, Soil and Water Management, Standard 7c), the likelihood of meeting the standard decreases with an in crease in the miles of trail system on severe hazard soils ( Table 3.1.2.2.1) and an increa se in the number of water control features needing to be frequently maintained

To ensure meeting the Forest Plan standard regarding visible sedime nt 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. Becau se implementing effective BMPs has been found to be challenging in the analysis area, alte rnatives with a low lik elihood 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). A lternative F retains the same number of trail miles of severe hazard soils and has a lo w 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 wate r 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 f eatures, and assuming adequate post-implementation maintenance. Although implemen tation 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 pres ent 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. AlsoUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

51 of concern is the ability to maintain the trail syst em 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 a nd 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 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1

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 0.07 2 0.0 0.07 2 0.07 2 0.07 2

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 0.22 3 0.22 3

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 3.47 4 2.48 0.91 0.85 1. Trail 1 would be paved, reduci ng long-term sediment inputs. 2. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 3. Relocation would improve trail gra de 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 p erennial stream. Data generated from GIS using a 25 foot horizontal me asurement from perennial streams.

Alternative Trail A B C D E F 1 0.72 0.72 1 0.72 1 0.72 1 0.72 1 0.72 1

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 0.02 2 0.0 0.02 2 0.02 2 0.02 2

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 0.05 3 0.05 3

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 0.01Upper 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 0.63 4 0.34 0.12 0.11 1. Trail 1 would be paved, reduci ng long-term sediment inputs . 2. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 3. Relocation would improve tra il grade and erosion control but still requires a st ream 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 woul d be the same as the existing conditions described in Section 3.1.1. Sp ecifically, these effects would be a continuation of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, continui ng 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 wi thin 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also retain the ex isting 1.67 miles of tra il within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.2). Applied BMPs would continue to be mostly ineffective at controlling soil erosion a nd runoff under current trail c onditions and level of use. Approximately 63 springs would be allowed to flow within or across the trails. These springs would continue collec ting sediments and transporting these sediments to larger

streams.

This alternative would not reduce sedimenta tion 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 pe rennial streams or perennial waterbodies. Additionally, elevated levels of turbidity woul d continue to exceed the State standard and adversely effect the designated protected uses of the Tellico River, pa rticularly aquatic life propagation and survival.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on water are assessed for the Upper Tellic o River and the Davis Creek watersheds. Past activities analyzed for cumulati ve effects do not go back more than 60 years when timber harvest occurred over most of the an alysis area. Future activities include those projected out 10 year s into the future.

Previous activities in the anal ysis area include timber harves t and road construction prior to Forest Service acquisition of the property a nd one timber sale with in the Jenks Branch watershed. Currently, the Farmer Branch Proj ect 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 se dimentation. Many of these techniques haveUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

53 been developed at the Coweeta Hydrologic Sta tion 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 highl y effective at minimizing sedimentation. Furthermore, the Tusquitee Ranger District has harvested 38 acres using the 2-age timber harvest method within the Jenks Branch watershe d 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 th e Tipton Creek watershed. These activities include the construction of gravel ed roads and driveways. These developments are subject to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, which should provide protection to the aquatic resource s. Effects to aquatic resour ces 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 fi ne sediment deposition below the private inholding. These activities are leading to advers e cumulative effects on water quality. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands know n to be affecting the aquatic resources in the project area.

The Tusquitee Ranger District is also implem enting the paving of approximately 4,000 feet of Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lo wer 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 fr om future actions. There are no known future actions planned for private lands that would a ffect 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 perenni al streams (1.67 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). The cumulative eff ects of this alternative would also include the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacen t 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. Cumula tively, 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 reduc tion of 1.13 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin riffles and pools, and the potential for improvement in stream turbidity. This altern ative would retain appr oximately 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 pere nnial 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 re duction 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. Ov erall, 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 w ould 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 deliver y 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 unn amed tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 100 feet of a st ream would be reduced or eliminated.

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to st reams within the analysis area by closure of many of the most eroding trail se ctions 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 inst allation 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 se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is st abilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction woul d be minimized by application of construction Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush ba rriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedi mentation 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 exceedi ng 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 se diments when sediment traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminat e 0.18 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River Watershed.

The proposed seasonal and storm-event closur es would provide addi tional water quality protection by avoiding soil dist urbing OHV/ATV use during the wettest season. This closure should reduce the amount of erosion and se dimentation, 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 restrict ion 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 acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 4.92 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Alternative B would reduce visible sediment entering streams and therefore reduce turbidity. Howe ver, under Alternatives B the remaining trail system is estimated to have a low to moderate li kelihood 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 reduc tion of 3.47 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin riffles and pools, and the potential for improvement in turbidity. This alternative would retain appr oximately 2.58 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of pe rennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.04 miles of trail within 25 feet of pe rennial 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 re duction 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 a lternative, 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 th ese road segments are near stream channels, the risk remains that sediment would be tran sported from the roads to nearby streams. However, BMPs in this alternative are estima ted to have a high likelihood of successfully controlling sediment delivery to streams. A reduction in se diment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Te llico 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 st reams within the analysis area by closure of many of the most eroding trail sections and re pair 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 inst allation 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 se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails crossings are decommissioned and resi dual road crossings are repaired. These short-term effects would di ssipate as the disturbe d soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstr uction would be minimized by application of construction BMPs (e.g. silt fenc e, 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 ma y 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 se diments when sediment traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminat e 0.63 miles of these most vulnerable locations in the Tellico River Watershed.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 2.58 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate 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 likeli hood of meeting forest plan standards for preventing visible sediment from entering st reams and therefore re duce turbidity. Under Alternatives C the remaining road system is estimated to have a high likelihood of implementing successful BMPs and meeti ng the State turbidity standards.

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect EffectsUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

57 The effects of Alternative D would be a net reduc tion of 2.48 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin riffles and pools, and the potential for improvement in turbidity. This alternative would retain appr oximately 3.57 miles of existing trails within 100 feet of pe rennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.33 miles of trail within 25 feet of pe rennial 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 re duction 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, a nd 10A. Overall, the remaining 2.57 miles of unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams would have BMPs a pplied 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 prec ipitation data. When storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sedime nt 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 sedime nt 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 unn amed tributaries to Tellico River, where trail segments within 100 feet of a st ream would be reduced or eliminated.

This alternative would reduce sedimentation to st reams within the analysis area by closure of many of the most eroding trail se ctions 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 inst allation 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 se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction woul d 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 pr ojects 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 becau se 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 vulnerabl e 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 ente ring streams more than Alternatives A, B, E, and F, but less than C. Under Alternatives D the remaining trail system is estimated toUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

58 have a moderate likelihood of implementing su ccessful BMPs and meeting the State turbidity standards.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 3.57 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Of the alternativ es 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 reduc tion of 0.91 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin riffles and pools, and the potential for some improvement stream turbidity. This al ternative 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 pe rennial 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 re duction 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. Overa ll, 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 w ould increase from the trail. BMPs in this alternative are estimated to have a low lik elihood of successfully controlling sediment delivery to streams. Therefore, BMPs on road segments near stream channels are not expected to eliminate sediment delivery from tr ails to nearby streams unde r 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 tr ail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be reduced or elimin ated. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would be stopped, except on Trail 9, and theref ore a risk of water contamination persists.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

59 This alternative would reduce sedimentation to st reams within the analysis area by closure of some of the most eroding trail sections and repa ir 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 sedime nts are scoured from the stream channels. Stream turbidity would decline due to the reducti on of chronic erosion. Howeve r, Alternative E would likely continue to produce sediment in the Peckerw ood 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 inst allation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral stream channels. Approximately 9 existing st ream crossings would be decommissioned. There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or decommissioned stream crossing) increase in se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction woul d be minimized by application of construction BMPs (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seedi ng, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimentation on road construction projects across the forest. Sediment traps within 25 feet of perennial stre ams 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 se dimentation because these locations have less surface area to filter sediments when sediment traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.12 m iles of these most vulnerable lo cations 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 with in 25 feet of streams surveyed along Trail 10 were contributing sediment to t hose streams. The sediment traps proposed for this alternative would likely over-top during rain events exceedin g 1 inch/day. As the trail condition survey results suggest, these sediments would lik ely enter the streams - depositing on larger substrates and increasing turbidity.

The proposed seasonal closure would provide ad ditional water quality protection by avoiding soil disturbing OHV/ATV use during the wettes t season. This closure should reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation, and ha sten 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 a nd D that proposed such closures.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.14 m iles of trails within 100 feet of perennialUpper 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative E would provide a lower level of sedime nt reduction and habitat improve ments than Alternatives B, C, or D.

While Alternative E would reduce visible sedime nt 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 reduc tion of 0.85 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin riffles and pools, and the potential for improvement stream turbidity. This alternative would retain approximately 5.20 miles of trails within 100 feet of pe rennial streams (Table 3.1.2.4.1). This alternative would also retain approximately 1.56 miles of trail within 25 feet of pe rennial 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 re duction 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 th e 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 yi eld. 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 altern ative are estimated to ha ve a low likelihood of successfully controlling sediment delivery to streams. Therefore, BMPs on road segments near stream channels are not expected to elim inate 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 seve ral unnamed tributarie s 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 st reams within the analysis area by closure of some of the most eroding trail sections and repa ir 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 er osion. However, Alternative F would likely continue to produce sediment in the Peckerw ood 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 Trai l 13 would cross the watershe d of upper Tipton Creek and Bearpen Branch. Upper Tipton Creek and Bearpe n Branch contains one of the few stream channels currently unaffected by OHV/ATV use. Th is trail would come w ithin 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 rele asing 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 st opped, except of Trail 9, and therefore a risk of water contamination persists.

Alternative F would require inst allation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral stream channels plus an a dditional unknown number of culver ts to cross springs exposed during construction. Approximate ly 9 existing stream crossing s would be decommissioned. There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or decommissioned stream crossing) increase in se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction woul d 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 pr ojects 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 vulnerabl e 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 woul d be the same as desc ribed for Alternative E.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.20 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative F wouldUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

62 provide a lower level of sedime nt reduction and habitat improve ments than Alternatives B, C, D, or E.

While Alternative F would reduce visible sedime nt 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 likeliho od of improving water quality than Alternative A, but the remaining trail system is estimated to have a low lik elihood 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 consis ts 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 aqua tic habitat and populations, and encompasses waters downstream that potentially coul d 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 th e Tellico River watershed in North Carolina. Of these miles, approxima tely 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 (M oran 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 pool s per kilometer within the Tellico River – 2004 and 2005 survey data.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Pools/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 wa tershed 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 sp awning success can be reduced by increases in sediments when it accumulates within th e spawning gravels (Alexander and Hansen 1986, Argent and Flebbe 1999, Curry and MacNeill 2004, Meyer et al. 2005).

Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) within the wa tershed have generally been higher near the OHV System than in reference ar eas (Table 3.1.1.3). Increases in turbidity have been shown to reduce trout foraging abilities by reducing sigh t distance for feeding tr out (Barrett et al. 1992, Sweka and Hartman 2001, and White and Harvey 2007).

Water temperature monitoring has indicated that all streams within th e Upper Tellico River watershed in North Carolina are suitable fo r 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 ma ximum temperature for the monitoring period (December 2007 – July 2008) for any stream w ithin the watershed was approximately 18 ° C.

Toxicity tests within and adjacent to three hi gh 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 cl osely associated with sediments (Krein and Schorer 2000). Direct and indir ect effects (i.e. reduced egg and larval fish survival, higher susceptibility to infectious di seases and parasites, and popul ation 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 th e eggs (Arkoosh et al. 1998). Th ese toxins can also decrease the number of eggs produced and cause deformitie s 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 aci dic deposition from the atmosphere when rating all of the 5 th level hydrologic unit code s (HUC) on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Excessive deposition of acidic com pounds of sulfur and nitrogen from the atmosphere can cause an adve rse impact to the health of the vegetation and aquatic ecosystems.

Typically, the deposition of su lfur 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 m obile and move into th e soil water solution (Elliott et al. 2008). High concentrations of al uminum 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 s odium) minus the sum of the mineral acids (sulfate, nitrate, and chloride). Str eams having ANC values of greater than 50 microequivalents per liter ( μ eq/L) are thought to have adequate buffering capacity to offset the future deposition of sulfur and nitrogen co mpounds. ANC values less than zero (0) are considered chronically acidic and have no buffering capacity. Many aquatic organisms would generally not occur under such c onditions, 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 μ eq/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 litera ture and the inventory results from the watershed it appears acid de position could be a c ontributor to why 30 percent of the brook trout range ha s been lost in the watershed and why the trout densities are lower than expected.

Aquatic populations

The fish community of the Upper Tellico Ri ver watershed is pre dominantly 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 ra inbow trout or brown trout are currently being st ocked by the North Carolina W ildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) into this watershe d. Upper Tellico River wate rshed trout populations were monitored from 1994-2006 by the NCWRC (Besler et al. 2007).

Fishing pressure in the Upper Te llico 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 overexploita tion of the fishery resources (Borawa and Clemmons 1998, Borawa 1999). Furthermore, brook trout streams in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park that we re previously closed to fish ing showed no changes in fish density or size structure afte r 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 waters hed from a cascade on the Upper Tellico River upstream throughout the tributar ies (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 Ri ver. Therefore, the brook trout population remains confined to the por tions of the watershed that are isolated by physical barriers (i.e. falls).

NCWRC monitoring indicated that the refere nce 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 m ean 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 ha ve 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 trou t population numbers.

Brook trout reproductive behavior is classified as substrate modifiers – egg hiding (Balon 1975, Jones et al 1999) – burying thei r 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 re cruitment 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 Te llico River downstream into Tennessee. Rainbow trout also occur within Jenks Branch.

NCWRC monitoring indicated that the age-0 fish densities a nd standing crops for rainbow trout and brown trout in the U pper 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 dens ities 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 ra inbow trout or brown tr out population numbers.

Rainbow trout and brown trout re productive behavior is classifi ed as substrate modifiers – egg hiding (Balon 1975, Jones et al 1999). The spawning behavi ors of these species are similar to the spawning behavior of the br ook trout; therefore, th e negative effects of sedimentation are likely similar for these species (see brook trout discussion above).

Non-game fish community – The non-game fish community with in the analysis area is greatly limited by the physical barriers located on the No rth 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 Tellic o River (Figure 3.2.1.2). The North Carolina portion of the Tellico River is th e uppermost reach of suitable ha bitat 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 experi enced a decline in the late 1990’s through the early 2000’s. The blacknose dace population ha s shown some recovery in recent years. The mean densities of creek c hubs declined in the 1990’s and ha ve 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 am ong 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 stone s 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 ha bitat feature for developing larval fishes.

The creek chub is a nesting species which build s 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 sedimentati on of riffle areas, wh ich 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 a nd 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. Mon itoring has also indicated that the pools within the Upper Tellico River, which are below th e 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 th e creek chubs – likely resulting in the observed decline in mean densit ies (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

YearMean 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 unpublis hed data). In general, species diversity among all sites has been similar.

Desired Conditions for Aquatic Resources

Protection of specific habitat elements for th e brook trout involves main taining water quality to North Carolina state standards, preventi ng sedimentation of spawning gravels, and protecting stream bank integrity. Improving bro ok trout habitat is a forest plan standard (LRMP Amendment 5 page III-185). Furtherm ore, the desired condition for the Tellico River and its tributaries is to “manage stre ams for self-sustaining fish populations where conditions are favorable...emphasize habitat fo r specific Management Indicator Species which represent this group” (LRM P Amendment 5 page III-185).

The forest plan also provides direction to “maintain the natural hydraulic and hydrologic functioning of the stream channe l 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 a nd other aquatic organisms.

3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmental consequences to aquatic wildlif e resources are evaluated based on impacts to the following: Proposed, Endangered, Threaten ed, or Sensitive (PETS) aquatic species, aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS), and aquatic Forest Concern (FC) species.

Aquatic Species Evaluated and Rationale

Previous Survey InformationUpper 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 He ritage Database was queried for occurrences of PETS species in Cherokee County. Additiona lly, 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 in formation and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Species that do not have suit able habitat within the project or analysis areas were eliminated from furt her 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 da rter and smoky madtom have been reintroduced to the Tellico River near Mile 33 in Tennessee. These populations, liste d as non-essential experimental populations by the U. S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service, are located approximately 15 river miles downstream of the aquatic analys is 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 Enda ngered, Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive Aquatic species

There are no known proposed, threatened, or e ndangered species in the project area. The affected areas of the proposed project are ou tside the range of the species and these areas currently contain no habitat fo r any proposed, endangered, threat ened, or sensitive aquatic species. As such, there will be no direct or indi rect effects to any federally listed species or habitats. In the absence of direct and indirect e ffects 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 follo wing paragraphs explain why certain LRMP MIS were eliminated from further consideration.

Tipton Creek, Peckerwood Creek, and the Uppe r 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 broo k trout, northern hogsucker, creek chub, and blacknose daceUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

70 Largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) occur in reservoirs. Th is habitat does not occur within the analysis area; therefore, largem outh bass and its habitat will not be analyzed further. Smallmouth bass ( Micropterus dolomieu ) inhabit coolwater a nd 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 brow n trout, and blacknose dace were selected as management indicator species fo r this project given their known presence and the presence of suitable habitat in the waters within the aquati c analysis area. Mana gement activities most likely to affect brook trout, rainbow trout, br own trout, and blacknose da ce habitat would be changes in water quality, particularly sedimentat ion of pools and spawning substrates. Trail condition surveys have indicated th at 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 contri buting sediment to streams. Therefore, changes to the amount of trail within 100 feet and w ithin 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 p erennial 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 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1

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 0.07 2 0.0 0.07 2 0.07 2 0.07 2

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 0.22 3 0.22 3

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 5.20Upper 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 3.47 4 2.48 0.91 0.85 5. Trail 1 would be paved, reduci ng long-term sediment inputs. 6. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 7. Relocation would improve trail gra de 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 p erennial stream. Data generated from GIS using a 25 foot horizontal me asurement from perennial streams.

Alternative Trail A B C D E F 1 0.72 0.72 1 0.72 1 0.72 1 0.72 1 0.72 1

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 0.02 2 0.0 0.02 2 0.02 2 0.02 2

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 0.05 3 0.05 3

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 0.63 4 0.34 0.12 0.11 5. Trail 1 would be paved, reduci ng long-term sediment inputs . 6. Relocations would improve trail grade and erosion control. 7. Relocation would improve tra il grade and erosion control but still requires a st ream 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 woul d be the same as the existing conditions described in Section 3.2.1. Sp ecifically, these effects would be a continuation of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, continui ng 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 wi thin 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would al so retain the existi ng 1.67 miles of trail within 25 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.3). Approximate ly 63 springs would be allowed to flowUpper 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 sedime nts 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 reducin g 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. Prev ious activities in th e project area include timber harvest and road construction prior to Forest Service acquisition of the property and one timber sale within the Jenks Branch wate rshed. 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 eff ects of logging have been extensively studied. The Forest Service uses logging techniques desi gned to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Many of these techniques have been developed at the Coweeta Hydrol ogic Station in Otto, North Carolina. Monitoring of past and ongoing timber sales, includi ng timber haul road construction, have shown that the BMPs employ ed during timber harves t are highly effective at minimizing sedimentation. Furthermore, the Tusquitee Ranger District has harvested 38 acres using the 2-age timber ha rvest method within the Jenks Branch watershed within the last 10 years. Post harvest monitoring has not located any sediment s ources 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 th e Tipton Creek watershed. These activities include the construction of gravel ed roads and driveways. These developments are subject to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, which should provide protection to the aquatic resour ces. However, effects to aquatic resources are likely occurring due to private activit ies 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 ar e leading to adverse cumulative effects. There are no other ongoing activ ities on private lands known to be affecting the aquatic resources in the project area.

The Tusquitee Ranger District is also implem enting the paving of approximately 4,000 feet of Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lo wer 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 pr ocess sediments and to improve fish habitat. These activities may cause a short-term increase in sedi ment 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 futu re; therefore, there w ould be no effects fromUpper 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 perenni al streams (1.67 miles of which are within 25 feet of perennial streams). The cumulative eff ects of this alternative would also include the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacen t 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. Additionall y, effects from the private development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic substances in the high challenge areas would also contin ue. Alternative A would not m eet forest plan standards for preventing visible sediment from entering st reams 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 reduc tion of 1.13 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin 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 altern ative 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 re duction 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. Ov erall, 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 adequa te maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design stor m size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. Wh en storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from th e 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 altern ative. A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Pecker wood 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 secti ons and repair the rema inder of the trails. Habitats for the aquatic MIS would slowly impr ove as new sediment sources are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream cha nnels. Stream turbidity would decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion.

Alternative B would require inst allation 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 se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction w ould be minimized by application of Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush ba rriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimenta tion on road construction projects across the forest. Silt traps within 25 f eet of perennial streams may con tinue to release some sediment to streams during storm events ex ceeding 1 inch/day. Streams w ith trails and/or silt traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to se dimentation because these locations have less surface area to filter sediment s when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.18 m iles of these most vulnerable lo cations in the Tellico River Watershed.

The proposed seasonal closure would provide additional aquatic resource protection by avoiding soil disturbi ng OHV/ATV use during the wettest season. This closure should reduce the amount of erosion and sedimentation, and hasten impr ovements 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 rest riction on OHVs would he lp reduce erosion by reducing the amount of tire spinning and digging on the trail surface.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico River and lower Tipton Creek where paving occurs and the improvement of fish habi tats 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 4.92 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic su bstances in the high ch allenge areas would be reduced. Alternative B would reduce visible se diment entering streams. This alternative would also be a positive action in regard to fo rest plan direction for aquatic resources: to restore and enhance habitats fo r 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 reduc tion of 3.47 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin 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 altern ative 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 re duction 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 a lternative, 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 th ese road segments are near stream channels, the risk remains that sediment would be tran sported 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 Te llico River, where tr ail 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 inst allation 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 se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails crossings are decommissioned and resi dual road crossings are repaired. These short-term effects would di ssipate as the disturbe d soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstr uction would be minimized by application of Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush barriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven succe ssful 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 stream s 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 sedi ments 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 acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 2.58 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic su bstances in the high ch allenge 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 re covery. Alternative C would meet forest plan standards for preventing visi ble sediment from entering streams. This alternative would provide more positive action to move the aquatic resources towards the forest plan direction to restor e and enhance habitats for associ ated aquatic MIS than any of the other alternatives.

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative D would be a net reduc tion of 2.48 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin 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 altern ative 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 re duction 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, a nd 10A. Overall, the remaining 2.57 miles of unpaved trail within 100 feet of streams w ould have BMPs applied that would reduce sediment yield (assuming the application of gr avel and adequate maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs would be designed to accommod ate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) base d 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 im provements are not expected to eliminate sediment delivery from trails to nearby st reams under this alternative. A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Je nks Branch, Peckerwood Creek, Tellico River andUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

77 several unnamed tributaries to Tell ico 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 secti ons and repair the rema inder of the trails. Habitats for the aquatic MIS would slowly impr ove as new sediment sources are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream cha nnels. Stream turbidity would decline due to the reduction of chronic erosion.

Alternative D would require inst allation 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 se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction w ould be minimized by application of Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush ba rriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimenta tion on road construction projects across the forest. Silt traps within 25 f eet of perennial streams may con tinue to release some sediment to streams during storm events ex ceeding 1 inch/day. Streams w ith trails and/or silt traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to se dimentation because these locations have less surface area to filter sediment s when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.34 m iles of these most vulnerable lo cations in the Tellico River Watershed.

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure, st orm-event closure, new camping restrictions, and four-wheel drive lock-in would be th e same as described for Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 3.57 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic su bstances in the high ch allenge areas would be stopped. Of the alternatives proposing conti nued 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 ente ring 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 like lihood 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 reduc tion of 0.91 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin riffles and pools, and the potential for some improvement in fish populations as sp awning habitat and pool conditions improve. This alternative would retain approximately 5.14 m iles of trails within 100 feet of perennial streams (Table 3.2.2.2). This alternative would also retain approximate ly 1.55 miles of trail within 25 feet of perenni al 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 re duction 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. Overa ll, 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 adequa te maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs would be designed to accommodate a design stor m size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfall) based on local precipitation data. Wh en storms exceed the design storm or when BMPs fail sediment yield would increase from th e 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 altern ative. A reduction in sediment to streams would be notable in Jenks Branch, Pecker wood 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 er oding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. Habitats for the aquatic MIS would improve so mewhat as new sediment sources are slowly reduced and old sediments are scoured from th e stream channels. Stream turbidity would decline due to the reduction of chronic er osion. However, Alternative E would likely continue to produce sediment in the Peckerw ood Creek watershed and the headwaters of the Tellico River (where Trails 10 and 10A are adjace nt to the Tellico River and its tributaries). These headwater streams all contain the sout hern Appalachian brook trout. Therefore, adverse effects to this species would c ontinue, albeit, at a reduced magnitude.

Alternative E would require inst allation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral stream channels. Approximately 9 existing st ream crossings would be decommissioned. There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or decommissioned stream crossing) increase in se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. TheseUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

79 short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction w ould be minimized by application of Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush ba rriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimenta tion on road construction projects across the forest. Silt traps within 25 f eet of perennial streams may con tinue to release some sediment to streams during storm events ex ceeding 1 inch/day. Streams w ith trails and/or silt traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to se dimentation because these locations have less surface area to filter sediment s when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.12 m iles of these most vulnerable lo cations 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 with in 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 exceedin g 1 inch/day. As the trail condition survey results suggest, these sediment s would likely enter the streams – embedding larger substrates and reducing habitat qu ality for brook trout.

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure woul d be the same as desc ribed for Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.14 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic su bstances in the high ch allenge areas would be stopped. This alternative w ould provide less potential for recovery of the southern Appalachian brook trout habitat w ithin the headwater streams. Of the alternatives proposing continued OHV use, Alternative E would provi de a lower level of sediment reduction and habitat improvements for the Aquatic MI S than Alternatives B, C, or D.

While Alternative E would reduce visible sedime nt 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 al ternative would provide a higher likelihood ofUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

80 moving the aquatic resources toward s 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 reduc tion of 0.85 miles of tra il within 100 feet of streams. Specifically, these effects would be a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the existing trails, a reduction of sedimentation w ithin 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 approximate ly 1.56 miles of trail within 25 feet of perenni al 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 re duction 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 th e 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 yi eld (assuming the applicati on of gravel and adequate maintenance of applied BMPs). BMPs woul d be designed to accommodate a design storm size and duration (e.g., a 1 inch / 24-hour rainfa ll) 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 tr ails to nearby streams unde r 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 tr ail segments within 100 feet of a stream would be reduced or elim inated. 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 er oding trail sections and repair the remainder of the trails. Habitats for the aquatic MIS would slowly impr ove as new sediment sources are reduced and old sediments are scoured from the stream cha nnels. Stream turbidity would decline due to the reduction of chronic erosi on. However, Alternative F woul d 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. Theref ore, 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 fe w 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 sh own 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 co uld reduce habitat quality for the southern Appalachian brook trout.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

81 Alternative F would require inst allation of approximately 62 new culverts to cross ephemeral stream channels plus an a dditional unknown number of culver ts to cross springs exposed during construction. Approximate ly 9 existing stream crossing s would be decommissioned. There may be a short-term (approximately 2 days at each new, reconstructed, or decommissioned stream crossing) increase in se dimentation and turbidity in streams during construction where existing trails and trail cr ossings are decommissioned or repaired. These short-term effects would dissipa te as the disturbed soil is stabilized by seeding and mulching. Effects of construction and reconstruction w ould be minimized by application of Best Management Practices (e.g. silt fence, brush ba rriers, seeding, and mulching). These BMPs have proven successful at reducing sedimenta tion on road construction projects across the forest. Silt traps within 25 f eet of perennial streams may con tinue to release some sediment to streams during storm events ex ceeding 1 inch/day. Streams w ith trails and/or silt traps within 25 feet are the most vulnerable to se dimentation because these locations have less surface area to filter sediment s when silt traps over-flow during storm events. This alternative would eliminate 0.11 m iles of these most vulnerable lo cations 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 woul d likely enter the streams – embedding larger substrates and reducing ha bitat quality for brook trout.

The effects of the proposed seasonal closure woul d be the same as desc ribed for Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing, and future acti ons would be the same as described for Alternative A. The cumulative effects of this alternative would also in clude the reduction of sedimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Te llico 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 stream s, and a reduction of chronic sedimentation from the remaining 5.20 m iles 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 construc ted areas are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, effects from the pr ivate development within Tipton Creek are expected to continue. Accumulation of toxic su bstances in the high ch allenge areas would be stopped. Of the alternatives proposing conti nued 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 sedime nt entering streams from the existing trail system, sediment from Trail 10 in particular may continue to present a ch allenge to control . A new potential sediment source would be created with Trail 13. This alternative would provide a better opportunity for meeting the fore st plan direction to restore and enhance habitats for associated aquatic MIS than Altern ative A. However, this alternative may notUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

82 meet forest plan direction for the upper Ti pton Creek watershed because Trail 13 would introduce new sediment effects to the currently unaffected br ook 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 ar e 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 thei r habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquati c analysis area. Based upon the resu lts 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 ar e 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 furt her analysis. A complete list of species considered is available from the project recor d. The aquatic analysis area for this project consists of the Tellico River from the head waters downstream to Rough Ridge Branch.

Table 3.2.2.4: Known and potential forest concern a quatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Upper Tellico OHV Proj ect (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 di stribution 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 Effect s – 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 th e action alternatives (A lternatives B, C, D, E, or F) are the effects of the proposed actions and the reduction of se dimentation along Trail 1 adjacent to the Tellico River and lower Tipton Creek where paving occurs and the improvement of fish habitats following the la rge woody debris installa tion that is planned. The cumulative effects to the aquatic forest concern species would be the same as those described for MIS above. Although each alternat ive 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 dist ributed across the forest. Imp acts of the alte rnatives wouldUpper 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 impact 2 May impact 2 May impact 1 May impact 2 May impact 2 May impact 2 Baetopus trishae May impact 2 May impact 2 May impact 1 May impact 2 May impact 2 May impact 2 Habrophlediodes spp. May impact 2 May impact 2 May impact 1 May impact 2 May impact 2 May impact 2 1. May impact individuals during stream crossing co nstruction/removal but would not affect viability of the species. 2. May impact species locally but woul d not affect forest-wide viability

.

Forest concern species Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, Baetopus trishae, and Habrophlediodes spp. may occur within the project a rea. 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 habita ts for these species are common across their

range.

3.2.3. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO AQ UATIC WILDLIFE HABITAT

The opportunity to move aquatic resources to ward the forest plan direction varies by alternative. The alternative w ith the greatest expected positiv e benefit is Alternative C, followed by D, B, and E, in that order. Altern ative 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 introdu ces 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 th e 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 Clos ures 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 decommi ssioned culverts temporarily stirs up sediment, but the effect is very short term (48 hours). **Closure of the OHV System as proposed in Alte rnative 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, ex isting water uses and level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be ma intained and protected (NC DWQUpper 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 Ca rolina DENR and wate r 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 a nd survival. Currently, the Forest Plan and State of N.C. Performance Standa rd (NC DFR 2007) to “prevent visible sediment from entering intermittent or perennial streams or perennial wa terbodies” 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 a dverse impacts to protected water uses, specifically aquatic life propagation and su rvival, by doing all or part of the following:

• Reducing the number of miles of trail on severe hazard soils

• Reducing the miles of trail with in 100 and 25 feet of streams

• Improving stream crossings

• Implementing seasonal and/or storm-event trail closures

• Implementing road and trail Best Manageme nt Practices to protect water quality

• Implementing adequate annual maintenance

• Implementing a rapid response plan to cleanup vehicle fluid spills

However, not all proposed altern atives are equal in their bene ficial effects to the aquatic resource, and range in likelihood of meeting th e Forest Plan and St ate 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 ma intaining protected uses as follows:

Least Likely → → → → → → → → → → → Most Likely Alt. A Alt. F Alt. E Alt. B Alt. D Alt. CUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

85 

### 3.3 Plants

3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Only botanical resources within, or adjacent t o, 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 Bran ch, Tipton Creek (west of Trail 1), and Jenks Branch drainages. For Alternative F, the analysis area was define d as the existing trail system in the Upper Tellico River watershed pl us the proposed trail system in the Bearpen Branch drainage (east of Trail 1). Botanical re sources of concern in these areas include rich cove and northern hardwood forests and thei r 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 n on-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. Th e 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 adja cent area that may be impacted by silt, minus the extent of area restored through trail deco mmissioning. Because the trail clearings will persist indefinitely, the effects of the cl earings will also persist indefinitely.

The number of trail miles crossing each of th e 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 thir ds 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 fr om 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, th ese 4.0 miles represent 4.8 acres of rich cove forests. Existing OHV trails cross approximate ly 5.7 miles of northern hardwood forests in the analysis area. Assuming an average tread width of ten feet, thes e 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 ge neral, the age class of a forest community is affected only by regeneration harvest or pe rmanent clearing. As a result, analyses for direct and indirect effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old will be c onfined to the areas cleared during trail constr uction. Because the clearings will pe rsist 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 c onsidered 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 overl ain by GIS maps of the trails. Existing OHV trails cross approxi mately 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 decrea sing, primarily due to direct harvest for commercial sale (Forest Service, USDA 2001). Th e forest-wide trend for ramps, however, is stable (Gary Kauffman, USFS Bo tanist, Asheville, NC, personal communication 2008).

Because none of the existing OHV tr ails contain ginseng plants or ramps, direct and indirect effects to these species were confined to areas of new tra il 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 plan ts or their habitat. Trail decommissioning affects ginseng and ramps by potentially allowing the restoration of their habita t previously given over to the trails. Trails removed from the OHV System, bu t that remain as open or system roads, do not allow potential resotr ation of habitat.

Indirect effects to neighboring plants are usually estimated usi ng a one mile radius around the activity areas. These indirect effects may incl ude both reductions in the gene pool as well as reductions in the gene flow among neighbori ng 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 anal ysis area, however, located no ginseng plants or ramps. Ginseng is a medicinal herb, tr aditionally harvested th roughout the southern Appalachians for both cash export and personal us e. Ramps are a culinary herb, also widely collected in the southern Appa lachians. As a result, past actions, including commercial timber harvest and plant collection, may have redu ced 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 consider ed minimal, especially in comparison to the direct effects from the proposal, and ther efore 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 theUpper 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 ar ea 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 su rrounding forest a distan ce 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 indefi nitely, the effects of the clearings will also persist indefinitely, and may involve change s in both growing conditions as well as the surrounding vegetation.

All forest concern plant species listed by th e National Forests in North Carolina for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were co nsidered for this analysis. Only forest concern species located inside expected imp act 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 c oncern plant species grow ing 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 in tensity in the most diverse ar eas. Surveys were continued until no new species or microhabitats were detected (Goff, et al . 1982).

One forest concern species was located during th e field surveys: several clumps of purple sedge ( Carex purpurifera ) in the Trail 13 corrido r, and several additiona l clumps in the tread of the proposed trail connecting Trails 4 a nd 5. Because purple sedge was located in a proposed treatment area, direct and indirect e ffects can be expected from Forest Service activities, and the species underw ent 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 fiel d survey, it was not analyzed further. No other forest concern species were located during the field survey s, 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-hickor y forests, communities that compose most of the analysis area. Because field su rveys 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), a nd the proposed Trai l 13 (Alternative F).Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

88 Non-Native Invasive Species.

Because non-native, invasive plants are genera lly associated with disturbed areas, analysis areas for direct, indirect, past and cumulativ e 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 landsca pe, 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 a pproximately three acres, most of which were located along Trail 1. Considering the scope an d length of the trail system, effects due to non-native invasive species in th e analysis area are relatively small. Because the spread of non-native invasives is facilita ted by local seed sources, the low level of invasives in the analysis area should help minimize the expect ed effects of the proposed treatments.

Boulderfield Botanical Communities

Field surveys by Wilson Rankin, Botanist for th e Nantahala National Forest, located three boulderfield communities in the pr oposed Trail 13 corridor (see de scription of Alternative F). These communities are considered unusual in No rth Carolina by the North Carolina Heritage Program, and are associated with the forest concern wildlife speci es rock shrew, five forest concern plant species, and eight sensitive plant species. As a result, these boulderfields are identified as unique (Forest Serv ice 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 th e unusually severe impacts expected from the construction, direct and indirect effect s to boulderfield communities may impact disproportionately larger areas th an 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 indefin itely. The three boulderfield communities total approximately four acres.

Sensitive Species.

Wilson Rankin, Botanist for the Nantahala Nati onal Forest, surveyed the proposed treatment areas in August, 2008. The survey located th ree additional populati ons 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 a ny 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 u nderwent further analysis for potential effects.

3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTA L CONSEQUENCES

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are discussed below, followed by an effects comparison tabl e 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 spre ad of silt plumes beyond measures already implemented, Alternative A would produce no additio nal 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 ha rdwood 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 extend s 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 dive rsity 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. Neithe r of these two projects will impact rich coveUpper 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 represen t a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community across the Pisgah and Nantahala Na tional Forests (NP Forests). As a result, this alternative is unlikely to substantially alte r the current trend for rich cove forests or ginseng.

Northern Hardwood Forests and Ramps

Field surveys determined the tota l impact of silt plumes is roughl y equivalent to the total area of the trails crossing northern hardwoods forest, estimated ab ove 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 approximatel y 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. Neit her 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 fore seeable Forest Service or priv ate 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 represen t a total impact of < 0.02 % of this biological community across the national forests. As a result, this a lternative is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for northern hardwood forests or ramps.

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old

Field surveys determined the tota l impact of silt plumes is roughl y 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 Fore st 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 pr oject 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 th is special habitat component across the national forests. As a result, this a lternative 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, Alterna tive 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 in creased 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 di rect or indirect effects fo r non-native, invasive plant species other than the continuing effects of the trail system.

Cumulative Effects - In absence of any direct or i ndirect effects, Alternative A would produce no cumulative effects for non-native in vasive species in the analysis area.

A4. Boulderfield Botanical Communities.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Because no boulderfield communiti es plants were found in, or adjacent to, any trail in the current OHV Sy stem, 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 ma nagement 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 bur ying the plants, and i ndirectly, by either scouring or altering stream flows through the po pulations. 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 e xpected to extend approximately 75 feet downstream of trail crossings, a nd, for one-time impacts such as replacing a culvert, wouldUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

92 persist until the next bankfull flow, which occu rs, on average, every 2.5 years (Jason Farmer, personal communication 2008). Fo r continuing impacts, however, effects would persist indefinitely.

Both direct and indirect e ffects would decrease the num ber, extent and vigor of Megaceros populations in the small streams and tributar ies running through the trail system. Because these effects occur primarily at crossings, th e 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 th e streams. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative A cont ains 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 Crossings 1,2 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 un surveyed, 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. A ssuming 100 feet of stream distur bance at each trail crossing, the 25 stream crossings in Alternative A would aff ect approximately 0.5 miles of suitable habitat for Megaceros , or < 4.0 % of the potentia l 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 rela tively high occurrence of the speci es 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 ha ve 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 asso ciated with sedimentation from road construction.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

93 Table 3.3.2.2 Past projects on the Nantahala Na tional 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 construc t 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 proj ects will produce no direct, indirect or cumulative effects for Megaceros . The analysis area cont ains 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 cu mulative 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 ex tensive, and unlikely to be extirpated by current Forest Service direction fo r stream habitats. As a result, Alternative A may impact individuals of Megaceros , but is unlikely to cause a tre nd towards federal listing or a loss of viability for the species.

Alternative B:

B1. Plant Communities and MIS

Rich Cove Forests and ginsengUpper 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 constr uct an estimated 0.4 mile s 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 w ould also close an estimated 2.3 miles of trail crossing rich cove forests. Assuming a ten f oot tread, and an equal area of silt plumes that would become inactive, Alterna tive B would potentially allow the restora tion of 1.8 acres of rich cove forest.

In addition, Alternative B woul d 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 e ffects due to erosion are estimated at half the effects from trail closure, or fi ve feet per linear foot of pavi ng. Trail 1 crosses 2.3 miles of cove forests, producing an estimate of 0.8 mile s 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 Alte rnative A, past effects to rich cove forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or seve rely impacted. Alternative B would reduce the area of impact by 2.2 acres over the current c ondition. 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 ei ther eliminated or severely impacted.

The cumulative effects of Alternative B repr esent 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 w ould also close 0.2 miles of trail crossing northern hardwood forests. Assuming a ten f oot tread, and an equal amount of silt plumes that would become inactive, Alternative B woul d potentially allow the restoration of 0.5 acre of northern hardwoods forest and ramps habita t, for a gain of 0.5 acr e across the analysis

area.

Cumulative Effects – Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects to northern hardwood fore sts total 13.8 acres either elimin ated or severely impacted. Alternative B would reduce th e area of impact by 0.5 acre ove r the current condition. The area contains no other future activ ities that will affect northern ha rdwood forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alte rnative B is 13.3 net acres of nor thern hardwood forest either eliminated or severely impacted.

The cumulative effects of Alternative B repr esent 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 curr ent trend for northern hardw ood 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 al so close no miles of trail crossing forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. On the other hand, A lternative 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 repr esent 8.2 acres. Alte rnative 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 Alte rnative A, past effects to forest communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminat ed 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 th at 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 th is 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 indi rect effects may include both reductions in the gene pool as well as reducti ons in the gene flow among plants, potentially resulting in more inbreeding, d ecreased seed set, and less vigo rous seedlings. Due to the small size of the population in the proposed tr eatment area, however, effects to gene flow should be minimal and unlikely to influence th e viability of any su rrounding populations. As a result, indirect effects from the proposed act ivities will not be c onsidered further.

Cumulative Effects - According to the Forest Plan, forest concern species require a determination of effect, which addresses specie s 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 pr ojects 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 assume d to be present on the site. The effects from the Cable Cove Waterline probably enco mpassed 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 dur ing road maintenance. The Farmer BranchUpper 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. Ne ither of these two projects will impact purple sedge plants, and neither projec t will be discussed further. The analysis area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable Forest Servi ce or private actions that may impact Carex purpurifera

.

Over the past 20 years, therefore, Forest Serv ice actions have affect ed 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 specie s appears to be resili ent to disturbance. As a result, Alternative B may impact individuals, but is unlikely to cause a trend toward federal listing or lo ss of viability for the species.

B3. Non-native Invasive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects - Using the analysis presented unde r 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 a nd trailsides, contains approximately three acres of non-native, invasive plant specie s. The analysis area contains no other ongoing Forest Service projects. The analysis area contai ns two future Forest Se rvice projects, both of which may produce direct effects for non-native , invasive plants. The Davis Creek Road Paving project will realign and pave approxi mately 0.75 miles between the Tennessee state line and Trail 5. The Fain Ford Bridge Projec t will construct a bridge and across the Tellico River, realigning the Trail 4 cro ssing, an estimated distance of 0.1 miles. Using the analysis presented above, these two projects will produce a direct effect of 0.85 mi les of trail and road construction, producing 0.4 acre of suitable hab itat for non-native invasive species. TheUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

97 analysis area contains no other foreseeable Fo rest Service or private projects that would potentially create habitat for invasive plant species.

For Alternative B, therefore, the cumulative e ffect 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 Alternativ e A, Alternative B would direc tly impact, through either trail maintenance or continued current impact s, all three of th e 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 crossi ngs, Alternative B should reduce the current impacts to Megaceros habitat in the Upper Tell ico 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, elim inating 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, allowi ng the restoration of 0.9 acre, for a gain of 5.8 acres of rich cove forest and gins eng habitat across the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alte rnative A, past effects to rich cove forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or seve rely impacted. Alternative C would reduce the area of impact by 5.8 acres over the current c ondition. 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 represen t 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. Alterna tive C would close an estimated 4.6 miles of trail, potentially allowing the restoration of 11.2 acres of north ern 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 to tal 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 activ ities that will affect northern ha rdwood forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alterna tive C is 2.6 net acres of forest either eliminated or severely impacted.

The cumulative effects represen t 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 construc t no miles of new trail through forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative C would clos e 0.9 miles of trail crossing forest communities ≥ 100 yr old that would potentially allo w 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, Altern ative 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, A lternative 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 eliminat ed 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 th at 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 th is 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, tra il 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 indi rect effects, Alternative C will have no cumulative effects to Carex purpurifera

.

C3. Non-native Invasive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative C woul d 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 i ndirect effects, Alternative C would produce no cumulative effects for non-native in vasive 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 su rveys for this project. Current impacts would continue on the population next to Tra il 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 imp acts 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 cu mulative 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 ex tensive, and unlikely to be extirpated byUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

100 current Forest Service direction for stream hab itats. 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 fore sts, eliminating an estimated 0.5 acre of rich cove forests. A lternative 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 Alte rnative A, past effects to rich cove forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or seve rely impacted. Alternative D would reduce the area of impact by 2.7 acres over the current c ondition. 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 eith er eliminated or severely impacted. The cumulative effects represen t 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. Alterna tive 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 acr es across the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects to northern hardwood forests to tal 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 activ ities that will affect northern ha rdwood forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of this al ternative is 4.8 acres of forest either eliminated or severely impacted.

The cumulative effects represen t 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 oldUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

101 Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative D would construc t no miles of new trail through forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative D would clos e 0.8 miles of trail crossing forest communities ≥ 100 yr old that would potentially allo w 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, Altern ative D would close 13.2 net mile s 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 th e analysis area.

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past effects to forest communities ≥ 100 yr old total 3.0 acres either eliminat ed 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 th is 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 AUpper 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 w ould reduce the current impacts to one of the three the populations of Megaceros located during the field surv eys for the project. Current impacts would continue on the populati ons 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, Altern ative 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 cu mulative 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 ex tensive, and unlikely to be extirpated by current Forest Service direction for stream hab itats. 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 fore sts, eliminating an estimated 0.9 acre of rich cove forests. Altern ative E would also close an estimated 1.8 miles of trail, allowing the restorati on of 1.4 acres of rich cove fo rest, 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 seve rely impacted. Alternative E would reduce the area of impact by 1.4 acres over the current c ondition. 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 represen t a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community across the national forests. As a result, this a lternative 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. Alterna tive E would also close no miles of trail, allowing no restoration, for no gain or lo ss of acres across the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects to northern hardwood forests to tal 13.8 acres either eliminated or severely impacted. Alternative E will produce no addi tional net gain or loss of northern hardwood forests. The area contains no other future activ ities that will affect northern ha rdwood forests. As a result, there is no cumulative effect from this alternative.

As a result, this alternative would not alter th e current trend for northern hardwood forests.

Forest communities ≥ 100 years old

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative E would construc t no miles of new trail through forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Alternative E would al so close no miles of trail crossing forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. On the other hand, A lternative 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 repr esent 1.9 acres. Alte rnative 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 eliminat ed or severely impacted. Alternative E would reduce the area of impact by 1.9 acres ov er the current conditi on. The area contains no other future activities that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. As a result, the cumulative effect of this a lternative 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 th is special habitat component across the national forests. As a result, this a lternative 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 Alternativ e A, Alternative E would direc tly impact, through either trail maintenance or continued current impact s, all three of th e populations of Megaceros located during the field surveys for the project.

Alternative E will also d ecrease 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, Altern ative 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 fore sts, eliminating an estimated 1.8 acres of rich cove forests and gi nseng habitat. Alterna tive 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 rest oration 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 Alte rnative A, past effects to rich cove forests total 9.6 acres either eliminated or se verely 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 aff ect rich cove forests. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alternative F is 9.7 acres of rich cove forest a nd ginseng habitat either eliminated or severely impacted.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

105 The cumulative effects represen t a total impact of < 0.01 % of this biological community across the national forests. As a result, this a lternative 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 ha bitat. Alternative F would also close no miles of trail, producing no additional ga in or loss across the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects - Using the analysis presented for Alternative A, past and ongoing effects to northern hardwood forests to tal 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 represen t a total impact of < 0.02 % of this biological community across the national forests. As a result, the proj ect 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 construc t 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 equivale nt 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 th at could also be re stored into forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. Assuming a ten foot trea d, 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 eliminat ed 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 activitie s that will affect forest communities ≥ 100 yr old. As a result, the cumulative effect of Alterna tive 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 th is 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 tota l 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 th e 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 we st of Allen Gap, estimated at three acres, direct effects may elimin ate 8 – 10% of the community.

In general, the trails will cr oss the centers of th e boulderfields, maximi zing the direct and indirect effects of the activ ity. 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 la rge in comparison, that species sensitive to these impacts are unlikely to find suitable refugia in th e remaining portions of the boulderfield. As a result, indirect effect s 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 boulde rfields in the Biotics Database are located on the Nantahala National Forest.

No past actions on the Nantahala National Fore st have impacted boulderfield communities since 1997. The analysis area contains two othe r Forest Service proj ects, the Davis Creek Road Paving Project and the Fain Ford Bridge Project. Neither of these two projects will impact boulderfield communities, and neither proj ect will be discussed further. The analysis area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable Fo rest Service or priv ate 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 Alternativ e A, Alternative F would direc tly impact, thr ough either trail maintenance or continued current impact s, all three of th e populations of Megaceros located during the field surveys for the pr oject. Alternative F would al so 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 stre am crossing in the OHV System to 25 crossings from 26 crossings. Because impacts are considered proportional to the number of blue line crossings, Alterna tive F will probably increase the impacts to Megaceros habitat in the proposed trail sy stem 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 eliminatedUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

109 Table 3.3.3.2. Effects on Forest Concern Species, Non-Native Invasive Species, Boulderfield Botanical Communi ties, 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 listingUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

110Upper 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 fore sts. 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, Threaten ed, 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 ar ea has unique desired conditions and expectations for wildlife ha bitat. The expectation for wild life 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, al so associated with motorized recreation, differs from MA 1B in that forests are expect ed to be older and provi de habitat for species that use standing dead trees, such as pile ated woodpecker. In MAs 4D and 4C less disturbance is desired, and wildlif e 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 activi ties 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 th e 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, ra ther than individual management areas. The Tellico OHV area encompasses approximately 8,000 acres of forested habitat.

Wherever trails are within 100 f eet of perennial streams they ar e in MA 18, riparian areas. Riparian areas are located along perennial waterbodies and may se rve as travel corridors for animals. They are expected to have a divers e assemblage of mature trees which can provide large woody material for wildlife and fisherie s habitat. Abundant vegetative ground cover is desired to help maintain the natural hydrologi c 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 terrestri al wildlife species as potential management indicator species (MIS) to help evaluate the effects of propo sed 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 belo w 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: Ke y habitat components, likelihood of occurrence, and rationale for selectio n (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 forest s 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 thes e species are sensitive t o. These species are: white-tailed deer, pileated woodpecker, ruffed grous e, pine warbler, and rufous-sided towhee.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

113 Selected MIS Trends

Detailed information about forest-wide MIS habita ts and population trends is contained in the Management Indicator Species Report (National Forests in No rth Carolina 2005), which is the primary source of information for the summ aries below. The analysis of effects will indicate if any change in tre nd is expected as a result of the proposed activities. It is understood that these species ar e not the only species present that may be sensitive to changes in the environment, but rather that they serve as indicator s 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 ar e increasing across the Forests, and this trend is likely to continue.

Acadian Flycatcher - Although Acadian flycat cher 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 ripari an forests identified in the LRMP.

Ovenbird - Long-term breeding bird studies from the past thirty-five years indicate stable populations. However, ovenbird pop ulations were found to be increasing slightly in the northern part of the species’ range, and decrea sing slightly at the edges of this range, including the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is lik ely 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 terre strial MIS habitat components include:

1. The amount of new trail construction and tra il decommissioning (habit at 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 c ould locally alter the quality of old forest condition and hard ma st production. Trail decommissioning includes correcting entrenchments a nd 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 ovenbi rd) by affecting the type and amount of noise and human use in the area; and

3. The same activities, when located with in 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 woul d decrease or increase availability of this habitat.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

114 3.4.1b ENVIRONMENTAL CO NSEQUENCES - MIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 3.4.1b.1 displays direct eff ects on terrestrial wild life 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 (expre ssed in feet, from field measurements for each trail) 43,560 square feet per acre

Table 3.4.1b.1. Terrestrial habitat comp onents 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 olde r forest habitat directly affected by each alternative is small in comp arison to the amount availabl e within the Upper Tellico watershed. The same is true for riparian ha bitats affected when addressing the Acadian flycatcher (Table 3.4.1b.2). In terms of dir ect effects to habita t 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 speci es, 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 blac k bear habitat except for Alternatives C and D, where human disturbance would decrease to a le vel 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 th e Tellico OHV area because of higher open road densities in the area (and ther efore more human disturbance) , even though an abundance of contiguous older forest is present. Open road de nsity 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 a ltered (Mitchell and Po well 2003; Mitchell et al. 2002; Brody and Pelton 1989). Proposed winter closure (Alterna tives B through F) will facilitate effective black bear denning by reducing disturban ce during this critical time.

Ovenbird – Slight changes to the am ount of contiguous older forest are overshadowed in this area by the high level of human disturbance that devalues mu ch of the area as ovenbird habitat except for Alternative C, where the level of human disturba nce may decrease enough to support nesting ovenbird populations (highl ighted portion of Table 3.4.1b.1). Open road density exceeds Forest Plan sta ndards under Alternatives A, B, E, and F. It is likely that under any of these Alternatives, ovenbird woul d 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 occupyi ng local habitat during this period.

Therefore, for black bear and ovenbird, Alterna tive C proposes to have the greatest benefit through reduced open road density, followed in d ecreasing order by Alternatives D, E, B, A, and F.

Acadian Flycatcher – All alternatives impact a very sm all amount of riparian habitat within the Tellico OHV area (Table 3.4.1b .2). Nonetheless, Alterna tive C potentially affects the least amount of riparian habitat, followed in increasing order by a lternatives C, B, E & F, and A.

Cumulative Effects

While many of the OHV trails that existed prio r to federal ownership were closed out years ago (and have been largely rest ored 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 ye ars), present, and reasona bly 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 re generation by planting oak seedlings, andUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

116 established approximately 0.6 acres of grass/fo rb 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 a ffected 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 immediatel y 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 hab itat since disturbance would remain. Harvesting and regenerating the two units farther from the system would have a slight benefit to black bear whil e 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 fore sts and riparian areas habitat components (positive or negative) are not measurable, exce pt when considering the proposed prescribed burning. .Again, slight change s 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 disturba nce may decrease enough to support a more diverse wildlife communit y. 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 compromi sed within the Tellico OHV area, even though there is an abundance of contiguous older forest habitat pr esent. Alternatives C and D both achieve open road densities compatible with increase d use of suitable hab itat by a more diverse community. Proposed winter closure (Alternativ es B through F) perpetuates seasonal use of the area by a more diverse wildlife community.

Therefore, cumulatively speaking for black be ar and ovenbird, Alternative C proposes to have the greatest benefit through reduced ope n road density, followed by Alternative D. Alternatives E, B, A, and F propose less be nefit to black bear habitat, respectively.

And, cumulatively speaking for th e Acadian flycatcher, all alte rnatives impact a very small amount of riparian habitat within the Telli co 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 th is 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 nonn ative species in order to maintain viable populations of such species ac ross the planning area (LRMP, A ppendix K). All forty-five forest concern terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. Species which are known to o ccur or are likely to occur were identified from this list using known habitat relationshi ps, 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 o ccur 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 pr esence of the boulderfield forest in Alternative F makes these two species likely to occur until s ite-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. Lo ss 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 char acteristics 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 fore st. 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 parenth eses represent the percent of total habitat available within the Tellico OHV a rea 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 ye ars), present, and reasona bly 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 re generation by planting oak seedlings, and established approximately 0.6 acres of grass/fo rb 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 uni ts are immediately adjacent to Trail 1.

No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeab le 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 a lternative, the numbers repres ent only a tiny fraction of the habitats available within th e 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 pr oposed alternatives may impact individuals of the dark glyph, pink glyph, and open supercoil, such effects w ill 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 affect ed in relation to the amount available across the Tellico OHV area. These percentages are ev en smaller when compared to the amount of habitat across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Fo rests or range of the species . Despite the small numbers, Alternative C proposed to disturb the least amoun t of snail habitat, fo llowed 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. A lternative F will eliminat e 100% of the suitable habitat within the Tellico OHV ar ea 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 ra nge of each of these species indicates that potential loss of individua ls will not affect species viability (Handley 1991, Merritt 1987).

3.4.3a AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – PETS

The project area is in the Unicoi Mountain s, 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, e ndangered, 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 Caro lina species list (Attachment 3.4-1). Sensitive species (S) considered in this analysis are th ose identified by the Regional Forester for whichUpper 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 terrestria l animal species were evaluate d 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 we re identified from this list using known habitat relationships, element occurrence records maintained by th e North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the United States Fish and Wildlif e Service (USFWS), and field data from the activity areas. This proce ss resulted in one federally-lis ted 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 I ndiana bats have been found within the immediate Tellico OHV area). Therefore, the In diana bat will be incl uded in this effects analysis.

Twenty-six sensitive terrestria l wildlife species were evalua ted 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 we re 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 sensitiv e species being identified as like ly 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 pr esence of special habitats, such as wetlands, boulderfields, caves or mines th at could be adversely affected by project activities. NoUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

120 special habitats except boulderf ields were located. No Terrestrial wildlife PETS species are associated with boulderfields.

Project-specific surveys were not conducted for th e Indiana bat. Indian a bat activity within Graham and Cherokee Counties has been and con tinues to be intensiv ely monitored by the Forest Service, USDA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and othe r 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 w ildlife 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 spri ngs 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 culv erts 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-cove red rock outcrops and boulders. Effects of the alternatives on this species were estimat ed according to the loss of this habitat (boulderfield forest). These re sults are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1.

The cave spider, Nesticus sheari , utilizes moist rocky areas inrice cove forests on northfacing slopes. The species is thought to be ende mic to the Unicoi Mountains. Effects of the alternatives on this species were estimated accord ing to the loss of this habitat, as reflected by the new culverts installed that would cause a disruption of roc ky habitats in the area of the culvert. Where culverts are removed during th e decommissioning process, this habitat would be restored. These results are summarized in Table 3.4.3b.1.

The Santeetlah dusky salamander is found in stre am 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 re moved 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 fore sts, and is thought to be endemic to the Unicoi Mountains in Tennessee and North Caro lina. The southern Appalachian salamander is found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevat ions. Effects of the alternatives on these species were estimated acco rding to the loss of th is habitat from trail construction and trails remaining open. Habita t for this species would be restored in alternatives where trails or segments of trails will be decommissioned.

The southern rock vole utilizes moist roc ky 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 instal led that would cause a di sruption of the habitatUpper 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. Thes e 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 Ma con, 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 perenni al streams (bridge crossings would not impact habitat). No new non-bridge cr ossings are proposed for any al ternatives. 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 habita ts 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 ne w openings in the canopy are created through road or tra il construction. Where trails ar e 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 a ffected (acres gained or lost) for the terrestrial wildlife PETS species considered in th is analysis. These values were calculated on the parameters described above using the formul a 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 (t he 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 CO NSEQUENCES – PETS

Table 3.4.3b.1: Acres of habitat affected by alternative for terr estrial 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

lostUpper 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 ye ars), present, and reasona bly 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 re generation by planting oak seedlings, and established approximately 0.6 acres of grass/fo rb 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 uni ts are immediately adjacent to Trail 1.

While potential effects do vary by alternative, the numbers represent on ly 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 terres trial wildlife PETS species considered in this analysis, Alternat ives 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 affe ct the Indiana bat, butare not likely to adversely affect the species because no suita ble snags would be cut between April 15 and October 15, and all standards and guides for the protection of this sp ecies, as listed in Amendment 10 of the LRMP would be followe d. Additionally, all Terms and Conditions contained within the Biological Opinion issu ed 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 e ffect of each alternat ive 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 le ad 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 Im pact 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

124Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

125 

### 3.5 Area Visitor Preferences

3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Two user groups have been iden tified as key stakeholders in the Upper Tellico OHV System; OHV users and trout anglers. Surveys of th ese 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 survey s were made available online. Therefore, respondents included both those who had visite d Upper Tellico previ ously, and those who had not visited but had an inte rest in the OHV System. Most of the trout angler respondents were onsite; responses to the angler surv ey 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), modi fied street legal 4WD vehicl es, 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 analys is; 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 Tenne ssee. Anglers use the area 2- 3 times more often than OHV users, and tend to live locall y. 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-2 nd Highest % TN (29.2%) TN, SC, FL tied (12.9%) GA (7.1%)

Residency-3 rd 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 Educat ion 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 re port a desire for pursuing thei r 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 soci al 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 environmenta l 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/U TV/motorcycle users) expressed a greater degree of awareness than 4WD users that ot her 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 askedUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

127 Support for temporary clos ures and fee increases Support for various management tools varied am ong 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 greate r potential for being able to adapt travel plans on short notice. Support for fee increases at so me 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 respondent s. It is likely that there wo uld 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 increas es are considered in the analysis in acknowledgment that future management of the Trail System would re quire increased revenue ov er current levels. Fee increases would be based on a combination of the enhancements built into the trail system and the amount of increased revenue requ ired 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 recr eation 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 Committ ee periodically and re viewed to determine appropriateness and consistency across the Sout hern 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 eff ects that the six alterna tives could have on the social environment. They were selected for th eir potential to identify significant differences among the alternatives.

• Trail preference

• Preferred trail experience levelUpper 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 curre nt 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 represen tation of preference for the most difficult trails. As two of the five preferred trails were cl osed during the survey period, it is logical to assume that more of the offsite respondents were not using th e trail system. The onsite respondents’ preferences were for more di fficult 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, ther e is a segment of users who prefer a more diversified expe rience 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 tr ail experience were taken from Tables 3.6.2.6 through 3.6.2.11, to determine the number of miles of preferre d user experience level provided in each alternative. These are shown in th e analysis for each alternative.

Decision to continue using the area

Miles of preferred trail experi ence helps determine the potenti al 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, a nd sedimentation for anglers. Trout anglers’ decisions as to whether to conti nue fishing in the Tellico River appear to be little affected byUpper 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 th e area less often if th ere 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 repo rt participating in other activities in addition to OHV recreation whil e in the area. In a similar survey of trout anglers, 83.9% report participa ting in activities other than fishing while visiting the Tellico River. Each alternative was analyzed as to wh ether 80% of the preferred uses (other than the primary reason for visiting) would still be availa ble. 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 Manageme nt Areas 1B and 2C. MA 1B direction includes “motorized access for traditional forest uses a nd 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 othe r uses was remarkably similar. The percent for the most preferred “other recreation activities” are showin g 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 difficultUpper 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 be cause 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 mo st 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 cons truction 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 aff ected by seasonal and storm event closures (see Table 3.10.1.5). Restrictions on camping would re duce 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 woul d be eliminated. All trail users would be negatively affected. Users would have access to pr eferred other uses, but at a reduced scale.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

131 Other uses could be accessed via Davis Creek Ro ad and portions of the forest roads currently designated as Trails 2, 4, 5, and 6. Motorized acc ess to angling in tributaries of the Tellico River, such as Peckerwood, Mistletoe and B ob Creeks, would be eliminated. There is insufficient data at present to determine if ot her 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 th e most difficult trails. ATV users would see a reduction of 3.9 miles of more difficult trails. 4WD users w ould ride less often; use by ATV’s may remain at similar levels; however, so me 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- motori zed 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 mo st 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, constr uction of a new challe nge 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 recrui t new users. ATV use may remain at similar levels, however, some users may not like incr eased 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 mo st 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, c onstruction 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 recrui t new users. ATV use may remain at similar levels, however some users may not like incr eased 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. User s would be positively affected by the lack of storm event closures and elimination of a dditional 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 pr ovides mixed results, even within user groups. For example, Alternative E eliminates some favored challenge areas for 4WDs, but creates new opportunities elsewhere. Al ternative F requires ATV users to share Trail 10 but createsUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

133 a new trail dedicated to their use. The asse ssments 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 Negati ve 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 pla nned in the Trail System vicinity:

• Rough Crossing Bridge: This bridge spans th e 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 ro ad-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 we re 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 devel oped campsites along the Tellico River immediately nor th of the Trail System in Te nnessee. 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 Davi s 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 er osion 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 th e Trail System, while enhancing access to privately owned parcels in the Tipton Creek Community.

In addition, examination of sim ilar 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: Ta ble 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 acc ess to 721 miles of more to most difficult trails within this radius; 4W Ds 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, rega rdless 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 Dahl onega GA, which is approxima tely 2.5 hours driving time from the Upper Tellico OHV Trail System.

Alternative A The Rough Crossing and Fain Ford Bridges woul d continue to provide access to trails preferred by all users. Illega l routes would continue to be created around the most difficult trail segments, as there would not be any viab le alternatives provide d by the managed trail system itself. Additional review would be required to determin e 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 mitig ated partially by the camping provided on the Cherokee National Forest.

Alternatives B-E Further paving of Davis Creek Road would impa ct 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 incr ease, requiring appropr iate engineering and safety design features.

Alternative B OHV users would become more dependent on othe r trail systems in th e region for more to most difficult experiences. Developed cam ping 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 coul d 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 Fo rd 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 syst em, 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 segmen ts. A significant increase in user fees so soon after the last increase might prompt some us ers 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 campi ng around the area, reduc ing the dependence on the developed camping in the Cherokee National Forest.

Alternative F Cumulative effects would be similar to Altern ative E. ATV use would likely increase due to the addition of new opportunitie s on Trail 13 and improved acce ss to the trail system.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

136Upper 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 fe w 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 driv e or trailer off-road vehicles from the Rocky Mountain region, the West Coast, and even Canada. Upper Tellic o 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), modi fied street legal 4WD vehicl es, 4WD rail buggies, and highly specialized 4WD rock-crawlers. The latter gr oup of vehicles are ge nerally over 50 inches wide and referred to as “4WD” in this analys is; 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 ev en some trails designa ted as ATV-only. These trails are narrower, are rated Easy to More Difficult, and ge nerally have a more natural appearance. The ATV user group generally prefers this type of trail, with low to moderate challenges, obstacles less th an 2 feet high, and a narrower overall width. However, Upper Tellico does have one challenge area on an AT V-only trail; but it is bypassed by most users on unauthorized user-created trails.

Conversely, challenge areas are a major attraction to the 4WD us er group. Some of the more popular challenge features are “The Rock Garden”, “Slickr ock”, “Helicopter Pad”, and “Guardrail”. In these areas 4WD enthusiasts experience trails s cattered with 5-foot diameter boulders, a series of 6-foot be drock ledges, or 45 degree rock cliffs reaching 30 feet in height. These challenge areas are only attemp ted by the most experienced drivers. With heavy 4WD use and subsequent erosion, challe nge 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-cre ated trails bypassing these obstacles. Bypass trails are often in unsustainable lo cations and create additional erosion problems.

There are three categories of trai l 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 basedUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

138 on difficulty compared to other routes in the area. Conditions are alwa ys subject to change due to weather and other acts of nature.

( Easy ) These routes are appropria te 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 in termediate through advanced users. Terrain may be steeper and tr ails narrower. Frequency, size , and difficulty in negotiating obstacles may be greater. ( Most Difficult ) These routes are recommended for adva nced 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 ra ted 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 experien ce. 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 Nantahal a 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 MV UM 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 EAUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

139 represents the most accurate information base d on recent GPS inventories and current trail system management.

Vehicle types identified in this document de scribe allowed motorized trail use in common terms, such as 4WD, ATV and motorcycle. Thes e terminologies relate to those used on the Upper Tellico OHV System ma p, but differ from those on the MVUM publication. The following table provides a crossw alk between vehicle types refere nced in this analysis and allowed uses indicated on the Tusquit ee Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map.

Table 3.6.1.1a. Upper Tellico Trail Syst em 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 Tr ails Management Direction: Although there are specific regula tions or restrictions in some areas, dispersed recreation such as camping, fishing, and hunting is allowe d on most National Forest lands. Open Forest Development Roads and motorized trails provi de vehicular access fo r these activities.

In addition to motorized use on Forest Deve lopment Roads, system trails accommodate a range of use types that are specifically desi gnated 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 ope n to bicycle and equestrian use.

The Travel Analysis for the Upper Tellic o watershed indicates that visitors using the area include trout fishermen, campers, local reside nts 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 variet y of dispersed recreation opportu nities across the Forest. Dispersed recreation and trails management standards specify Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings, types of suitable recrea tion activities, and desired trail density to insure adequate trail opportuni ties in appropriate locations. R ecreation 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 predominan tly natural-appearing environment with evidence of the sights and s ounds of people. Such evidence s usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interacti on between users is moderate. Evidence of other users is prevalent. Resource modification and utiliz ation practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventi onal motorized use is provided for in construction standards and facility de sign. Motorized recreation opportunities predominate.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

140 • RN2 - Area is characterized by a predominan tly natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Intera ction between users may be low, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural envi ronment. Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible, but non-motorized opportunities predominate.

Dispersed recreation and trail management di rection is defined for each Management Area (MA). The analysis area includes general fore st areas in MA 1B, 2C, 4C, 4D; developed recreation sites in MA 12; and riparian zone s in MA 18, which is embedded within other management areas. Applicable recreation manage ment direction for each MA is summarized below:

MA 1B

• Provide motorized recreation opportunities fa voring driving for pleas ure. Provide some non-motorized opportunities including viewi ng wildlife, hunting, and access for fishing. Manage for RN1 conditions, including a high level of public vehicu lar access on Forest Development roads.

• Provide Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) opportunities on design ated routes. Use traffic service level D roads to enhance or expand these opportunities if such use does not adversely impact other resources. Provide oppo rtunities in response to identified needs to an approximate density of 2 miles per square mile in any management area unit.

• Provide trails that empha size hunting and fishing access, and provide some hiking opportunities.

MA 2C

• Provide motorized recreation opportunities fa voring driving for pleas ure. Provide some non-motorized recreation opportunities includi ng day-use hiking, viewing wildlife, and access for fishing. Manage for RN1 conditi ons, 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 opport unities 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 a nd bicycle travel on closed roads.

MA4C & 4D

• Provide non-motorized recreation opportuni ties including hunting, access for fishing, viewing wildlife, horseback riding, and hiki ng. Manage for RN2 c onditions, including a low level of vehicular access on forest development roads.

• Provide hiking opportunities and trails fo r 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 disperse d 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 opportuniti es. Manage for RN1 or RN2 conditions depending on type of recreation opportunity in adjacent management areas.

Trail density standards are speci fied 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 follo wing 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 pr imarily 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 ar ea 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 o pportunities in the surrounding area.

• Storm-Event and Seasonal Closures – Estimated number of annual closure days based on rainfall data from nearby weather st ations, and duration of seasonal closure.

• Other OHV Opportunities – Miles of other OHV trails within a one-d ay drive of Murphy, NC; categorized by allowed use, diffi culty 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 sq uare 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 tra il 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 (N antahala NF), there are 165 mile s of open road in a RN1 and RN2 settings. The adjacent Tellico Ranger Distri ct (Cherokee NF) offers another 132 miles of open road.

These system roads (or Forest Development Ro ads) are maintained, aggregate-surfaced roads suitable for high-clearance vehicles; and in ma ny 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 fishi ng; and is often the only means of access for users with impaired mobility. Under all alternat ives these opportunities will continue to be available along 297 miles of open Forest Deve lopment 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 (D avis 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 mile s and/or close the area to camping; and would reduce or eliminate motorized access for di spersed camping within the OHV System. The following table summarizes miles of OHV tra il open to camping in each Alternative:

Table 3.6.2.2 Summary of OHV Trail M iles 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 li mited 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 trails ide camping is allowed do not necessarily eliminate dispersed camp ing opportunities in the vicinity.

Storm-Event and Seasonal Closures The following table summarizes estimated a nnual days of OHV System closure for each Alternative. Storm-event closure estimates ar e based on rainfall data from a nearby weather station.

Table 3.6.2.3 Summary of Estimated Annual St orm-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 reduc ed, 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 redu ction in trail miles. A lternatives with fewer or no challenge areas would re duce 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 criti cal to identify other OHV opportunities in the region. If sufficient OHVUpper 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 opportuni ties exist, then reduc tion 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 w ithin the Southern Appalachian and foothills region and offer terrain si milar 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 se veral privately owned OHV parks, but they are not included in the summary because of special membership re quirements 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 993Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

145 Use Type – Driving Distance – Difficulty Level Available Trail Miles Motorcycle Miles < 2-Hour Driv e (Easy to More Difficult) 44 Motorcycle Miles 2 to 4-Hour Dr ive (Easy to More Difficult) 38 Motorcycle Miles 4 to 8-Hour Dr ive (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, ther e are approximately 1053 miles of OHV trail opportunities within an 8-hour drive of Mu rphy, NC. Under Altern ative C, a loss of approximately 39 miles of Upper Tellico OHV tr ail represents 4% of total available OHV trail miles within a one-day drive. Alternat ives B, D, E and F represent proportionally smaller percentages. Detailed internet sear ch results, incl uding trail system location, available miles, and driving distan ce from Murphy are shown in Appendix A.

Trail Experience In OHV trail systems like Upper Tellico, trail di fficulty levels and avai lability of challenge areas can be considered an i ndicator of potential user experi ence. Overall length of an OHV system also affects user experience. Genera l 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” area s, and the system may lo se its attraction to nonlocal users.

Although many other factors such as scenery, w ildlife encounters, and sense of remoteness contribute to the OHV experience, difficulty, ch allenge, and length of system are the primary factors. Miles of each trail experience are show n 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 availa ble 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 10Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

146 Alternative B: Direct and Indirect Effects Under this Alternative, the ove rall 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 th e 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 availa ble 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 0Upper 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 th e 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 availa ble 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 availa ble 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. Th ese include paving a 4000 ft. segment at the North end of Davis Creek Road and constructin g 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 Altern ative A, paving of Davis Creek Road would change the character and the OHV user experi ence over the 4000 ft. section. The “Easy” difficulty level would not necessarily change, but users would be traveling on an asphalt surface rather than th e existing aggregate.

Constructing a bridge at Fain Ford would eliminate the expe rience of fording the Tellico River; this would be true for A lternatives 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 comput er 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 la ndforms, geologic featur es, water bodies, and vegetation as seen across the landscape. A lthough considered a “co mmon landscape” within the Southern Appalachian char acter type, the Upper Tellic o 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 ar eas, and timber harvests. In addition to the motorized trails, open and ga ted roads, many abandoned loggi ng 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 w ithin 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 la ndscapes where the composition of landforms, water bodies, rock outcrops, and vegetation ha s unusual or outstandi ng 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 va riety of features, and include all areas not considered Variety Class A or B.

The Upper Tellico area is cla ssified as Variety Class B.

Sensitivity Level is a measure of viewer con cern 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/a reas 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 atwhich 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 depe nding on Distance Zone and Sensitivity Level for a specific viewpoint. Visual Quality Objectives for project MA’s are:

• Retention (R) – Management activities are no t visually evident; objective must be met within one growing season.

• Partial Retention (PR) – Management activi ties remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape; objective must be met within two growing seasons.

• Modification (M) – Management activities ma y visually dominate the characteristic landscape; objective must be met within three growing seasons.

The following table shows the assigned VQO fo r 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 Uppe r Tellico OHV area would be cons idered Sensitivity Level 3; except Davis Creek Road and FR402 which would be Sensitivity Level 2. The Tellico River and its tributaries would be cl assified as SL 2 and SL 3, respectively. Even though the Tellico River is eligible as a Wild and Scenic Rive r, the outstanding resource values worthy of designation are recreational, not scenic; therefore di ctating a SL2 classification (see Ch 3.7, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility).

3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Scenery Analysis: Environmental consequences to scenery are ev aluated based on a propos ed activity’s ability to meet assigned Visual Quality Objectives fr om identified viewpoints. Some viewpoints analyzed are at specific locations others are from corridors. All open roads, existing trails, proposed trail locations, develope d recreation areas, fishable st reams, and the Tellico River were considered for viewpoints. The following chart shows viewpoint locations analyzed for all Alternatives and their associated Manage ment 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 cons idered 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 ch aracter of the road and driving experience, but Visual Quality Objectives would be met.

Alternative A: Direct and Indirect Effects Erosion resulting from trail en trenchment and inadequate ma intenance 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 Tra il 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. Continuati on of current management and maintenanceUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

152 routines would allow further er osion, 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, a nd associated drainage features would be visible from many locations in MA 1B and 2C; as would several miles of trail proposed for closure and re habilitation in MA 1B, 2C, a nd 4D. Construction of trail relocations and reconstruction of existing rout es conforming to the appropriate FS OHV trail design standards, and rehabil itation of damaged trail segmen ts 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-veget ate failed slopes adjacent to challenge areas.

• Reconstruct, or relocate and rehabilitate, existing challenge area bypass trails.

• Create barriers to prevent user-creat ed bypass trails around challenge areas.

• Where possible, create hardened observation ar eas adjacent to challenge areas to prevent uncontrolled soil and vegetation dama ge 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 ut ilizes 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 sc enery impacts on this site; therefore mitigation measures cited fo r 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 wi dth 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, theUpper 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, Recr eation 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 th e following section, these effects are discussed for each activity and Alternative.

Construction of a bridge at Fain Ford woul d 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 Alterna tives and Alternative A, bridge construction would eliminate OHV damage to river banks an d 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 activ ities along the corridor. Under Alternative A, the character and appearance of that segmen t of Davis Creek Road (Trail 1) would change from that of an aggregate surfaced road to as phalt, 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 th rough the OHV trail syst em there are/would be repeated views of erosion, soil compaction, a nd vegetation damage. Cumulative impacts to scenery under this Alternative would not meet assigned VQO’s.

Alternative B, D, E, or F trail proposal: Newly constructe d trails, reconstruction, and rehabilitation efforts would be visible conti nuously as users ride the system. All of these activities would serve to improve scenic qua lity and have a positive overall cumulative effect. Assigned VQO’s would be met, even where multiple construction/reconstruction/rehabil itation activities would be seen.

Alternative C trail proposal: Trails would be cl osed and rehabilitated. Trail viewpoints would no longer exist. Scenery view ed 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

154Upper 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 headwa ters in North Carolina to McDaniel Bridge near Tellico Plains, Tennessee. The North Caro lina 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-flow ing and posses one or more of the following outstandingly remarkable resource values: scenic, recreational, ge ological, fish and wildlife, historical and cultural, or other values incl uding ecological. The study identified recreation, fish and wildlife, historical and cultural, a nd botanical resources as having distinctive characteristics along the 5.8 mile Tellico River segment within North Carolina.

There are three classifications of rivers or ri ver segments in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. Classification is base d 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 harv est and the river should be generally inaccessible except by trail. There should be no roads or other pr ovision for vehicular ac cess 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 eviden ce 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 pr ovided 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 acces sible by roads and the existence of parallel roads and bridge crossings with in the river corridor is accep table. Poor water quality does not preclude classification pr ovided 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 Recr eational River classifi cation 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 Manageme nt Plan Amendment 5 (LRMP) provides general direction and standard s for eligible Wild and Scenic River (WSR) management on pages III-11 & III-14 thr ough III-19; portions of wh ich state the following:

• Provide interim protection for eligible rive rs which are recommende d for further study by precluding management activities whose effects could foreclose the potential classification. Continue interim protection th rough the study period and until the rivers are designated or released from consid eration. (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 pr oposed activities do not reduce potential classification of the river se gments. (p. III-14, #4 & 4a)

• Manage the Tellico Rive r corridor on Forest lands to re tain 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 f acilities for intensive recreation use and construction of new roads provided the identi fied outstandingly remarkable values are protected. (p. III -19, #12d & 12f)

In the existing 39.3 mile Upper Tellico OHV Tra il 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 duri ng the 1994 WSR study in essentially the same configuration as the current syst em. Two exceptions to that ar e the construction of the “New Bridge” on Trail 5 to replace “Rough Crossing” ford, and the additi on 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 directi on and standards for eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers; including provisi ons for use of NEPA process to assess effects and interim protection of outstandingly remarkable valu es which qualify the Tellico River for WSR Recreational classification.

Alternative A:

Direct and Indirect Effects With recurrent heavy OHV use on existing trail loca tions and a continuation of past levels of maintenance, water quality may deteriorat e. 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 criter ia, it could be argued that this component of the criteria would not be met. If so, outstandingl y remarkable values would not be maintained and compliance with LRMP dire ction 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 a nd recreation facilities wi thin the eligible WSR corridor do not preclude the Tel lico River from retaining its cl assification as a Recreational River segment under guidelines of the Nati onal 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 eligib ility. Other proposed actions include paving a 4000 ft. segment of Da vis 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

158Upper 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 th e Cherokee town of Great Tellico, which was one of the more important towns of the Overhi ll Cherokee during the 18th century. Two important roads met at Great Tellico, the Trad ing Path and the Seneca Trail Warrior Path (Duncan 2003:242). Several very important trea ties affecting the future of settlement and land ownership were signed at Tellico. The her itage resources analysis area addressed in this discussion consists of the presently existi ng and authorized Upper Tellico River OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) routes, potential new routes, re-rout es, parking areas and their contiguous acres between Allen Gap, Rocky T op, the Graham County line, the Tennessee State line and Jenks Knob.

The headwaters of the northwest flowing Telli co River originate within the Upper Tellico OHV Area. The southwest flowi ng 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 ar e 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 othe r cultural improvements other than names of watercourses and topographic features are note d within the OHV analys is 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 Nant ahala National Forest. There more than 700 formally recorded archeological sites in Cherokee C ounty, 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 th e influx of European diseases and cultural assimilation and finally culminating in the re moval of the Cherokee in 1838 along the Trail of Tears. Subsequent Euro-American settleme nt of the area focused on farming, livestock grazing, and, to a lesser degree, mining, fina lly 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 preh istoric, can be found throughout the analysis area. Site types ra nge from temporary prehistoric hunting and gathering sites such as campsites, hunting si tes, 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 ro utes, railroad beds, and wagon roads and turnpikes (after Bass 2002). In th e late 19th and early 20th centuries, Tellico Plains became the base of operations for l ogging 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. Prio r to Conservancy ownership the Tract was owned by the Dabo Development Company following Champion and Bemis timber companies’ ownership. At the time of Fo rest Service (FS) acquisition there were approximately 80 miles of logging and skid ro ads, 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 b een reported or are expected based upon high probability landforms within the OHV area. See Table 3.8.1b. Prehis toric archeological sites 31CE110 and 31CE111 were recorded al ong Trail 1, Davis Creek Road, in 1979 by Forest Service archeologists pr ior to road reconstruction. The survey for proposed bridge replacement along Trails 6 and 7 in 1992 record ed site 31CE312, a well-preserved section of historic narrow-gauge logging ra ilroad trusses. In 1993 archeo logical survey for proposed Trails 1, 4 and 5 maintenance located prehis toric site 31CE347. In 2008 sample inventory and monitoring for the present project showed that this site and 2 additi onal 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 Timb er 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 archeolo gical site 31CE650 along Trail #2. Prehistoric archeological site 31CE654 was recorded al ong 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 res ources. Recent 2008 surveys for reroutes and connector trails located no addi tional sites. Proposed new Trail 13 survey also has been completed and 2 sites were located. In additi on, 5 sites are in proxim ity, 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 addi tional 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 pot ential effect (APE). Because of the historic impacts of OHVs outside trail prisms, re-routing around obstacles, camping along trails, and trail maintenance act ivities that further impact th e 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, dist ance to water and stream rank, and resources available for use and /or extrac tion. Probability ratings are developed in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preserva tion Officer (SHPO) and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). Some early surveys did notUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

161 fully address secondary or indi rect impacts and only took into consideration the actual trail tread which often consisted of an old road be d or designated user-cre ated trail. Many of these routes were not as deep or wide when fi rst 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 avoi d areas, and unauthorized user created trails. The 2008 inventory and monitoring has documented that previously unr ecorded sites have been impacted and exposed along trails cr ossing high and moderate probability areas adjacent to some previously surveyed trails.

Table 3.9.1a. Slope Factors for Determining Site Pr obability 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 m oving and mixing artifacts. Artifacts are often broken and no longer identifiable. Previously preserved material s and sites can be destroyed by changes in soil depth and moisture conten t along with exposure to the elements and unauthorized collection.

All activities increase the opportunities for discovery of previously unknown heritage resources. Road and trail c onstruction can cause direct imp acts 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 reso urces are determined based on the current resource condition and potential impacts to th e resource from exposure, use, and physically disturbing activities. Driving across, digging through and excavat ion 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 adve rse effects. The removal of vegetation or change in species age or type may be an advers e effect on the setting of a historic site. Increased access or access at ce rtain 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 viol ation of the Archaeological Re sources 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 eff ect from activities in other parts of the project’s watershed.

The cumulative impact of an alternative is the incremental effect of th e direct and indirect effects of the alternative in the context of th e overlapping effects from past, other present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Increased access to and continued exposure of artifacts over time and their unauthorized collect ion 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 Regi ster 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. Alternativ e A affects 89.06 acres of high and moderate probability landforms known and likely to contai n 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 modera te probability landforms would add additional likely exposure and potential ille gal collection of artifacts.

Alternative B:

Direct and Indirect EffectsUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

163 Trail use, off-trail use, maintenance, erosion, reroutes (Tra ils 5, 6 & #7), trail decommissioning and unauthorized artifact collection affects heritage resources. Decommissioning can be designed and implemente d to avoid adverse impacts and preserve heritage resources. Alternative B affect s 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 decr ease the amount of trail use but may result in an increase by non-street legal OHVs of user-created trai ls 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 modera te probability landforms would add additional likely exposure and potential ille gal 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 mile s of the trail routes that would be converted to system roa d. Decommissioning can be designed and implemented to avoid adverse impacts and pres erve heritage resour ces. Decommissioning by disturbing only previously surv eyed non-site areas would help preserve significant sites. Five NRHP known eligible sites and 8 predic ted 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 co llection of artifacts.

Alternative D:

Direct and Indirect Effects Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trai l use but may result in an increase by nonstreet legal OHVs of user-creat ed trails to access the area, impacting sites in proximity to designated trails. Trail use, off-trail us e, maintenance, erosion, reroutes, trail decommissioning and unauthorized artifact co llection affects herita ge resources. Heavy maintenance increases the chances of im pacting significant heritage resources. Decommissioning can be designed to avoid adverse impacts and pr eserve 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 EffectsUpper 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 potentia l illegal collection of artifacts.

Alternative E:

Direct and Indirect Effects Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trail use but may re sult in an increase by nonstreet legal OHVs of user-creat ed 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 una uthorized 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 m iles 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 potentia l illegal collecti on of artifacts.

Alternative F: Direct and Indirect Effects Paving Trail 1 may decrease the amount of trail use but may re sult in an increase by nonstreet legal OHVs of user-creat ed 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 constr uction and unauthorized artifact collection affect heritage resources. H eavy maintenance increases the ch ances of impacting significant heritage resources. Alternative F affect s 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 modera te probability landforms would add additional likely exposure and potential ille gal collection of artifacts.

The measure used to weigh the effects of alte rnatives is the amount of acreage or linear distance to be impacted, disturbed, or subjected to other use compared w ith 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 HighUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

166Upper 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 associ ated 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-hi ghway-legal vehicles on it. It is rated for travel at 20 mph; however, ther e 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 acc esses private property, as well as sections of Davis Creek Road (the extension of Trail 1 southward towa rd the Hanging Dog community). Further work was done in June 2008 to grade, add surface ma terial 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 lim ited sight distance and sharp switchbacks.

Trails 2-12 range from level, well graveled one lane two-wheel dr ive roads to deeply entrenched boulder fields which require speciali zed 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 r oot systems perched overhead.

Accidents and injuries in the OHV System are ra rely if ever reported to the agency. Lowspeed vehicle rollovers are common, as regul arly documented on several Internet video websites such as Youtube.com, IH8mud.com, Livele ak.com, etc. It is likely that there are numerous minor injuries associ ated 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; howev er, there is no clear documentation to support this. A review of Cherokee County Emergenc y Medical Services records did not show a clear trend in accidents and injuries (Cherok ee Emergency Services, 2008). The table below shows EMS calls originating in either the Te llico area or an unspecified address on Davis Creek Road, and are listed as wrecks, traffi c 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. Sa fety concerns are descri bed in a letter from the contractor (Satterfield 2 008). It states “the tra il (Trail 12) is very dange rous due to the fact itUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

168 is steep and about 10 feet in a gulley with la rge trees that have exposed stumps and root systems overhanging the trail with large bedroc k in most of the tra il. 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 basi ns without trail widening. Water breaks in the existing trail would require tree and vegeta tion removal to remove borrow dirt for construction. ”

Additional trail segments not refe renced 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 compar ed to more difficult and easy trails would decrease. The likelihood of c onflict between vehicle types w ould be reduced on Trail 1, as ATV’s and other non-highway-legal vehicles w ould be removed. Trailering of OHVs/ATVs vehicles north to the Trail 6 trailhead parking area would in crease, 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, regardle ss of the posted speed limit. Motorcycle use is likely to increase, adding diversity in sp eed and maneuverability among vehicles on the road. Road design fo r correct banking and surfacing, guardrail installation and caution signage wo uld be critical. Law enforcement patrolling would need to be increased. Access and response times fo r emergency services would be improved.

Maintenance of challenge area s on Trail 11, as identified in Table 3.10.1.2 would continue to present a safety hazard to cont ractors, 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 a nd 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 associ ated 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 fo r Alternative B. However, this alternative eliminates the maintenance safety hazards associ ated with the trail segments shown in Table 3.10.1.2.

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Effects

Eliminating non-highway- legal ve hicles 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 vehi cles would be reduced. The frequency of low speed rollovers and associated injuries on the most difficult trai l sections would be similar to Alternative A.

The effect of paving Trail 1 would be the same as for Alternative B.

Maintenance of challenge area s on Trail 11, as identified in Table 3.10.1.2 would continue to present a safety hazard to contractors, employ ees, 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 EffectsUpper 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 an alyzed in the context of human health and safety include:

• Davis Creek Road paving: 4000 feet of Davi s Creek Road/Trail 1 will be paved in 2009, from the State Line to the Tipton Creek Bri dge. 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 eff ectively. 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 curr ent analysis and decision. A ssociated 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 locat ed 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 Ro ad 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 th rough Fall 2011. The timber sale contract will include maintenance of sale-related im pacts 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 hauli ng 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 aff ect safety if posted travel a dvisories 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 stabilizedUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

171 

### 3.11 Economics

3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (Current Economic Conditions)

This section discusses the benef its 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 Cl ay County NC, Fannin County GA, Monroe County TN and Polk County TN (Fly 2008). The majority of respondents represente d 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 craw lers-rail buggies” ranged from zero (53% of respondents) to 10% (9.4% of respondents). Sales to “d irt 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 re lated 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 genera l 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 demons trating that they would continue to use the area at least to some degree. However, th ere was only a small difference between their responses and those of the offsite users. Fuel pr ices seem to have the most effect on the trout anglers. This is consiste nt with the annual income data summarized in Table 3.5.1.2. OHV/ATV users are less influen ced 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 fo r the area were averag ing $3.90-$4.00 per gallon (New York Times, June 9, 2008). Price in creases well into the $4.00-$5.00 range and beyond are likely to have a more si gnificant 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 economi c 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 propor tions hold true whether examining the annual value of goods and services (industrial outpu t) or employee compensation, income, and various taxes (value added). Overall, “rock crawlers” genera ted roughly 68% of the direct expenditures among the users surv eyed. The economic impact an alysis 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 c ontribute 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 2,736,093Upper 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 co ntribution) figures shown include: Direct Impacts: attributable specifically to new expend itures in the region, such as a visitor from outside the region renting a cabin Indirect Impacts: businesses expenditures on raw mate rials, supplies an d other operating expenditures, such as a local restaurant purchasing food supplies to serve visitors Induced Impacts: new income that is spent and re-spe nt within the local economy, such as local store employees who serve visitors, sp ending 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 (consis ts of excise taxes, property ta xes, fees, licenses, and sales taxes paid by businesses) Employment: estimated number of total wage and sa lary jobs (both full and part time as well as self-employed) created through direct, indirect or induced e xpenditure- 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 di viding 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, modifi ed street-legal 4-wheel drive vehicles/trucks, and rock-crawler vehicles ATV only: Off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, and u tility terrain vehicles (Mule, Rhino, Kubota, etc.)

Proportion of Forest-wide Recreation Users Served According to the US Forest Service Nati onal 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 so ld for Upper Tellico OHV Area. With an estimated 85% fee compliance and a multiplication f actor of 1.5 users per ve hicle, Upper Tellico OHV Area receives approximately 13,214 site visits annually. As compar ed to the overall National Forests in North Carolina visitation, th is 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 Tell ico OHV Trail System and surrounding area were the focus of this economic analysis. There are ma ny other uses of the area. Some of them are discussed in Chapter 3.5, and include cam ping, picnicking, photography, hiking, hunting and others. To some extent these uses are embe dded in the responses fr om OHV users and trout anglers, as they conduct many of these activi ties 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 environmen tal 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 pr obable 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 in clude trail closures, public concern over future trail system ma nagement, and general economic conditions. However, Alternative A is based on 2007 tra il management, which does not include trail closures. Therefore, Alternative A may genera te increased economic be nefits 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 quan tify at this point in tim e. Additional studies would be required to determine the level of in terest and type and num ber 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 expens es (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, sa lary, 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, ma intenance and program management expenses include on-the-ground maintenance, patrolling, monitoring of the trail system and other resources, and oversight. These expenditures woul d be distributed over time. With external (non-appropriated) revenue sources funding the expe nses, the impact to other segments of the recreation, trails and roads programs on the Nant ahala National Forest would be minimal. However, without significant long term comm itment 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 dive rt 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 Mode l 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 im pact, 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 he re. 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 vehi cle 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 fu el prices may influen ce 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 woul d use the area less often with in creased fuel prices, though no threshold was identified. This factor likely influences Alternatives A, E, F more, where the trail system would be more at tractive to users traveling fr om outside the region, but the difference in effect would be difficult to quantify.

Alternatives B-F:

These alternatives include the upgr ade and paving of Tipton Creek Ro ad. It is lik ely that this action will draw more visitors to the area seek ing a scenic driving experience with streetlegal vehicles such as passenger cars and mo torcycles. The Cherohala Skyway and other scenic routes are nearby, and this route could become a logi cal extension of the regional scenic travelway network. In addition, the route would draw those seeking a shorter or alternative route between Monr oe County TN and Cherokee Count y NC. The overall effect of this action is likely to ha ve a positive, and potentially im portant impact on the region’s

economy.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

176 Alternative A:

Economic benefits to the regi on would likely increas e compared to 2008 levels, but remain comparable to historic levels.

Alternative B:

Economic benefits to the regi on would likely decrease compar ed to 2008 levels. Initial implementation would cost $2,863,098 (from Appe ndix C). This implementation expense would provide a short-term influx of funds ge nerated 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 regi on would likely decrease compar ed to 2008 levels. Initial implementation would cost $1,946,273 (from Appe ndix C). This implementation expense would provide a short-term influx of funds ge nerated 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 regi on would likely decrease compar ed to 2008 levels. Initial implementation would cost $2,858,483 (from Appe ndix C). This implementation expense would provide a short-term influx of funds ge nerated 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 Appe ndix C). This implementation expense would provide a short-term influx of funds ge nerated by contracting, purchase of materials and similar actions. In the long run, revenue wo uld 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 Appe ndix C). This implementation expense would provide a short-term influx of funds ge nerated by contracting, purchase of materials and similar actions. In the long run, revenue wo uld 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 a nd Wild and Scenic Rivers Duke Rankin Plants Doreen Miller Terrestrial Wildlife Rodney Snedeker Heritage Res ources and Tribal Relations Drew Selig Cartography Bill Champion Operations ForesterUpper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

178Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

179 

### References Cited

Alexander, G. R. and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sa nd bed load in a brook trout stream. North American Journal of Fisher ies Management. 6: 9-23.

Argent, D.G. and P.A. Flebbe. 1999. Fine se diment effects on brook tr out 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: potenti al impacts on salmonid populations. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. 10: 182-190.

Ashcraft, A. Scott & Robert O. Noel. 1994. He ritage 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. Rosenfel d. 1992. Turbidity-induced changes in reactive distance of rainbow trout. Tr ansactions of the American Fisheries Society. 121: 437-443.

Bass, Quentin. 2004. In: Cherokee National Fore st Land and Resource Management Plan. Bulletin R8-MB 114. Forest Service, USDA , Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

Bassett, Jill M. 1998. Heritage Re sources Survey for the Proposed Stateline Pay Station. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Ca rolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report.

Bassett, Jill M. 1999. Heritage Resources Surv ey for the Proposed Tellico OHV Maintenance Project. Forest Service, USDA, National Fo rests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report.

Bassett, Jill M. 2000. Heritage Re sources 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 Re sources Survey for the Proposed Tellico Dispersed Campsite Improvements. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Caro lina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report.

Besler, D. A., A.P. Wheeler, M.G. Marti n. 2007. A summary of wild trout population monitoring in the Tellico River wate rshed, 1994 – 2006. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh.

Borawa, J.C. 1999. Creel survey of South Toe River managed under a catc h-and-release singlehook artificial flies only regul ation, 1993. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

180 Borawa, J.C. and M.M. Clemmons. 1998. Evaluati on of a wild trout regu lation with a natural bait allowance. North Carolina W ildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh.

Brody, A.J. and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of ro ads 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. Le vine, W.W. Hargrove. 2001. Pr edicting climate change effects on Appalachian trout: Combining GIS a nd individual-based m odeling. Ecological Applications. 11: 161-178.

Clinton, Barry D. and James M. Vose. 2003. Differ ences in surface water quality draining four road surface types in the southe rn Appalachians. Southern Jour nal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 27, No. 1.

Coats, R.N., Miller, T.O. 1981. Cumulative silv icultural impacts on wa tersheds: A hydrologic and regulatory dilemma. Envir onmental Management. 5, 147-160.

Curry, R.A. and W.S. MacNeill. 2004. Populati on-level responses to se diment during early life in brook trout. Journal of the North Am erican Bethological Society. 23: 140-150.

Dodson, Stanley I., Timothy F. H. Allen, Stephe n R. Carpenter, Anthony R. Ives, Robert L. Jeanne, James F. Kitchell, Nancy E. La ngston, 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 Cherok ee Trails. UNC Press, Chapel Hill.

Durghom, Pamela. 1979. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Davis Creek Road. Forest Service, USDA, National Forests in North Ca rolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report.

Dyson, David M.& Rodney J. Snedeker. 1992. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Tusquitee ORV Trails & Tellico – Tipton Br idge 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 fish es of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, Tennessee. Pages 257-259 and 350-352.

Forest Service, USDA 1999. Roads Analysis: In forming decisions about managing the National Forest Transportation System . Miscellaneous Report FS-643, Washington, D.C. Pp. 48- 67.

Forest Service, USDA. 2001. Management Indi cator Species Habitat and Population Trends, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Dr aft Internal Document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Forest Service, USDA. 2005. Management Indicat or Species Report. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Unpublished report.

Forest Service, USDA. 2006. FSM 2364.62 – Manageme nt 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. Envi ron. 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 Appa lachian streams. Conservation Biology. 13: 1454-1465.

Kestler, Maureen A., Thomas Knight, and Audr ey S. Krat. 2000. Thaw weakening and load restriction practices on low volume roads. US Army Corp of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering La boratory, ERDC/CRREL TR-00-6.

Kime, D.E. 1995. The effects of pollution on repr oduction in fish. Review s 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 sedime nts. Water Resources. 34: 4110-4115.

Kulp, M. and S. Moore. Brook trout fishing study summary. http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/uploa d/fishing-study.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2008.

Mahan, Justin. 2008. Soil Assessment Activities, U pper 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 Regi onal Office [internal office report]. 9 pp.

Merritt, J. F. 1987. Guide to the mammals of Pe nnsylvania. 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 Manage ment. 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 ch annel and habitat attrib utes 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. La rsen, 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 wate r 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 Reso urces Forestry Leaflet #WQ–1, December 2007. Pp. 2.

NC DFR. 2006. North Carolina Forestry Best Management Pract ices Manual to protect water quality. FM-08-01. Chapter 8. pages 11 & 117.

North Carolina Geologic Survey. (unpublished do cument) and Geologic map of Southwestern NC including adjoining south eastern Tennessee and northern Ge orgia: Leonard S. Weiner and Carl E. Merschat.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

183 NRCS 1998. Natural Resources Conservation Se rvice, National Forestry Manual, September 1998. Pp. 537-6 – 537-8.

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology (Thi rd 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 a nd Pisgah National Forests, NC. Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 26 pages.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Mor phology. 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 6 th level HUC watersheds in North Carolina. Report prep ared 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 deposit on on sensitive watershe d resources in the National Forests in North Carolina, Tennessee, an d South Carolina. Report prepared for the USDA Forest Service. E&S Environmenta l 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 Envir onmental 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 th e American Fisheries Society. 130: 138-146.

Trombulak, S. C, C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological e ffects 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 fore st 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 f eeding success of stream trout under different streamflow and turbidity conditi ons. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136: 1187-1192.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

184Upper 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 asso ciated with the steep grade. The switchbacks make it very difficult for ordinary vehi cles 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.) Th e section from JenksGap to FS-402 would be open to highwaylegal vehicles and would be maintained forhigh-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 tra il runs parallel to a Tellico River tributary, the condition of the trail would allow rout ine engineering and heavy maintenance to alleviate the sedimentation potential. Scouting of possible reroute locatio ns 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 rehabilita te 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 maintenan ce of the whole trail would alleviate much of the sedimentation potential. through 6,888 ft.).

A new connector woul d be constructed off Trail 6 from State Line parking area to Trail 5 to facilitate access to the trail system by non-street-l egal 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 Peckerw ood 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 th e “high challenge”

area. Trail 8 – Bob Creek The first 1.5 miles r uns 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 an d 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 th at 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 threeespecially 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 st ream 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 perspectiv e any fixes would bedifficult 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 successf ul construction of challenge area bypasses. If bypasses are not successful, close trail and rehabilitate. Retain the challenge areas but also provideUpper 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 incons istency, 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

190Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

191 

### Appendix B

Details of Other OHV Opportunities

The following table lists the complete resu lts 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 YesUpper 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 GeorgeWashingtonJefferson 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 1053Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009

193 

### Appendix C

Financial Analysis

FSM 2353.03 provides direction on implemen ting 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 rehabi litating trails”, and “provide a trail system that is environmenta lly, socially and financially sustainable.” Additionally, the objectives in FSM 7702 incl ude 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 fi scally responsible.

Expense estimates for the six alternatives we re developed using a tr ail system financial analysis prototype developed under contra ct with PriceWaterhouse Coopers and its subcontractor, CHM-Government Services fo r the Forest Service Southern Region in 2006. The model was modified by Southern Re gion 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 successf ul 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 Ch apter 3.11. “Other sources” includes funding provided by grants such as the Recr eation 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 cont ributions from partners, other agencies, universities and other organizations.

Estimated non-monetary contributions vary am ong alternatives. A lternative A reflects average contributions from 2003-2007, with the high and low years eliminated. Alternative B includes some user group contri butions, plus fisheries monitoring support provided by North Carolina Wildlife Res ources Commission (NCWRC) personnel. Alternative C eliminates user group contributions, but retain s the NCWRC contributions. Alternative D is lower due to anticipated de crease in user group contributions and less need for monitoring due to trail system conf iguration. Alternatives E and F assume an increase in user group contributions, with the same fisheries monitoring support.

Table Appendix B.1 Estimated ContributionsUpper 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 pr ior 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 si lt traps, culverts, signage and other trail features. Maintenance and operating expenses would gene rally 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 administrati on and partnership management. In this discussion, operations, maintena nce 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 th e 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 pa rking areas, as well as trail decommissioning, stabilizati on, and restoration, dependi ng on the alternative.

Revenue Revenue figures include daily a nd 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 he lp 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 Whee l Drive Association estimated hours for the last five years, mi nus the highest and lowe st 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 le ss likely to recruit in-kind contributions. Fees increase 25% in Years Five and Ten. Daily/Annual Pass Percentage – a slightly highe r proportion of daily pa sses is calculated for Alternatives B, D, E, F. It is assume d 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 Complia nt - 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 – Th ere would be a greater number of UTVs in Alternatives B & D than Alternatives A, E, and F due to trail de sign and opportunities. Therefore, a factor of 1.5 persons per vehi cle 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 Re venue 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 5,545,794Upper 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 appropriat ed 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 Alternativ es B-F. In addition, monitoring is an appreciable portion of the annual expenses, and may be considered separately. The monitoring expenses below include the averag e 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 4,908,181Upper 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 supporte d increases. Therefore, the alternatives were also analyzed based on projected f ee receipts given the fees shown below.

Table Appendix B.3 Summary of Annual Re venue 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 appropriat ed or additional funds from other sources required to maintain the trail system under the specified alternative.

The following pages display tables genera ted from the Financial Analysis Model workbook. These tables show the itemized reve nue sources and expenses associated with implementing the six alternatives.Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009198Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009199Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009200Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009201Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009202Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009203Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009204Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009205Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009206Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009207Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009208Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009209Upper Tellico OHV System Predecisional EA February 2009210