• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental Assessment October 2009 Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service October 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 Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental Assessment October 2009 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental Assessment October 2009 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need .............................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................1 1.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................................4 1.3 Public Involvement ................................................................................5 1.4 Significant Issues Related to the Proposed Action ................................5 1.5 Other Issues ............................................................................................7 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ..................................9 2.1 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail .............................................................9 Alternative A ...................................................................................9 Alternative B ....................................................................................9 Alternative C .................................................................................11 Alternative D-modified ..................................................................12 Alternative E ..................................................................................13 Alternative F-modified...................................................................14 2.2 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...........................16 2.3 Comparison of the Alternatives Considered in Detail .........................19 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................23 3.1 Soil and Water....................................................................................23 3.2 Aquatic Wildlife.................................................................................67 3.3 Plants ..................................................................................................89 3.4 Terrestrial Wildlife...........................................................................115 3.5 Area Visitor Preferences ..................................................................129 3.6 Recreation Opportunities .................................................................141 3.7 Scenery .............................................................................................155 3.8 Wild and Scenic River Suitability ....................................................161 3.9 Heritage Resources ..........................................................................165 3.10 Human Health and Safety ................................................................173 3.11 Economics ........................................................................................179 3.12 Climate Change ................................................................................185 List of Preparers and Agencies/Persons Consulted ........................................186 References Cited.................................................................................................187 Appendix A – Trail Observations/Photos ....................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Details of Other OHV Opportunities .......................................B-1 Appendix C – Financial Model Information is a separate Excel file ........... C-1 Appendix D – Economic Survey Results is a separate PDF file ................... D-1 Appendix E – Comparison of Watershed Characteristics .............................E-1 Graphics Supplement is a separate file of multiple PDFs Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental Assessment October 2009 The Upper Tellico OHV System is located in Cherokee County, North Carolina near the Tennessee state line. Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental Assessment October 2009 CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Purpose and Need The Tusquitee Ranger District is proposing to implement a series of road and trail modifications and other management actions for the Upper Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Road and Trail System (hereafter, the OHV system, or Tellico OHV System). The purpose 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 system that can be maintained in the future without extraordinary maintenance costs; fixing existing problems with an initial intense period of heavy maintenance, reconstruction, and closures; and managing the conditions of future motorized use so as to reduce the potential for future soil loss. Background The Tellico OHV System is located in Cherokee County North Carolina, about 13 miles north of Murphy. The approximately 39.3 miles of existing roads and trails that comprise the OHV System are concentrated within an area approximately 8,000 acres in size. The area borders Monroe County, Tennessee, and the OHV System is accessible from both states. Most of the OHV System occurs within the upper Tellico River watershed. The Tellico River flows from its headwaters in Cherokee County, North Carolina through the area that encompasses the OHV System and on into Tennessee. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in 1991 classified the North Carolina segment of the Tellico River as “Wild Trout Waters.” This section of the river contains self-sustaining wild trout populations, native brook trout in particular. The State classification was a factor that helped make the 5.8 miles of the Tellico River in North Carolina eligible and suitable for possible future inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as a Recreational River. The OHV System was established May 1, 1986 with an amendment of the Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan for the National Forests in North Carolina. At the time, analysis of the 58 miles of roads lying within the upper watershed found “user conflict, user safety conditions, and damage to natural and cultural resources are at an unacceptable level. In order to improve these conditions and to meet the minimum criteria established for ORV management by Forest Service policy: 1. The upper Tellico River area will be closed to ORV use unless signed open. 2. ORV use will be restricted to designated routes only.” The 1986 analysis called for using a range of 18-25 miles of the existing 58 miles of roads for ORV’s The analysis concluded that “It is within the Forest Supervisor’s authority to close areas where motorized vehicle use is causing or is likely to cause considerable adverse effects. However, these changes should be sufficient to meet Forest Service policy and still allow user enjoyment of the area.” 1 Upper Tellico OHV System Environmental Assessment October 2009 In resource surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008, it became clear that damage to natural and cultural resources was continuing. The Forest conducted an areawide Travel Analysis, concurrent with this OHV Trail System Analysis. In accordance with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, Subpart B), the travel analysis addresses the general and specific criteria for designating roads and trails in the upper Tellico watershed, including a wide range of resource and use considerations. There is a need to stem the flow of sediment that is entering the upper Tellico River and its tributaries from the OHV System, and thereby improve habitat for native brook trout. 1) Forest Plan standards for soil and water are being violated. • The Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan or LRMP) standard for soil and water management states: “Prevent visible sediment from reaching perennial and intermittent stream channels…” (LRMP pg. III-40) • Comprehensive field surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 revealed 2003 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 2003 sources of visible sediment are reaching the upper Tellico River and its tributaries.

Load more

  255

Copy Link