Conacat Environmental Assessment

Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment

Forest Service Conacat August 2016

Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts, Cherokee National Forest Monroe and McMinn Counties, Tennessee

For Information Contact: Janan Hay 250 Ranger Station Road Tellico Plains, TN 37385 423-253-8400 http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/cherokee/lands/projects

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 Proposed Action ...... 3 Decision Framework ...... 4 Public Involvement ...... 4 Issues ...... 5 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 6 Alternatives ...... 6 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...... 30 Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives ...... 31 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 32 Environmental Consequences ...... 34 Background ...... 34 Biological Resources ...... 36 Physical Resources ...... 92 Social Resources ...... 153 Consultation and Coordination ...... 171 LITERATURE CITED ...... 173

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

INTRODUCTION Background ______The project area is comprised of compartments 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 78, 87, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 418 and 433 and encompasses approximately 17,600 acres. The project area is located south of Tellico Plains, Tennessee (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Vicinity Map Purpose and Need for Action ______The Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP), approved in 2004, made broad decisions regarding allocation of land and measures necessary to manage National Forest resources. The RLRMP establishes direction for the multiple use management and sustained yield of goods and services for all National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Cherokee National Forest (CNF) boundaries. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources could be provided from these lands now and in the future (desired future condition).

The RLRMP further allocates land into Management Prescriptions (MPs). A MP is a selected grouping of NFS lands with similar land and resource characteristics and similar management goals. MPs provide a more specific set of goals and objectives, which help lead to the Forest’s overall desired future condition (DFC). The 21 compartments that comprise the Conacat project area are predominantly assigned to MP 8.B Early Successional (63%) and 9.H Restoration (16%). The remainder of the project area is allocated to the following MPs:12.B Remote and Backcountry Non-motorized (4%), 11 Riparian Corridors (16%) and 7.A Scenic Byway Corridors, 7.E.2 Dispersed Recreation Areas, 5.A Administrative Sites, 5.B Communication Sites, 1.B Recommended Wilderness (less than 2%). The project area does contain MPs where no activities are proposed (i.e. 12.B/1.B). This is because the project area was selected using compartment boundaries and not MP boundaries. The Forest uses rapid assessments (RA) at the watershed scale to identify opportunities for management actions. As part of the RA for the Conasauga and Wildcat Creeks watersheds (CNF 2010) current conditions were compared to the goals and objectives in the RLRMP.

Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement The Conacat RA identified a need for vegetation treatments to change skewed successional stages, primarily a lack of early age classes and successional habitats. Table 1 displays the differences between the DFC and the existing condition of the analysis area in relation to the RLRMP objectives for early successional forest for MPs 8.B, and 9.H. The RLRMP, pages 137- to 138 and 156-158, describe the DFC and standards for management activities/practices that will lead to the DFC of MPs 8.B and 9.H. Where the MPs are silent on specific goals, objectives and standards, the forest wide goals, objectives and standards (pp. 21-72) should be applied.

Table 1. Comparison of desired and existing condition of early successional forest MP Objective Desired Existing Maintain 10% to 17% of forested acres in 723 ac* 8.B 1116-1897 ac early successional forest (6.5%)

Maintain 4% to 10% of forested acres in 34 ac 9.H 111-277 ac early successional forest (1.5%) *Includes activities proposed in Tellico EA The purpose of vegetation management in the project area is to provide wildlife habitat diversity through a variety of periodic or regularly scheduled activities including prescribed burning; mechanical and chemical vegetation control; and uneven-aged, two-aged, and even-aged silvicultural methods. Road management actions are connected actions that are associated with the proposed vegetation management. The absence of fire has reduced open understories necessary for wildlife foods, inhibited the natural regeneration of pine and oak, and encouraged the spread of fire intolerant species. Therefore, there is a need to reduce woody vegetation in the forest understory and promote herbaceous ground cover (including high elevation areas). Currently, there is a lack of high quality forage and nesting habitat for species requiring early seral habitat within the project area. Consequently, there is a need to increase the amount of mast producing plants to provide quality forage for wildlife. Finally, trees and shrubs are encroaching on the existing wildlife openings

that occur within the area which presents a need to maintain early successional habitat in the form of permanent wildlife openings within the project area. Based on field reconnaissance, there is a lack of suitable natural cavities for nesting and/or roosting within the project area for birds and small mammals. Therefore, there are opportunities to supplement natural cavities with nesting/roosting boxes to provide additional habitat needs. There are also opportunities to enhance foraging and watering sites for bats and other wildlife and breeding sites for amphibians with constructed ephemeral pools.

Trails The only existing parking available for the Warrior’s Passage National Recreation Trail is along the side of NFSR 76, where the existing trail intersects the road, in a curve. Therefore, there is a need to provide safe parking set off the road for forest users to park and unload for use of the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail and allow for safe use and passage of vehicular traffic along NFSR 76. The best location for this safe parking is a short distance from where the current trail intersects the road. In order to facilitate trail usage without using a short segment of NFSR 76, a reroute of the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail would be necessary to connect to this new trailhead.

Stream Restoration The purpose of the stream improvements is to provide quality habitat for aquatic species, restore native communities, improve stream, floodplain, and riparian functions, and to maintain or improve water quality, particularly by reducing erosion and sedimentation. The 2012 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Stream/Waterbody Assessments indicated that the potion of Conasauga Creek on NFS land is supporting its designated uses. However, the portion of Conasauga Creek downstream of the forest boundary is impaired by sedimentation/siltation. Bank erosion is occurring in the proposed restoration area. There is a need to restore the area to reduce sediment delivery to downstream sections of Conasauga Creek.

Proposed Action ______The Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts propose the following actions to work toward the desired conditions described in the purpose and need (See Appendix A for maps). A more detailed description of the proposed activities is presented in the next section of this document. Maintain and restore natural oak and oak-pine communities through silvicultural treatments on approximately 535 acres of forested stands. Maintain and restore shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak communities through silvicultural treatments on approximately 90 acres of forested stands. Improve forest health, species composition and promote advanced oak regeneration on 274 acres. Complete prescribed burning (including site preparation) on approximately 6,025 acres over several years. Perform midstory reduction on approximately 774 acres. Maintain approximately 22.5 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings (includes edge habitat).

Daylight (up to 42 acres) 25-feet each side of linear where openings where roads are shaded. Create ephemeral pools for wildlife in temporary roads, old logging roads, skid trails, gated roads, and log landings. Improve approximately 9 acres of existing cane habitat. Install nest/roost boxes. Create approximately 27 acres of high elevation early successional habitat. Plant approximately 10 acres of log landings, temporary roads, or other open areas created by project activities in native hard or soft mast producing trees and/or shrubs. Restore up to .3 miles of Conasauga Creek. Reconstruct 8 miles of existing NFSRs. Construct approximately 2 miles of temporary road. Decommission approximately 1.8 miles of NFSRs. Perform maintenance on approximately 15 miles of NFSRs needed for timber haul. Install a gate on NFSR 40661. Add approximately 0.7 mile of existing road to the system. Construct a trailhead for the north end point of the Warriors Passage Trail on NFSR 76. Relocate approximately 1/3 mi. of the Warriors Passage Trail.

Decision Framework ______The decision to be made is whether or not to implement all or portions of the proposed action, another alternative, or a combination of actions in order to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposal.

Public Involvement ______Scoping to solicit the issues and concerns related to the Proposed Action started in August 2013. Letters (see Project Record) were mailed to approximately 89 interested or potentially affected agencies, organizations, tribes, individuals and adjacent landowners (see Consultation and Coordination section). These letters informed recipients of the Proposed Action and requested their input. Additional information was sent to those that requested it. The proposal has also been listed in the CNF Schedule of Proposed Actions from July 2013 through the present. In addition, all letters requesting public input have been placed on the CNF web page along with a narrative of the proposal. In September of 2013 a field trip to the project area was held. Invitations were sent to all 84 interested parties in August with representatives from three groups attending the field visit. After the field visit and comments were reviewed a modified proposal was developed. This modified proposal was mailed out to 44 individuals in November with an invitation for a conference call in December. Six parties participated in the call to further refine the issues and concerns. Using the comments received by January 2014 from the public, other agencies, and tribes, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed issues as presented in the following section.

Issues ______Issues were derived from the public, other agencies, organizations and businesses, and Forest Service resource specialists. Issues are defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects. From the public comments received, several issues were identified. These issues are the basis for the project analysis, project design criteria, alternatives, and overall disclosure of information in this document and supporting documentation found in the project record. The Forest Service IDT analyzed comments and separated the issues into two groups: issues to be analyzed and issues considered but not carried forward in the analysis. Issues considered but not carried forward are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, RLRMP, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of issues considered but not analyzed and reasons regarding their categorization are included in the project record at the Tellico Ranger District. Issues to be analyzed are derived from the comments received from the public and by the ID Team: • Concern that Transportation Analysis Planning was not performed according to regulations • Concern about the effect to soil quality from harvesting and burning activities • Concern about the effects to water quality in Conasauga Creek from sedimentation due to proposed activities • Concern about the effects from the proposed activities on climate change and the effect climate change could have on the resources in the project area. • Concern about effects to potential old growth specifically in the area proposed for high elevation early successional habitat and the project area in general as surveys and designation has not been accomplished. • Concerns on inappropriate use of silviculture practices (harvesting/burning/planting) especially for management, maintenance, and restoration of plant associations • Concerns about inappropriate use of fire due to controversy about Southern Appalachian fire regimes and the effect it has on vegetation and soils. • Concerns that activities in the vicinity of Warriors Passage Trail/Trail of Tears/Unicoi Turnpike would have an adverse effect on the resource.

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Conacat project. It includes a description and map(s) of each alternative considered in detail. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

Alternatives ______Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, routine activities such as road/trail maintenance and wildlife opening maintenance would continue to occur as would activities authorized through other decisions. Existing recreational (dispersed camping, hunting, and swimming) uses would continue. No project activities (Alternative B or C) proposed below would be implemented.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Vegetation Management for Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements 1) Maintain or restore natural oak and oak-pine communities and create early successional habitat through silvicultural treatments on approximately 535 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly upland sites that would support mostly “dry to mesic oak forest” or “dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests”. Silvicultural treatments would include all or a part of the following: 1) shelterwood with reserves type harvest; 2) post-harvest slashdown of non-merchantable saplings between 1-inch and 7-inch diameter for the purpose of removing mid-level shade which would inhibit healthy growth of seedlings (natural and planted) (some suppressed oak and hickory may be slashdown with the intent of coppice sprouting and forming a healthier more vigorous seedling from the cut stump); 3) growing or dormant season burning of stands which would have fire lines installed, or already have existing features that could serve as fire breaks, in close proximity to the stand boundary. The burning would help serve the purpose of providing more available space for planting, less competition to desired natural regeneration (oaks) or supplemental planted seedlings, and a reduction in existing non-desirable seedlings not removed by the slashdown (total of 6 stands equaling approximately 149 acres would be site prep burned); 4) natural regeneration or supplemental planting of oak or oak and shortleaf or pitch pine or combination; and 5) specifically targeted application of herbicide (triclopyr) in the second year after harvesting (for natural regeneration stands) or the second year after planting (for supplemental regeneration stands) whichever applies, and oak and/or pine may be targeted for release depending on the most healthy seedling on an approximate spacing of 20’X20’. Seedlings chosen to be released would be ‘freed’ from competition for approximately a 6 foot radius around each seedling. Regeneration sources would consist of existing seedlings and coppice or stump sprouts, and supplemental oak and/or pine planting. Three stands (totaling approximately 37 ac) would be planted in both hardwood and pine seedlings. Each of these stands would be managed for Dry and Dry Mesic Oak-Pine, are relatively small in acreage, and currently have a fairly evenly distributed basal area between pine and oak species. 6

One stand (103/05) is in the 9.H prescription – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant Associations to their Ecological Potential. This stand is in the late successional stage at approximately 100 years old with a Site Index (base age 50) of approximately 75. The stand is predominately north and west facing and extends from the ridge to the bottom of the slope. The stand is in the Dry Mesic Oak Community Type with the majority of the oaks in the dominant and co-dominant crown class being chestnut and white oak. Other oaks present are black and scarlet. Other tree species present include yellow poplar, red maple, and hickory with Virginia pine, white pine and shortleaf pine also included. There are abundant hickory seedlings and saplings (approx. 175 per acre), some American beech seedlings and saplings low on the slope, white pine seedlings and saplings, and approx. 150 oak seedlings per acre; however, much of the seedlings are being shaded by the mid-story which consists of primarily red maple, yellow poplar, black gum, and sourwood. The basal area of the dominants and co- dominants is approx. 90 square feet. The desire for this stand would be to produce a younger and more vigorous, healthy stand while maintaining its’ current community type. However, as mentioned, the under- and mid-story consists predominantly of shade tolerant species such as red maple and black gum with young white pine. These tree species are more able to survive longer in the partial sunlight of the under- and mid-story than the more wildlife desirable oaks and hickories. It is likely the red maple, white pine, and black gum would continue to survive and grow in the under- and mid-story while the oak and hickory species would decrease in number as the years of their suppression increase. The prescription would be to conduct a shelterwood harvest leaving approx. 30 to 40 square feet of basal area per acre. A slashdown of the mid-story (1-7 inches DBH) of the highly competitive mid-tolerant and tolerant red maple, white pine, black gum, and (intolerant) yellow poplar would be conducted post-harvest followed by a supplemental oak planting of approx. 50 oak seedlings per acre. Two years after the planting a chemical release of oak or hickory would be performed reducing the competition against the oaks or hickories for an approx. 6 foot radius. The planted oaks as well as any natural mast producing regeneration would be monitored for at least 3 years after planting for survival. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Table 2.

2) Maintain or restore shortleaf pine, pitch pine and associated pine-oak communities and create early successional habitat through silvicultural treatments on approximately 90 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly ridge sites that would support “xeric pine and pine-oak forests” within which fire has likely played an important historical role in shaping species composition. Silvicultural treatments would include the following: 1) seedtree with reserves and clear cut with reserves type harvest; 2) post-harvest slashdown of non-merchantable saplings between 1-inch and 7-inch diameter for the purpose of removing mid-level shade which would inhibit healthy growth of seedlings (natural and planted); 3) growing or dormant season burning of stands which would have fire lines installed, or are already existing, in close proximity to the stand boundary. The burning would help serve the purpose of providing more available space for planting, less competition to desired natural regeneration (mast producers or shortleaf pine) or supplemental planted pine seedlings, and a reduction in existing non-desirable seedlings not removed by the slashdown; 4) planting of pitch or shortleaf pine approx. 15’X15’ spacing; and 5) specifically targeted application of herbicide (triclopyr) applied in the second year after planting, and either oak or pine may be targeted for release depending on the most healthy seedling on an approximate spacing of 15’X15’. Seedlings chosen for release would be ‘freed’ from competition for approximately a 6 foot radius around each seedling. Regeneration sources would be existing seedlings, 7

coppice or stump sprouts, and supplemental pine planting. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Table 3.

3) Improve forest health, promote stand diversity and improve tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on approximately 274 acres of existing forested stands that have varying levels of advanced oak regeneration and numerous oak seedlings in the understory of primarily mature forested stands. Silvicultural treatments would consist of one of the following: • Mid-story Control – non-commercially cutting mid-story sapling to medium-sized pulpwood trees (approximately 3-8 inch diameter breast height – DBH) for the purpose of reducing the competition against the wildlife-favored mast producing seedlings and saplings while possibly producing coppice (stump sprouts) from existing mast producing saplings and pulpwood sized trees that have been suppressed in order to grow a more competitive, vigorous and healthy seedling; • Tree Release – selecting and releasing approximately 200 wildlife-favored trees (15’X15’ spacing) by slashdown of all stems competing with the upper ½ of crown of selected crop trees within a 6 foot radius from the edge of the crop tree. The cut stems would not be removed as part of a commercial timber sale, but could be removed as firewood through a permit process; • Thinning – non-regeneration type harvest by commercially thinning to a residual basal area of approximately 50 to 60 square feet. (Current basal area is 137 square feet for the one stand, 110/09, that would be prescribed for this activity); or • Removal – non-regeneration (harvested acres would not count for early successional) harvest of white and Virginia pine to favor mast producing seedlings and saplings present in the understory and remove some competition from mid-sized sawtimber and other residual oaks and shortleaf pines. These four treatments listed as “improving forest health” would increase sunlight into the forest with the intent to stimulate growth of advanced oak regeneration and oak and other mast producing seedlings already present. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Tables 4 and 5.

4) Growing or dormant season site preparation burning of thirteen units totaling approximately 280 acres harvested could result in up to a total of approximately 505 acres burned if all acres burn that are within control lines. The control lines would consist of the following: 1.1 miles of handline, 3.6 miles of streams, 4.0 miles of existing roads, and 3.9 miles of dozer line.

Table 2. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 65/15 40 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Sapling White pine, red 50 Dry and Dry w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year maple, black oak, Pine 22 Mesic Oak-Pine chemical release of oak and other shortleaf pine, Hdwd 28 wildlife preferred species. chestnut oak 47 66/16 18 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Late Chestnut oak, 78 Dry and Dry w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’, 2nd year Virginia pine, red Pine 17 Mesic Oak-Pine chemical release of oak and other maple, white oak, Hdwd 61 wildlife preferred species. scarlet oak 47 66/29 18 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Late Chestnut oak, 102 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’, 2nd year white oak, black Pine 0 chemical release of oak or other oak, scarlet oak, Hdwd 102 53 wildlife preferred species. hickory 77/08 34 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Mid White pine, white 94 Dry and Dry w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’, 2nd year oak, red maple, Pine 38 Mesic Oak-Pine chemical release of oak and other black oak, scarlet Hdwd 56 wildlife preferred species. oak 47 77/10 14 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Chestnut oak, 67 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves dormant season burn site white oak, black Pine 9 preparation, plant white oak oak, pitch pine, Hdwd 58 53 30’X30’, 2nd year chemical release scarlet oak or oak or other wildlife preferred species. 77/14 35 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 110 Dry & Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site black oak, white Pine 63 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, natural regeneration pine, pitch pine, Hdwd 47 with supplemental pine planting scarlet oak, 45 (shortleaf/pitch) 20’X20’spacing, southern red oak 2nd year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak 77/29 13 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Chestnut oak, 70 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site pitch pine, scarlet Pine 29 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, plant white oak oak, Virginia Hdwd 41 30’X30’ and shortleaf/pitch pine pine 45

Table 2. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 20’X20’, 2nd year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 78/22 26 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Chestnut oak, red 93 Dry and Dry w/Reserves natural regeneration with maple, white oak, Pine 6 Mesic Oak-Pine supplemental pine planting black oak, scarlet Hdwd 87 (shortleaf/pitch) 20’X20’ spacing, oak 45 2nd year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 103/05 34 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Chestnut oak, 90 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves natural regeneration with white oak, Pine 9 supplemental white oak planting poplar, black oak Hdwd 81 53 30’X30’, 2nd year chemical release of oak. 108/23 38 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 90 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site shortleaf pine, Pine 72 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, natural regeneration white pine, Hdwd 18 with supplemental pine planting chestnut oak, 45 (shortleaf) 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd scarlet oak year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 108/26 35 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Chestnut oak, 75 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year Virginia pine, Pine 29 chemical release of oak and other white oak, red Hdwd 46 53 wildlife preferred species. maple 110/42 8 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Chestnut oak, 103 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year white pine, red Pine 22 chemical release of oak and other maple, poplar, Hdwd 81 53 wildlife preferred species. hickory 111/22 40 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Mid White pine, 89 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site shortleaf pine, Pine 60 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, natural regeneration white oak, Hdwd 29 with supplemental pine planting Virginia pine, 47 (shortleaf) 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd chestnut oak

Table 2. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 111/44 15 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Late Virginia pine, 97 Dry and Dry w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’ and shortleaf chestnut oak, red Pine 43 Mesic Oak-Pine pine 20’X20’, 2nd year chemical maple, shortleaf Hdwd 54 release of most healthy oak or pine, scarlet oak, 45 pine. hickory 111/52 9 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Shortleaf pine, 86 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site white pine, white Pine 48 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, plant pitch pine on oak, hickory, Hdwd 38 20’X20’ spacing and white oak black oak 47 30’X30’, 2nd year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 112/05 37 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Black oak, 70 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year chestnut oak, Pine 12 chemical release of oak or other white oak, scarlet Hdwd 58 53 wildlife preferred species. oak 112/11 8 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Mid Chestnut oak, 101 Mixed w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year poplar, white Pine 0 Mesophytic chemical release of oak and other oak, black oak Hdwd 101 Hardwood wildlife preferred species. 56 112/30 25 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Virginia pine, 36 Dry and Dry w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year chestnut oak, red Pine 13 Mesic Oak-Pine chemical release of oak and other maple, black oak Hdwd23 wildlife preferred species. 47 115/05 29 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late White pine, 94 Dry and Dry w/Reserves natural regeneration with shortleaf pine, Pine 57 Mesic Oak-Pine supplemental pine planting scarlet oak, black Hdwd 37 (shortleaf) 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd oak, white oak 47 year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak.

Table 2. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 115/07 25 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late White pine, 83 Dry and Dry w/Reserves natural regeneration with chestnut oak, Pine 38 Mesic Oak-Pine supplemental pine (shortleaf) scarlet oak, Hdwd 45 planting at 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd Virginia pine, 45 year chemical release of most white oak, black healthy oak or pine. oak 433/11 34 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, Late Chestnut oak, 80 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves natural regeneration, 2nd year poplar, N red Pine 3 chemical release of oak and other oak, black oak, Hdwd 77 53 wildlife preferred species. hickory Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches) Table 3. Seedtree Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 66/05 16 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 82 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site white pine, Pine 43 Pine-Oak preparation, plant pitch or shortleaf white oak, black Hdwd 39 pine on 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year oak, red maple 15 chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 77/13 13 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Mid Virginia pine, 117 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site pitch pine, white Pine 96 Pine-Oak preparation, plant pitch or shortleaf pine, black oak Hdwd 21 pine on 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year 15 chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 110/05 23 Clear cut Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine 77 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site Pine 71 Pine-Oak preparation, plant shortleaf pine on Hdwd 6 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year chemical 12 release of most healthy pine or oak. 12

Table 3. Seedtree Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 110/06 17 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 97 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site chestnut oak, Pine 67 Pine-Oak preparation, plant shortleaf pine on shortleaf pine, Hdwd 30 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year chemical scarlet oak 12 release of most healthy pine or oak. 110/10 21 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 115 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site chestnut oak, Pine 74 Pine-Oak preparation, plant shortleaf pine on scarlet oak, Hdwd 41 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year chemical shortleaf pine 12 release of most healthy pine or oak. Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

Table 4. Removal Comp/Stand Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 115/08 15 Removal – Slash down site preparation, Late White pine, 88 Dry and Dry non-regen natural regeneration, 2nd year scarlet oak, Pine 44 Mesic Oak-Pine harvest - chemical release of oak or chestnut oak, Hdwd 44 white/Virgi other wildlife preferred Virginia pine 45 nia pine species. Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

Table 5. Intermediate Treatments Comp/St Acres Type of Treatment Successional Existing Desired and Stage Dominant Tree Management Type Species 66/06 20 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Mid Virginia pine, white Xeric Pine P-O growing or dormant season burn pine, scarlet oak 15 66/30 5 Mid-story Control – Mechanical Late white oak, chestnut Dry Xeric Oak oak, pitch pine 60 66/34 21 Mid-story Control – Mechanical Mid white pine, Virginia Xeric Pine P-O growing or dormant season burn pine, white oak, red 15 maple 77/09 39 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late white pine, red Dry Mesic Oak maple, white oak, 53 black oak 78/10 38 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late scarlet oak, chestnut Dry Xeric Oak oak, red maple, 60 mixed oak 103/12 19 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Sapling chestnut oak, Dry Mesic Oak Virginia pine, yellow 53 poplar, white oak, mixed oak 103/22 17 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late chestnut oak, white Dry Mesic Oak oak, mixed oak 53 107/26 34 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late chestnut oak, white Dry Mesic Oak oak 53 110/09 13 Thinning - non-regeneration harvest Sapling Virginia pine, scarlet Xeric Pine P-O (Commercial) oak, red maple 16 110/39 22 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late chestnut oak, scarlet Dry Xeric Oak oak, black oak, 60 shortleaf pine, yellow poplar, white pine Virginia pine, red maple

Table 5. Intermediate Treatments Comp/St Acres Type of Treatment Successional Existing Desired and Stage Dominant Tree Management Type Species 418/02 16 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late scarlet oak, chestnut Dry & Dry Mesic Oak- oak, black oak, Pine Virginia pine, white 45 pine 433/06 15 Tree Release - Mechanical Seedling/Sapling red maple, black Dry Mesic Oak gum (overstory); 53 abundant – 400+ oak seedlings per acre Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

5) Prescribe burn T44-Tellico Mountain, T45-East Cataska, O3-Black Mountain B, and T18- Natty (dormant only). These units total approximately 4,318 acres of dormant or growing season and 1,337 acres of dormant season burning. In order to minimize fire line construction, some of the burn blocks employ natural or existing man-made fuel breaks such as streams, roads and trails. Approximately 2.8 miles of dozer line and 2.2 miles of handline would be utilized as holding lines. Burn areas would typically be burned at 2-5 year intervals, depending on vegetative response. Pre- and post-burn monitoring would be implemented to determine burn frequencies, seasonality, and intensities. Fire intensity would vary depending on vegetation type, slope, aspect, and weather conditions. Some of the objectives of burning are described below:

• Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities throughout the planning area, specifically improving habitat for game and non-game species and managing for identified natural plant communities. • Prepare sites for seeding, planting, and natural regeneration. Prescribed fire would be used to prepare an adequate seedbed and control competing vegetation until seedlings become established. Prescribed fire would also be used to promote regeneration of hardwood forests. • Manage competing vegetation. Low-value, poor-quality, shade-tolerant hardwoods often occupy or encroach upon land best suited for pine and oak species. Unwanted species may crowd or suppress pine and oak seedlings. Prescribed fire could be used to limit competition of undesirable species with desired species. Prescribed fire may also be used in mature hardwood stands to control the composition of advanced regeneration to favor oak species. • Reduce fuel accumulations to acceptable levels thereby reducing the possibility of severe wildfire events from occurring and damaging natural resources, recreation, and wildland- urban interface areas present near the project area. • Perpetuate oak-pine/grassland and woodland cover types by increasing the amount of available sunlight to the ground to encourage native grasses and forbs to re-establish and improving habitat conditions for fire-adapted plant species. • Prescribed burning could maintain open stands, produce vegetative changes, and increase numbers and visibility of flowering annuals and biennials. Improved visibility and accessibility may also be beneficial to hikers and hunters.

6) Wildlife stand improvement, midstory reduction (non-commercial)- 774 acres A diameter class cut generally ranging from 1-8 inches diameter breast height (dbh) would be used to select trees for midstory removal. Chainsaws would be used to fell midstory trees while retaining oaks, hickories, and shortleaf pine and/or pitch pine in addition to soft mast producers. Parameters for selecting trees for removal include: undesirable species (such as Virginia pine), poor growth form, and disease. Felled trees would be left and utilized as micro-habitats by forest floor species. Snags would be retained unless they pose a safety hazard. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Wildlife Stand Improvement Comp/ Acres Successional Dominant Tree Management Stand Stage Species Type 64/1 37 Mid Pitch Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 64/2 40 Mid Shortleaf Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 64/17 68 Mid Pitch Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 65/2 14 Late Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 65/4 8 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 65/17 22 Mid White Pine Conifer-Hardwood 65/19 25 Late Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 65/20 43 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak White Oak-Red Oak- 65/21 26 Late Dry Mesic Oak Hickory Yellow poplar-White Mixed Mesophytic 66/2 2 Late oak-Red oak Hardwood 66/8 21 Mid Shortleaf Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 66/10 8 Mid Shortleaf Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak Mixed Mesophytic 66/11 3 Late White Pine Hardwood 66/19 23 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 66/26 12 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 66/27 13 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 66/33 2 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 67/1 1 Late Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak Mixed Mesophytic 67/2 7 Late White Pine Hardwood 67/5 1 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 67/6 20 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 69/4 1 Late Chestnut Oak Dry Xeric Oak 69/12 1 Mid Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 78/10 5 Late Pitch Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 78/19 29 Mid Shortleaf Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 102/25 13 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 103/21 18 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/3 39 Mid Shortleaf Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/11 50 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/14 20 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/20 18 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/21 18 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/27 31 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/28 30 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/37 9 Late Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak 107/39 23 Mid Virginia Pine-Oak Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak Mixed Mesophytic 110/13 8 Late Northern Red Oak Hardwood 110/15 38 Mid White Pine Conifer-Hardwood 110/16 27 Late Virginia Pine Xeric Pine/Pine-Oak

The stands proposed for midstory reduction are composed predominately of Virginia pine. Several stands are mixed with pine and hardwoods species. The understory in these stands is predominately lacking due to overstocked stands with little sunlight reaching the forest floor. Mast producing species such as oak and hickory are being encroached by Virginia pine or other species. The objective is to improve wildlife habitat by removing the midstory component of the stands to allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thus increasing grass, forb, and shrub production. Grass, forb, and shrub production is important as browse for various wildlife species as well as nesting habitat for a variety of bird species.

Specialized Wildlife Habitat Improvements

1) Wildlife opening improvements- 19 acres Maintaining the size of the opening while improving vegetation within the wildlife openings typically include, but are not limited to mowing, fertilizing, sowing, burning, and herbicide treatment (triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazapyr) of non-native plants and encroaching woody plants. Improvements would occur in the following areas: • Spot openings 87-1 and 107-1 • Linear openings- NFSRs 220C, 2002, 3410, and 40641

Treatments of spot (5 acres) and linear openings (7 miles or 14 acres) would reduce non- native plant species and improve open areas for wildlife forage, nesting, and brood-rearing. Linear openings also serve as wildlife travel corridors.

2) Daylighting of linear wildlife openings- 42 acres Daylighting 25 feet each side of linear openings where roads are shaded (up to 42 acres). Only midstory trees would be cut (trees less than 12 inches in diameter) and left. Preferred retention trees would be oaks, hickories, and soft mast producers. Spot herbicide applications (glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr) would be used to treat non-native invasive plants and native woody plants that are competing with mast producers. Proposed daylighting would occur on NFSRs 220C, 2002, 3410, and 40641.

Daylighting would reduce competition and promote beneficial vegetative growth (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) for wildlife habitat and food. This management technique would allow more sunlight to reach areas of shaded roads. Shaded areas inhibit the growth of seed planted for wildlife forage.

3) Edge feathering of spot openings- 3.5 acres Spot wildlife opening edges (50 foot buffer) would be feathered by cutting predominantly midstory trees using hand tools such as chainsaws. Some over story trees may be felled; oak and hickory trees would be the preferred leave trees. All felled trees would be left on the ground to provide microhabitat. This edge effect would be maintained using hand tools. Edge feathering locations include spot opening 107-1.

Edge feathering provides a transitional zone between mature forest conditions and spot openings. These transitional zones provide vertical habitat structure for nesting, cover, and browse for species that do not benefit from mature forest conditions or wildlife openings. Wider edges also reduce nest predation.

4) Wildlife pond (ephemeral pool) construction- up to 30 ponds Pond locations would be selected in areas where water sources or pond habitat is needed. Locations would typically be located in log landings, skid trails, openings, and old roads accessing project areas. Ponds are small (0.1 acre or less) and shallow with gradually sloping sides to provide amphibian habitat in the edges of the pond. Ponds would typically be built in terrain that is fairly flat and in areas that provide good watershed for holding water for a portion of the year (ponds may be ephemeral and dry up during summer months). A bulldozer would be used to construct ponds.

Wildlife ponds provide valuable water sources for game and non-game animals, including the endangered Indiana bat, proposed northern long-eared bat and provide habitat for amphibians.

5) Native cane habitat improvements- 9 acres Management of existing cane to establish canebrakes would be accomplished through prescribed fire and removal or girdling of over story trees using chainsaws. Fire maintains cane by eliminating competing woody vegetation and increasing culm density. Burning stands of cane would occur on a 5-10 year rotational basis (early growing or dormant season). Mechanical treatment (chainsaws or other hand tools) may be necessary to remove vegetation competing with cane. Mechanical and herbicide treatment (aquatic approved glyphosate and/or triclopyr) of non-native invasive plant species would also be necessary to reduce competition. Herbicide may also be used on small native woody vegetation that is competing with cane. A hand line following an old road bed and creek would serve as fire breaks.

Native cane occurs predominately as an understory species in streamside forest stands along Conasauga Creek. The goal is to return stream side stands from forested with a cane understory to cane dominated stands or canebrakes. Cane develops under moderately intense regimes of natural and man-made disturbances. Canebrakes provide cover for a wide variety of wildlife and the high nutrient content found in cane foliage and shoots serves as a valuable food source for several wildlife species.

6) Nest box installation- up to 60 boxes Nesting boxes would be installed on trees or poles. Boxes would be placed in proposed silvicultural or wildlife stand improvement, log landings, and/or wildlife openings.

Artificial roost boxes for bats would be installed to provide additional roosting habitat. Boxes may provide roost sites for the endangered Indiana bat and proposed northern long-eared bat. Nest boxes for cavity nesting birds or small mammals would also be placed in forest stands to provide habitat for animals where natural cavities are limited.

7) High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain– 27 acres An initial treatment would include a non-commercial midstory tree reduction (target dbh is approximately 1-8 inches) using chainsaws followed by stump-surface herbicide application (triclopyr or glyphosate). Tree removal would be highest in the area immediately adjacent to the existing opening and moving downslope would focus primarily on areas where thinning the midstory would accomplish project objectives without compromising the integrity of the mature canopy trees. Retention trees throughout the project area would be large, over story trees. A mosaic of basal areas would occur throughout the project area. A lower basal area 19

would occur near the opening (0-40 BA). Moving downslope, the residual basal area would increase (40-60 BA). Basal areas would be higher in the steep and more mesic portions of the project area (60+ BA). A growing season burn in the drier portion of the project area would be used to further reduce the total basal area from the initial midstory treatment. Road and hand line would serve as fire breaks. Alternating between growing and dormant season burns on a 2-5 year cycle would help maintain structural diversity and suppress woody growth. Ultimately, the frequency and timing of burning will depend on vegetative response, and varying fire intensities will be utilized to reach desired composition and structure of the vegetation. Herbicide (glyphosate, triclopyr, imazapyr) or hand tools would also be utilized to control woody vegetation in the understory.

Stand composition within the proposed project consists predominately of mature oaks (chestnut, white, red) with some hickories and maple in the midstory. Young trees surround the opening at the top of Waucheesi Mountain. Down slope, the canopy becomes interspersed with trees of varying age, some exhibiting old growth characteristics. The objective is to reduce overall basal area to increase herbaceous growth in the understory while maintaining the mature over story tree component. Herbaceous growth would improve forage, nesting and escape cover, and soft mast production for wildlife. High elevation early successional forests provide essential habitat for several birds including ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided warbler, and golden-winged warbler; a bird of special concern due to declining early successional forests across its range. This habitat is also beneficial to game species such as deer, bear, and turkey.

8) Wildlife Plantings- 10 acres Plant native hard or soft mast producing trees and/or shrubs in log landings, temporary roads, skid trails, or other open areas created by project activities. The objective is to provide or increase the amount of quality mast producing plants throughout the project area.

Stream Improvements 1) Restore up to 0.3 miles of Conasauga Creek in the areas surrounding fords 1 and 2. Stream restoration may include the following activities.

• Clearing debris from the channel to restore a more natural flow pattern; • Dropping trees into and across stream channels to add large woody debris; • Stabilizing banks with log cribbing, rootwads, and/or boulders; • Creating pools with channel constrictors, wing deflectors, log wedge dams, and rock cross veins; and • Re-shaping stream channels, restoring floodplains, and planting riparian vegetation.

Native materials such as logs and boulders would be used whenever possible. Heavy equipment (backhoe, track hoe, and bulldozer) may be used for some structures. Ground disturbance would generally be confined to stream channel and a corridor of 20 feet back from stream bank (when building large structures with equipment).

Transportation Improvements 1) Reconstruct approximately 8 miles of existing NFSRs to bring them up to haul standards. Work would consist of widening curves, spot placing gravel, brushing, minor re-shaping, cleaning and constructing dips and other drainage structures to improve overall drainage, upgrading culverts, and replacing gates.

2) Construct approximately two miles of temporary roads to access treatment units. Temporary roads will be closed and stabilized following completion of the project.

3) Decommission a portion of; NFSR’s 2109 (Cataska Mountain 0.39 mi), 11092 (North Pine Mountain .53 mi), 5013 (Murr Branch 0.19 mi), and 341A (.17 mi.). Decommission NFSR 341C (.5 mi).

4) Perform prehaul maintenance on approximately 15 miles of NFSRs to prepare the roads for timber haul.

5) Place a gate on NFSR 40661 at its intersection with NFSR 40781.

6) Add approximately .7 mile NFSR 2104A to the system where it intersects with NFSR 2109. This road exists and is used instead of the portion of NFSR 2109 that is listed for decommissioning above.

Trail Improvements 1) Construct a trailhead along NFSR 76 to provide parking for 3-4 cars and access to the north end of Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail. Currently the area indicated on the map is approximately .5 acre. This .5 acre permits the space to design a parking area but the footprint of the parking area would be approximately 200-300 sq. ft. (60 ft. by 50 ft.).

Design of the trailhead parking would allow for the parking of 3-4 vehicles, using the typical 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep parking size per vehicle. Placement of the trailhead would allow for a line of sight for vehicular traffic using NFSR 76. Due to the safe line of sight, parking depth off the road would allow for backing into the road for ingress and egress of the trailhead parking.

2) Reroute approximately a 1/3 mile segment of Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail to provide access to the newly constructed trailhead parking area. In order to facilitate trail usage without using NFSR 76, a short reroute of the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail would be necessary to connect to the trailhead. Most of the new trail connection would use an existing legacy road, though the corridor built (using hand or mechanical tools) and maintained for the trail would only be for the use of a designated Trail Class 3 found in the Forest Service National Design Parameters. After construction of the new trail segment the abandoned section (.2 mi.) would be decommissioned and obliterated.

Alternative C Vegetation Management for Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements 1) Maintain or restore natural oak and oak-pine communities and create early successional habitat through silvicultural treatments on approximately 361 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly upland sites that would support mostly “dry to mesic oak forest” or “dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests”. Silvicultural treatments would be the same as described in Alternative B.

The reduction in acres from Alternative B to Alternative C is due to the following: 1). reduction of some areas of certain stands where accessibility might be limited, or 2). some stands were either changed from a regeneration type harvest to an intermediate noncommercial activity or completely removed due to potential lack of feasibility of harvest. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Table 7.

3) Improve forest health, promote stand diversity and improve tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on approximately 348 acres of existing forested stands that have varying levels of advanced oak regeneration and numerous oak seedlings in the understory of primarily mature forested stands. Silvicultural treatments would be as described in Alternative B with the following exception.

• Thinning – One stand (103/05) is in the 9.H prescription – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant Associations to their Ecological Potential. The stands’ prescription would be a commercial thinning to reduce the basal area to approx. 50 square feet per acre. Then a slashdown of the non-merchantable saplings (approx. 2” to 7”) to allow additional sunlight and further reduce competition while removing much of the shade tolerant red maple, white pine and black gum and shade intolerant yellow poplar. Supplementally underplant white oak on an approx. 30’X30’ spacing (approx. 50 trees per acre) and monitor any potential competition for a possible 2nd year chemical release of hard mast producing seedlings. The planted oak seedlings would be monitored for at least 3 years after planting for survival. A further monitoring of the stand and its’ development would be important in determining any need for a possible future reduction in basal area to allow the hard mast seedlings to continue to grow and develop into a mature stand similar to the one present.

Activities would occur in the stands listed in Tables 9 and 10.

4) Growing or dormant season site preparation burning of thirteen units totaling approximately 267 acres harvested could result in up to a total of approximately 505 acres burned if all acres burn that are within control lines. The control lines would consist of the following: 1.1 miles of handline, 3.6 miles of streams, 4.0 miles of existing roads, and 3.9 miles of dozer line.

Table 7. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 66/29 18 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Late Chestnut oak, 102 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’, 2nd year white oak, black Pine 0 chemical release of oak or other oak, scarlet oak, Hdwd 102 53 wildlife preferred species. hickory 77/08 32 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Mid White pine, 94 Dry and Dry w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’, 2nd year white oak, red Pine 38 Mesic Oak-Pine chemical release of oak and other maple, black Hdwd 56 wildlife preferred species. oak, scarlet oak 47 77/10 14 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Chestnut oak, 67 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves dormant season burn site white oak, black Pine 9 preparation, plant white oak oak, pitch pine, Hdwd 58 53 30’X30’, 2nd year chemical release scarlet oak or oak or other wildlife preferred species. 77/14 35 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 110 Dry & Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site black oak, white Pine 63 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, natural regeneration pine, pitch pine, Hdwd 47 with supplemental pine planting scarlet oak, 45 (shortleaf/pitch) 20’X20’spacing, southern red oak 2nd year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 77/29 13 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Chestnut oak, 70 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site pitch pine, Pine 29 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, plant white oak scarlet oak, Hdwd 41 30’X30’ and shortleaf/pitch pine Virginia pine 45 20’X20’, 2nd year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 78/22 24 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late Chestnut oak, 93 Dry and Dry w/Reserves regeneration with supplemental red maple, white Pine 6 Mesic Oak-Pine pine planting (shortleaf/pitch) oak, black oak, Hdwd 87 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd year chemical scarlet oak 45 release of most healthy pine or oak.

Table 7. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 108/23 29 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 90 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site shortleaf pine, Pine 72 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, natural regeneration white pine, Hdwd 18 with supplemental pine planting chestnut oak, 45 (shortleaf) 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd scarlet oak year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 108/26 26 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late Chestnut oak, 75 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves regeneration, 2nd year chemical Virginia pine, Pine 29 release of oak and other wildlife white oak, red Hdwd 46 53 preferred species. maple 110/42 8 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late Chestnut oak, 103 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves regeneration, 2nd year chemical white pine, red Pine 22 release of oak and other wildlife maple, poplar, Hdwd 81 53 preferred species. hickory 111/22 38 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Mid White pine, 89 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site shortleaf pine, Pine 60 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, natural regeneration white oak, Hdwd 29 with supplemental pine planting Virginia pine, 47 (shortleaf) 20’X20’ spacing, 2nd chestnut oak year chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 111/44 15 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, plant Late Virginia pine, 97 Dry and Dry w/Reserves white oak 30’X30’ and shortleaf chestnut oak, red Pine 43 Mesic Oak-Pine pine 20’X20’, 2nd year chemical maple, shortleaf Hdwd 54 release of most healthy oak or pine. pine, scarlet oak, 45 hickory 111/52 9 Shelterwood Slash down and growing or Late Shortleaf pine, 86 Dry and Dry w/Reserves dormant season burn site white pine, Pine 48 Mesic Oak-Pine preparation, plant pitch pine on white oak, Hdwd 38 20’X20’ spacing and white oak hickory, black 47 30’X30’, 2nd year chemical release oak of most healthy pine or oak.

Table 7. Shelterwood Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 112/05 25 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late Black oak, 70 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves regeneration, 2nd year chemical chestnut oak, Pine 12 release of oak or other wildlife white oak, Hdwd 58 53 preferred species. scarlet oak 112/11 8 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Mid Chestnut oak, 101 Mixed w/Reserves regeneration, 2nd year chemical poplar, white Pine 0 Mesophytic release of oak and other wildlife oak, black oak Hdwd 101 Hardwood preferred species. 56 115/05 19 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late White pine, 94 Dry and Dry w/Reserves regeneration with supplemental shortleaf pine, Pine 57 Mesic Oak-Pine pine planting (shortleaf) 20’X20’ scarlet oak, Hdwd 37 spacing, 2nd year chemical release black oak, white 47 of most healthy pine or oak. oak 115/07 22 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late White pine, 83 Dry and Dry w/Reserves regeneration with supplemental chestnut oak, Pine 38 Mesic Oak-Pine pine (shortleaf) planting at 20’X20’ scarlet oak, Hdwd 45 spacing, 2nd year chemical release Virginia pine, 45 of most healthy oak or pine. white oak, black oak 433/11 26 Shelterwood Slash down site preparation, natural Late Chestnut oak, 80 Dry Mesic Oak w/Reserves regeneration, 2nd year chemical poplar, N red Pine 3 release of oak and other wildlife oak, black oak, Hdwd 77 53 preferred species. hickory Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

Table 8. Seedtree Comp/ Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Stand Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 66/05 14 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 82 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site white pine, Pine 43 Pine-Oak preparation, plant pitch or shortleaf white oak, black Hdwd 39 pine on 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year oak, red maple 15 chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 77/13 13 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Mid Virginia pine, 117 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site pitch pine, white Pine 96 Pine-Oak preparation, plant pitch or shortleaf pine, black oak Hdwd 21 pine on 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year 15 chemical release of most healthy pine or oak. 110/05 23 Clear cut Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine 77 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site Pine 71 Pine-Oak preparation, plant shortleaf pine on Hdwd 6 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year chemical 12 release of most healthy pine or oak. 110/06 17 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 97 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site chestnut oak, Pine 67 Pine-Oak preparation, plant shortleaf pine on shortleaf pine, Hdwd 30 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year chemical scarlet oak 12 release of most healthy pine or oak. 110/10 21 Seedtree Slash down and growing or Late Virginia pine, 115 Xeric Pine and w/Reserves dormant season burn site chestnut oak, Pine 74 Pine-Oak preparation, plant shortleaf pine on scarlet oak, Hdwd 41 15’X15’ spacing, 2nd year chemical shortleaf pine 12 release of most healthy pine or oak. Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

Table 9. Removal Comp/Stand Acres Type of Reforestation Successional Existing Basal Desired Harvest Stage Dominant Area Management Tree Species (QMD>5) Type 115/08 12 Removal – Slash down site preparation, Late White pine, 88 Dry and Dry non-regen natural regeneration, 2nd year scarlet oak, Pine 44 Mesic Oak-Pine harvest - chemical release of oak or chestnut oak, Hdwd 44 white/Virgi other wildlife preferred Virginia pine 45 nia pine species. Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

Table 10. Intermediate Treatments Comp/ Acres Type of Treatment Successional Existing Desired Stand Stage Dominant Tree Management Type Species 65/15 40 Mid-story Control – Mechanical Sapling white pine, red Dry & Dry Mesic Oak- maple, black oak, Pine 47 shortleaf pine, chestnut oak 66/06 20 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Mid Virginia pine, white Xeric Pine P-O growing or dormant season burn pine, scarlet oak, 15 66/30 5 Mid-story Control – Mechanical Late white oak, chestnut Dry Xeric Oak oak, pitch pine 60 66/34 21 Mid-story Control – Mechanical Mid white pine, Virginia Xeric Pine P-O growing or dormant season burn pine, white oak, red 15 maple 77/09 35 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late white pine, red Dry Mesic Oak maple, white oak, 53 black oak, 78/10 38 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late scarlet oak, chestnut Dry Xeric Oak oak, red maple, 60 mixed oak

Table 10. Intermediate Treatments Comp/ Acres Type of Treatment Successional Existing Desired Stand Stage Dominant Tree Management Type Species 103/05 29 Thinning Late Chestnut oak, white Dry Mesic Oak oak, yellow poplar, 53 black oak 103/12 19 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Sapling chestnut oak, Dry Mesic Oak Virginia pine, yellow 53 poplar, white oak, mixed oak 103/22 17 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late chestnut oak, white Dry Mesic Oak oak, mixed oak 53 107/26 34 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late chestnut oak, white Dry Mesic Oak oak 53 110/39 22 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late chestnut oak, scarlet Dry Xeric Oak oak, black oak, 60 shortleaf pine, yellow poplar, white pine, Virginia pine, red maple 112/30 25 Mid-story Control – Mechanical Late Virginia pine, Dry & Dry Mesic Oak- chestnut oak, red Pine 47 maple, mixed oak 103/05 29 Thinning – non-regeneration harvest Late chestnut oak, white Dry Mesic Oak (Commercial), slashdown of non- oak, yellow poplar, 53 merchantable (2”-7”), under-plant white black oak, oak approx. 50 per acre (30’X30’) 418/02 16 Mid-story Control - Mechanical Late scarlet oak, chestnut Dry & Dry Mesic Oak- oak, black oak, Pine 45 Virginia pine, white pine

Table 10. Intermediate Treatments Comp/ Acres Type of Treatment Successional Existing Desired Stand Stage Dominant Tree Management Type Species 433/06 15 Tree Release - Mechanical Seedling/Sapling red maple, black Dry Mesic Oak gum (overstory); 53 abundant – 400+ oak seedlings per acre Successional Stages: 11 to 40 years old – (Seedling) Sapling; 41 to 80 years old – Mid; 80+ years old – Late Basal Area is approximate-based on QMD>5 inches)

5) Prescribe burn. Same as Alternative B.

6) Wildlife stand improvement, midstory reduction. Same as Alternative B.

Specialized Wildlife Habitat Improvements Same as Alternative B.

Stream Improvements Same as Alternative B.

Transportation Improvements 1) Reconstruct approximately 7.4 miles of existing NFSRs to bring them up to haul standards. Work would consist of widening curves, spot placing gravel, brushing, minor re-shaping, cleaning and constructing dips and other drainage structures to improve overall drainage, upgrading culverts, and replacing gates.

2) Construct approximately two miles of temporary roads to access treatment units. Temporary roads will be closed and stabilized following completion of the project.

3) Decommission a portion of; NFSR’s 2109 (Cataska Mountain 0.39 mi), 11092 (North Pine Mountain .53 mi), 5013 (Murr Branch 0.19 mi), and 341A (.17 mi.). Decommission NFSR 341C (.5 mi) and 76B (.6 mi.).

4) Perform prehaul maintenance on approximately 13 miles of NFSRs to prepare the roads for timber haul.

5) Place a gate on NFSR 40661 at its intersection with NFSR 40781.

6) Add approximately .7 mile NFSR 2104A to the system where it intersects with NFSR 2109. This road exists and is used instead of the portion of NFSR 2109 that is listed for decommissioning above.

Trail Improvements Same as Alternative B.

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ______The original proposal scoped to the public included minor variations of the proposed action as displayed in this document. The current proposed action was modified to address issues from scoping and the collaborative process. Because the difference between the original scoped alternative and the current proposed action are relatively small, it was determined that a separate alternative to analyze the effects is unnecessary.

Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives ______The RLRMP contains Forest Wide (FW), Management Prescription specific, and Management Area specific standards that mitigate adverse effects to all resources. These standards are part of all action alternatives. To comply with FW Standard 28 (“Protect individuals and locations of other species needed to maintain their viability within the planning area site specific analysis of proposed management actions will identify any protective measures”.), the following protective measures would be followed: • Stoneroot (Collinsonia verticillata) was found at three locations within stand 103/5 with another two locations just outside the stand boundary, and one location within stand 103/22. All populations are located within north-facing drainages and thus may already be somewhat protected by riparian standards. All sites have been marked in the field and should be further protected by designating them as no skid zones and directionally felling trees away from the populations. No herbicide for tree release should be used in the immediate vicinity of these sites. • Pigmy pipes (Monotropsis odorata) were found within stands 108/26 and 115/7. Sites have been marked in the field and should be protected through directional felling away from the populations. • American climbing fern (Lygodium palmatum) was found at one location during the botanical surveys, along a weedy margin of an old woods road just outside the northern edge of stand 112/05. The location can be avoided by the designation of a no-skid zone during harvest activities. • Mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata) was found within three different stands during the botanical surveys, 111/44, 77/08, and 115/05 (three sites). Most populations are associated with small stream drainages within the stands and some, but not all individuals occur within the unmapped riparian reserve. All sites have been marked in the field and would be avoided where feasible. The May 2016 USFWS concurrence with the Conacat Biological Assessment (Appendix B) is based on consistency with the January 2015 Indiana Bat Biological Opinion (BO). This BO which contains Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions that are part of all action alternatives. The May 2016 USFWS concurrence with the Conacat Biological Assessment is also based on consistency with the January 2016 Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. Scenery design features have been developed (and are located in the project file) to achieve the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) prescribed in the RLRMP for each inventoried Scenic Class and MP. These design criteria also include specific recommendations for activities adjacent to the Trail of Tears and the Unicoi Turnpike. In addition to the RLRMP standards, the following documents are sources of design criteria, guidelines, and best practices: Fire Monitoring Handbook available at http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildland- fire/resources/documents/fire-effects-monitoring-handbook.pdf The Guide to Forestry Best Management Practices in Tennessee, available at http://www.tn.gov/agriculture/publications/forestry/BMPs.pdf. 31

Forest Service Manual - Section 2500 (WO Amendment 2500-90-2) Forest Service Handbook - FSH 2509.18-2003-1, Region 8 Soil Quality Standards Forest Service - Region 8 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, 2003 Cherokee National Forest standard soil and water operating procedures include the following: • Skid trails and temporary roads for the purpose of timber harvest would not be constructed for sustained distances over 200 feet in areas with slopes of 35% or greater (“steep area”). The 200-foot length can be exceeded however where the skid trail and/or temporary road is needed to traverse a steep area in order to access the remaining harvest unit(s). Such an exceedance requires approval from a forest interdisciplinary team composed of an appropriate group of specialists. Trees within the traversed steep area would not be harvested, except where possible through cable winching to equipment placed outside the steep area. • During survival checks, the timber staff also evaluates the effectiveness of BMP implementation on skid roads, landings, and temporary haul roads. If deficiencies are found, they are addressed with appropriate corrective measures which may include the following: seed, straw, fertilizer, lime, mulch, matting, slash, tops, and others. • Different seed mixes are used depending on soil type, steepness, time of year, and other factors. Generally, annual grains are used. • Unacceptable ruts created on skid roads or log landings during harvesting operations are smoothed out, water is diverted appropriately, and erosion is thusly limited. • If rutting occurs within the unit (off of skid trails), operations are halted by the sale administrator until soil moisture conditions improve. • Use non-bladed skid roads whenever possible • Prior to implementation, collect a composite soil sample from the areas to be revegetated to be analyzed through University of Tennessee extension for the purpose of obtaining locally appropriate recommendations on lime and fertilizer applications. Alternatively, consult with district personnel responsible for revegetating landings/skid roads and/or maintaining wildlife openings on similar soils to determine lime/fertilizer concentrations that have been most effective in the past. Unit specific revegetation plans should be in place prior to the occurrence of any ground disturbance. Project-Specific Application of Standard Design Criteria: • Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on the following soil map units as part of erosion control: Ranger, Wallen, Calvin, Ramsey, and Litz. Ground cover may include mulch, logging slash, matting, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. • Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed surfaces on Ranger, Wallen, Calvin, Ramsey, and Litz soils in regeneration units.

Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 11 is focused on activities where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. This information is estimated based on best available data.

Table 11. Comparison of Alternatives Alt B. ACTIVITY UNITS ALT. A ALT. C (PA) VEGETATION Seedtree with Reserves Acres 0 67 65 Shelterwood with Reserves Acres 0 535 361 Clear cut with Reserves Acres 0 23 23 Removal Acres 0 15 12 Site Preparation – Acres 0 slashdown Acres 0 401 264 Regeneration – Oak planting Acres 0 118 93 Pine planting Acres 0 283 255 Natural Acres 0 202 105 Pine & Oak Planting Acres 37 37 Seedling release - chemical Acres 0 640 461 Tree Release Mechanical 15 15 Mid-story- Mechanical Acres 0 1005 1066 Thinning Acres 0 13 29 Dormant season burning Acres 1300 1337 1337 Growing or Dormant season Acres 1200 4318 4318 SPECIALIZED HABITAT High Elevation Early Successional Habitat Creation 0 27 27 and Maintenance Acres Maintenance of openings Acres 19 19 19 Edge feathering spot openings Acres 0 3.5 3.5 Daylight/Herbicide linear 0 42 42 openings Acres Creation of ephemeral pools Number 0 30 30 Cane Restoration Acres 0 9 9 Nest Box Installation Number 0 60 60 Plantings Acres 0 10 10 TRANSPORTATION Road Reconstruction Miles 0 8 7.4 Temporary Rd Construction Miles 0 2 2 Road Decommissioning Miles 0 1.8 2.4 Road Maintenance Miles x 15 13 Gate Installation Number 0 1 1 Roads added to system Miles 0 .7 .7 STREAM IMPROVEMENTS Steam Channel Restoration Miles 0 .3 .3 TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS Trail Construction Miles 0 .36 .36 Trail Decommission Miles 0 .22 .22 Trailhead Development Acres 0 .07 .07

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The environmental consequences are organized by the relevant physical, biological, and social environments of the project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives.

Background ______Most of the Conacat project area was acquired during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Approximately 87% of the NFS land in the project area was acquired prior to the 1940’s. The tracts were all purchased under provisions of the Weeks Act of 1911. The project area was extensively logged prior to NFS ownership with peak logging probably occurring in the 1920’s. The area was sparsely settled before Forest Service acquisition. Typically, the local population relied on subsistence farming and logging. It was common practice to use fire to clear and maintain fields and forest for grazing. The logging history and the subsequent wildfires resulted in a large portion of the area in the 71 to 100 year age class. Very little active management took place in the project area in the years after the land was acquired. During the last 90 years of Forest Service administration, substantial progress has been made with wildfire prevention and control in the project area and the CNF in general. Very little even age timber harvesting took place in the project area between the 1930’s and the 1960’s. Some thinning and uneven-aged regeneration may have occurred, though records are sketchy. Approximately 20 percent of the project area has been regenerated by even aged methods in the last 40 years. The southern pine beetle (SPB) impacted the project area between 1999 and 2002. Some nearly pure stands of pine and many scattered individual pine were killed. The species affected were Virginia, loblolly, shortleaf, white, and possibly some table mountain pine. The present forest composition on the ridges and upper slopes is predominantly shortleaf and Virginia pine and upland oak species with encroaching white pine in areas. Coves and lower slopes have yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock. Most of the forest acreage (approximately 66%) is greater than 70 years of age due to past land management practices. Activities that have occurred in the project area in the recent past (2000 - 2014) include: harvesting (Big Ridge, Grindstone); prescribed burning and wild fires; recreational uses (i.e. camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, scenic driving, etc.); utility right-of-way (ROW) and road maintenance; dispersed campsite rehabilitation; non-native invasive species treatments; illegal OHV use; and impacts from SPB and hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA). Activities that are currently occurring in the project area include: prescribed burning; recreational uses; maintenance of roads, existing ROWs, trails; changes in private land use patterns; non- native invasive species treatments; illegal OHV use; and impacts from HWA and treatment. Reasonably foreseeable activities expected in the project area include: harvesting; maintenance of roads, existing ROW’s, trails and campgrounds; prescribed burning; recreational uses; impacts from HWA and treatments; changes in private land use patterns; treatments of non-native invasive species; and illegal OHV use.

Fire Regime Fire regime refers to the long-term nature of fire in an ecosystem (Brown 2000), including both frequency and severity of effects. The interval between fires in southern forests may be as short as a year or as long as centuries. The intensity of fire and severity of effects can vary in scale from benign to catastrophic. Because of the spatial and temporal variability of fire and its effects, descriptions of fire regimes are broad (Whelan 1995). The fire regimes existing on the CNF follow the descriptions used in Brown and Smith (2000). They include the understory, mixed, and stand replacement fire regimes. Fires in the understory fire regime generally do not kill the dominant vegetation or substantially change its structure. Approximately 80 percent or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation survives fire (Brown 2000). The understory fire regime occurs primarily in southern pine and oak-hickory forests, which support pine and pine-oak associations. The severity of fire in the mixed fire regime either causes selective mortality in dominant vegetation, depending on tree species’ susceptibility to fire, or varies between understory and stand replacement (Brown 2000). The mixed fire regime best represents the resettlement fire history for several hardwood- and conifer-dominated ecosystems. In the stand replacement fire regime, fires kill aboveground parts of the dominant vegetation, changing the aboveground structure substantially. Approximately 80 percent or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation is either consumed or dies as a result of fires (Brown 2000). Table Mountain pine usually is regarded as having a stand replacement fire regime, but a mixed regime may be more accurate as it produces the seedbed conditions needed for survival of seedlings. The Joint Fire Sciences Program sponsored an investigation into the fire regimes of the southern Appalachian Mountains in 2005. The study addressed a multi-scale investigation of the variability in fire regimes over time and space using tree-ring reconstructions of fire history and stands dynamics in pine and mixed hardwood-pine forests. The tree-ring analyses were augmented by soil charcoal analyses and by statistical and GIS analyses of fire records from federal agencies. Analyses of the tree-ring data reveal that fires burned frequently (at about 2–14 year intervals) in the southern Appalachian Mountains from the late 1700s/early 1800s until the early to middle 1900s, when burning declined coincident with fire protection. The density of trees, especially fire-intolerant species, increased in the 1900s as fire frequency declined. All the tree-ring records of fire history extend back to the 1700s, before European settlement. At four of the sites, the earliest scars formed in the 1720s, while the earliest scars formed in the 1760s at the other three sites. Fire frequency was high at all the sites. In the low-elevation landscape, the Weibull median fire interval (considered the optimum descriptor of the typical fire interval) ranged between 3.0 and 4.4 years among the sites. These results do not indicate that fires burned every point on the landscape at 3.0–4.4 year intervals. They simply reveal that fire burned at least one tree within each of the sites at that frequency. The soil charcoal study was conducted within the low-elevation tree-ring study sites. Charcoal fragments range in age from modern to about 3000 years old. About 75% of the hundreds of charcoal fragments identified in the cores are of pine. These results suggest that fire was a component of the forests long before the beginning of the tree-ring fire chronologies. They also

emphasize the association of pine with fire in these humid environments where vegetation succession tends toward the replacement of pines by hardwoods. Tree age structure data for the low-elevation landscape sites reveal that many of the dominant pines and oaks established during the era of frequent fire in the 1800s and early 1900s. The data found little indication that major cohorts of pines established following severe fires. Rather, tree establishment appears to have been relatively continuous, consistent with a frequent surface fire regime maintaining open pine-oak woodlands/savannas. A pronounced shift in tree establishment pattern occurred as fire frequency declined in the 1920s–1930s, when a pulse of tree establishment occurred. Relaxation of the constraints imposed by frequent fire permitted the survival of many more trees, including species such as eastern hemlock and red maple, which have fire-intolerant seedlings. Today, the stands appear to be transitioning toward more diverse, mesophytic assemblages. At the mid-elevation sites, the age structure of the pine stands suggests that under the frequent burning regime of the past, occasional severe fires occurred and permitted establishment of large new cohorts of Table Mountain and pitch pine. As fire frequency declined in the 20th century, mesophytic species have moved upslope from the mesic valley-bottom sites to the dry slopes. Today, the pine and oak stands have numerous small individuals of mesophytic, fire-intolerant species such as red maple, Fraser magnolia, and eastern hemlock. The lower-slope forest dominated by white pine has arisen during the fire-exclusion era. The GIS and statistical analyses of recent burning patterns clarify relationships among fire, climate, and terrain. Fire occurs most commonly in drier climates within the region, and during dry years. At the scale of local terrain, dry sites (e.g., ridge tops) burn more commonly than moist sites (e.g., valleys). Such topographic patterns are influenced by broader climatic conditions, however. Topographic patterning is more pronounced under wet climatic conditions than under dry conditions, which permit fires to spread into mesic topographic positions.

Biological Resources ______Vegetation Scope of Analysis The area chosen for analysis of the effects from the silvicultural actions coincides with the project area boundary. The timeframe of activities considered are those that have occurred in the past 10 years (approximate ‘lifespan’ of early successional habitat), present activities, and those in the foreseeable future (the next 10 years). This area is further divided by MPs for the purpose of comparing how the alternatives effect the creation of early successional habitat (0-10 years old) within those sections of the MPs that have an early successional habitat goal (8.B and 9.H). A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities used for the cumulative effects analysis is located in the background section of the environmental effects. Vegetation data was gathered for the project using current GIS data. Many of the proposed activities for Alternatives B and C are similar in nature, and more importantly, their effects are similar in nature. This allows us to group and consolidate the specific effects into basic impacts pertaining to silviculture:

• Timber Harvesting Activities and those that support the harvesting activities such as road construction and maintenance. • Prescribed fire/Site preparation burning impacts • Creation/maintenance of open habitat (early successional) impacts • Herbicide application impacts

Existing condition – Management Prescription 9.H – Mid-story Control Prescription The three stands in the 9.H prescription proposed for mid-story control have sufficient oak regeneration present in the under- and mid-story to regenerate to an oak forest type or at least a stand with a heavy oak component which is ecologically suited for these sites; however the oak are being heavily competed against by abundant Virginia pine, sourwood, black gum, yellow poplar, and more shade tolerant tree species such as red maple and white pine.

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects – Management Prescription 9.H – Mid-story Control Prescription

Alternative A No action would result in the majority of the oak regeneration being over-grown by the competition of red maple, Virginia pine, white pine, sourwood, black gum, etc. The future stand would have very little oak as dominant and co-dominants due to the aggressive nature of the growth of the competition; therefore, the stand would be less suitable for wildlife habitat and little hard mast would be present. Forest health would also suffer due to species (white pine, Virginia pine, and red maple) which are not as well suited for the upland and ridge top sites being a larger component than species (oak, hickory, shortleaf and pitch pine) more suited for the site.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Mid-story control would enhance the growth of the existing advanced oak regeneration. By removing the mid-story shade, oak seedlings/saplings would be able to continue growing and developing above ground in stem growth in addition to below ground in root growth with less competition from less desired species.

Existing condition – Management Prescription 9.H – Harvesting Prescription Stand 103/05 is currently an oak forest type and is ecologically suited to remain one, but the small-sized oak regeneration and some advanced hickory regeneration present is at risk of being out-competed by the abundant red maple, white pine, yellow poplar, black gum, and sourwood advanced regeneration and saplings if no management is performed to favor or enhance the oak and hickory regeneration.

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects – Management Prescription 9.H – Harvesting Prescription

Alternative A No action would result in the understory, which is dominated by shade tolerant species, growing and maturing into the future stand. Many of the understory (red maple, yellow poplar, black gum, white pine, etc) are not the best suited species for the upland site of this unit. These less suitable species would likely out-compete the more suitable species (oak, hickory, and shortleaf pine). This situation would cause wildlife to suffer due to less suitable habitat and forest health would also suffer.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Stand 103/05 would be prescribed for a shelterwood with reserves type harvest followed by slashdown of non-merchantable (2”-7”) trees and supplemental oak planting would result in an oak-hickory stand suitable for this upland site. Oak and hickory regeneration would comprise of existing natural seedlings, the supplemental oak planting (50 trees per acre), and potential stump sprouts from any oak and/or hickory saplings that would be cut during the slashdown as well as any small diameter oak and/or hickory that would be harvested. A shelterwood with reserves harvest would not require an additional entry into the stand, for the purposes of harvesting, to aid the oak and hickory seedlings and saplings to further mature into pole timber and sawtimber as would a thinning harvest. This one less entry translates into less disturbance to the ground.

Alternative C Stand 103/05 would be thinned to approximately 50 square feet of basal area (current basal area is approximately 90 square feet) followed by slashdown of non-merchantable (2”-7”) trees. There may be some oak and hickory regeneration following thinning; however, an additional entry would be needed to further reduce the basal area and allow the oak and hickory saplings or pole timber to continue maturing into dominant trees and become part of the canopy of the future stand. This entry would reopen the skid trails and landing(s) for harvesting purposes. The harvest would further reduce the basal area to approximately 20 square feet and would allow the oak and hickory pole timber to mature into the next stand. Cumulatively, Alternative A does not accomplish the desired condition associated with the 9.H prescription to restore a more natural, site-appropriate community to previously harvested pine/oak forests that now support young hardwood stands dominated by red maple and black gum. Alternative B would contribute to meeting this desired condition on 34 acres and 0.012% of RX area. Alterantive C would contribute to meeting this desired condition on 29 acres and 0.010% of RX area; however, an additional entry would be needed to accomplish the goal of achieving the RLRMP direction of 4-10% in early successional forest in the 9.H prescription.

Existing condition – Management Prescription 8.B – Oak Regeneration Of the Conacat analysis area there is 17% of oak and oak dominated forest types over the age of 70 years and approximately 24% of pine or pine hardwood forest types over the age of 60 years. Many ridge tops and mid-slopes which are more ecologically appropriate for oak and/or shortleaf or pitch pine forest types are being encroached by more mesic-type species such as white pine

and occasionally yellow poplar as well as more fire intolerant species such as Virginia pine and red maple.

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects – Management Prescription 8.B – Oak Regeneration

Alternative A No action would allow the analysis area as a whole to continue to age and slow in its’ vigor, and change in composition allowing for a decrease in shade intolerant species which are more preferred by wildlife. As discussed previously, the oak regeneration in the understory would be suppressed and more shade tolerant species would grow to maturity as the next stand of timber.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C The proposed management activities in Alternative B increase early successional habitat from the current 6.5% to 11.8% which is within the RLRMPs desired range of 10-17%, and the management activities proposed in Alternative C increase early successional habitat to 10.5% which is also within the RLRMPs desired range. Much of the activities proposed are designed to reduce the ‘off-site’ or less ecologically suitable species that are present (white pine, Virginia pine, and red maple) and encourage species that are more appropriate for the site (oaks, shortleaf pine and pitch pine). Also, younger, more vigorous stands of timber are better able to withstand attacks by forest pests and often the diverse structure and species composition is more desirable for many wildlife species as well as interrupting the steady attack from forest pests such as gypsy moth or SPB. There is mid-story control also proposed for the purpose of enhancing the production and growth of advanced oak regeneration. By removing the mid-story shade, oak seedlings/saplings would be able to continue growing and developing above ground in stem growth in addition to below ground in root growth without the level of increased competition which often results in a heavier removal of the over-story caused by harvesting. Mid-story control is an intermediate activity designed to help ‘move along’ oak regeneration from the seedling stage to sapling stage and into pole and sawtimber-sized trees. It is designed to give an advantage to oak seedlings over competing seedlings of white pine, Virginia pine, and red maple to name a few. White pine, Virginia pine and red maple can grow on a multitude of sites and often be competitive for resources. However, just because they can grow almost anywhere does not mean they are better suited everywhere. Along with an aging stand or forest, species growing off-site can be detrimental to forest health. Stand 78/10 contains some blackjack oak and it would be a goal to help release some of them from competition and help them to continue growing since blackjack oak is relatively rare on the south zone of the CNF.

Existing condition – Management Prescription 8.B - Early Successional Habitat The current percentage of early successional acres in the MP 8.B portion of this proposal is 6.5%. RLRMP standards have an objective to maintain 10-17% of 8.B acres in early successional habitat.

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects – Management Prescription 8.B - Early Successional Habitat

Alternative A No action would result in no additional areas of early successional habitat created through management and would not increase the amount of soft mast and low cover desired and necessary by many wildlife species. This alternative does not create any early successional habitat, instead it minimizes the stands’ age and structure diversity leading to a more uniform, older forested area increasing its’ susceptibility to gypsy moth, SPB, and storm damage.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Early successional habitat would increase from the current 6.5% to 11.8% through the management activities proposed. The stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves harvest are mostly upland sites that would support mostly ‘dry to mesic oak’ or ‘dry and dry mesic oak-pine’ forests. The stands proposed for seedtree with reserves or clear cut with reserves are mostly ridge sites that would support ‘xeric pine’ and ‘pine-oak’ forests within which fire has likely played an important historical role in shaping species composition. Post-harvest many of the stands will be planted with oak and/or shortleaf or pitch pine to supplement the natural regeneration that is already present or that will establish from seed or stump sprouts. Some areas of some stands may exceed 40% slope for small portions of the stand in order to achieve maximum acreage of the stands in management for early successional wildlife habitat and to limit some species that would not be ecologically suitable for the site. An example would be to maximize acres for white pine regeneration reduction or to maximize acres of reduction of current Virginia pine forest. These ‘steeper’ sections of the stand would be avoided for the building of roads and skid trails as much as possible. Any trees designated for removal in ‘steeper’ sections would be cabled or winched out of the area to a more level area to a skid trail and then skid to the landing. This alternative would desire to achieve, of the designated stands, the maximum acres of those stands for early successional habitat as well as improve forest health on those same acres.

Alternative C Early successional habitat would increase from the current 6.5% to 10.5% through the management activities proposed. The stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves harvest are mostly upland sites that would support mostly ‘dry to mesic oak’ or ‘dry and dry mesic oak-pine’ forests. The stands proposed for seedtree with reserves or clear cut with reserves are mostly ridge sites that would support ‘xeric pine’ and ‘pine-oak’ forests within which fire has likely played an important historical role in shaping species composition. Post-harvest many of the stands will be planted with oak and/or shortleaf or pitch pine to supplement the natural regeneration that is already present or that will establish from seed or stump sprouts – coppice. All regenerated stands would be prescribed to receive a 2nd year release of wildlife desired and ecologically suitable tree species. Approximately 100-200 trees per acre would be designated to be directly ‘released’ from competition. The designated trees would be ‘freed’ from direct competition for an approximately 6 foot radius. This release would serve to help enable the designated tree species an advantage to continue growing and developing into the future stand.

Some areas of the prescribed stands may exceed 40% slope for small portions of the stand, and these areas would be removed from the harvest. There are two stands (110/05, 06) that would still be prescribed for harvest even in the steeper portions of the stands. Stand 110/05 is 91% Virginia pine and while stand 110/06 is not extremely high (55%) in Virginia pine percentage, the location of the Virginia pine is scattered throughout the entire stand including the steeper portions. The steeper areas would, again, be avoided for building skid trails or roads, but would be harvested due to the nature of Virginia pine, where in the stand the Virginia pine is occurring, and the high percentage of Virginia pine present in the stands. Stand 110/05 would be prescribed for a clear cut with reserves. Clear cut with reserves is prescribed where the stands would be composed primarily of Virginia pine and would not contain enough suitable reserve trees to reproduce a fully stocked stand of desirable tree species. As much as 10 BA/AC would be left behind for the residual stand. The reserve trees would be trees of value to wildlife such as den trees and mast producers. These stands would be artificially regenerated by planting shortleaf pine to achieve desirable stocking levels. The future stands would be stocked with a mixture of planted shortleaf pine and naturally occurring hardwoods including upland oak species. The use of clear cutting as a regeneration method must be shown to be the optimal method for meeting RLRMP management direction [USC 1604 (g) (3) (F) (i)]. Evaluating the optimality of clear cutting (in this case, clear cutting with reserves) involves the evaluation of site-specific ecological and biological factors. These factors must be screened against the RLRMP MP direction to ensure that the regeneration method is truly optimal. The following factors give compelling reasons to consider the use of clear cutting with reserves for this project: 1. These stands are composed primarily of Virginia pine and do not contain enough suitable reserve trees to reproduce a fully stocked stand of desirable tree species. Virginia pine tends to be shallow rooted and vulnerable to wind throw, which makes other regeneration methods problematic. This is especially true in older stands of Virginia pine. 2. The use of the clear cutting with reserves method for regenerating shade intolerant species such as yellow pine is discussed in the RLRMP (p. 395). The ‘steeper’ sections of the stand would be avoided for the building of roads and skid trails as much as possible. Any trees designated for removal in ‘steeper’ sections would be cabled or winched out of the area to a more level area to a skid trail and then skid to the landing. This alternative would desire to achieve, of the designated stands, the maximum acres of those stands for early successional habitat as well as improve forest health on those same acres by limiting those species that would not be ecologically suitable for the site.

Existing condition – Fire Use Related to Silviculture Across the landscape of the Forest and within the analysis area white pine, over time, has begun to encroach from the riparian areas where it is best suited to mid-slope areas and ridge tops. White pine, being shade tolerant as well as fire intolerant, often seeds abundantly in the understory and waits for an opening in the tree canopy. Once a disturbance creates an opening if there are white pine within that opening they will benefit by the increased sunlight and resources. White pine respond very well to being released from a shade condition to a more open condition and will often out-compete other vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the opening. It is when this happens on mid-slope or ridge top locations where oak and hickory and shortleaf or pitch pine are very well suited to grow that white pines ability to respond quickly to disturbances becomes an issue. The white pine will be able to occupy the opening more quickly than the more desirable (forest health and wildlife) oak or hickory or shortleaf or pitch pine. Over time

this cycle repeats itself and white pine becomes more prevalent and begins to replace the oak- hickory and oak-pine or pine-oak sites. Virginia pine is another species that is not fire tolerant, but can often be found in abundance on slope locations where fires, if they occur, will usually exhibit extreme fire conditions due to the slope location. These locations are the mid-slope to ridge top locations. Red maple is another fire intolerant species due to its’ thin bark. Red maple grows on most sites and is a large percentage of our stems per acre across the forest and this analysis area. Unfortunately, they seed abundantly and are shade tolerant not unlike the white pine. Due to these characteristics they are often in direct competition to more wildlife desirable species such as oak and hickory. Red maple compete well against shortleaf and pitch pine also. Table Mountain pine is a rather unique tree species that is in limited quantities in the analysis area. There were no trees identified on stand exam plots, but there have been some located in parts of the analysis area and even in close proximity to stands proposed for management. It is possible there are some scattered individual trees in some of the stands prescribed for management. This pine has serotinous cones which refers to the fact that the cones open and seeds are dispersed when exposed to heat either from a fire or hot and dry conditions.

Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects – Fire Use Related to Silviculture

Alternative A No action would cause more shade tolerant and fire intolerant tree species (white pine, red maple, yellow poplar) to replace more shade intolerant and fire tolerant tree species (oak, shortleaf and pitch pine). A locally rare pine – Table Mountain pine – which is somewhat ‘maintained’ by moderate to high intensity fire, such as the previously described mixed and stand replacement fire regimes, would decrease across the analysis area. The understory fire regime is prescribed for this area under other decisions; however, the understory fire regime does not create as ideal a condition for Table Mountain pine regeneration as the mixed and/or stand replacement fire regimes.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C The site preparation burning prescribed, which equates to the ‘mixed’ fire regime described earlier, along with the broadcast prescribed burning, understory burning fire regime, would further reduce those species more susceptible to fire that would compete with more fire tolerant species. This is particularly important on the ridge and mid-slope portions of those stands where natural fires could occur at some time during the life of that stand. Fire intolerant species present in the event of a fire would not only likely suffer greater damage in a fire, but would be more susceptible to damage related from a fire. Prescribe fire used for site preparation, mixed fire regime, for planting would also have the benefit of increasing the ease of planting as well as increasing the area available for planting. Any oak seedlings present would only be top-killed and would be expected to sprout back just below the surface of the ground and respond quickly since oaks develop their root system better than most other hardwood species. Seedlings of red maple and yellow poplar develop shoot growth instead of root growth when they are young and repeated fire is more likely to kill them than oak species. White pine and Virginia pine do not typically sprout back when they are seedlings and a single fire could kill them. These scenarios increase the likelihood of oaks and more fire resistant shortleaf or pitch pine being present in the future stand. When it comes to regenerating Table Mountain pine, fire, in the severity range of the mixed fire regime, aids its’ regeneration in several ways. It opens the serotinous cones,

consumes litter, exposes mineral soil, and eliminates competing vegetation, allowing more light and water for pine seedlings and minimizing allelopathic effects. Research is mixed, but most seem to point to either frequent low-intensity fires or moderate-intensity surface fires. The important thing is to cause conditions that allow partial shade and a relatively thin (approximately 5 cm) duff layer. The wise use of fire is needed to maintain and restore many forested communities across the southern Appalachians, especially xeric pine and pine-oak forest; dry and xeric oak forests; and dry and dry to mesic pine-oak forests. Without fire or other vegetation management actions that approximate fire effects, many communities may decline dramatically in future years and shift towards shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant species (USDA 2004a).

Forest Health Forest health concerns for the CNF include insects, diseases, and potential storm damage. Damage to forest communities occurs in varying degrees depending on community types and species composition, location on the landscape, age of the forested community, past disturbance, and weather conditions. Scope of Analysis The area chosen for analysis of the effects from the silvicultural actions coincides with the analysis area boundary. The timeframe of activities considered are those that have occurred in the past 10 years (approximate ‘lifespan’ of early successional habitat), present activities, and those in the foreseeable future (the next 10 years). A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities used for the cumulative effects analysis is located in the background section of the environmental effects. Vegetation data was gathered for the project boundary using current GIS data. Existing Condition Forest Health Forest health concerns for the CNF include insects (gypsy moth, HWA and SPB, diseases, potential storm damage, and possible fire occurrence. Damage to forest communities can occur to varying degrees. Some of the factors that cause this variation are the following: community types, species composition (especially if tree species best suited for the site are absent or declining), location on the landscape, age of the forested community, past disturbance, and weather conditions. In preparation for a potential gypsy moth invasion or SPB attack it is advantageous to increase acres of early successional oak forest or at least disperse younger oak forest acres among the older oak or oak-pine or pine-oak forest types in order to attempt to interrupt any gypsy moth movement or SPB attack across the Forest. Managing for a healthy forest is one major way to try and limit potential damage from many of these damaging agents Gypsy Moth Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is a major defoliator of hardwood trees in both forest and urban landscapes. It was introduced from Europe into Massachusetts sometime between 1867 and 1869. Because the favored host, oak, is widespread in the eastern deciduous forests, gypsy moth thrives and continues to expand its range west and south each year. By the 1980’s, gypsy moth was established throughout the northeast. Gypsy moth larvae feed on more than 300 species of trees, shrubs, and vines. Favored hosts include oak, apple, birch, basswood, witch hazel, and willow. Hosts moderately favored include

maple, hickory, beech, black cherry, elm, and sassafras. Least favored hosts are ash, yellow poplar, American sycamore, hemlock, pine, spruce, black gum, and black locust. Feeding on less favored host plants usually occurs when high-density larval populations defoliate the favored tree species and move to adjacent, less favored species of trees to finish their development. Today the area considered generally infested includes parts of Virginia, just north of the CNF. Gypsy moth is projected to occur on the forest between the year 2010 and 2025 (SAMAB 1996). There have been no recorded occurrances on the CNF to date. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) (HWA) was introduced into the eastern U.S. from Asia in the early 1950's near Richmond, Virginia. The HWA was present on some exotic tree species that a private collector planted in his arboretum. The distribution of the HWA remained localized until the 1960's. The population has since spread throughout the Shenandoah Valley into the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and the northeastern U.S. The entire range of eastern hemlock is threatened and could be infested within 30 years. Impacts to the host species Tsuga canadensis and T. caroliniana, eastern and Carolina hemlocks, respectively, are severe. Once infested, tree mortality usually occurs in two to five years. Mortality is not restricted to any size or age of hemlock. This insect pest threatens the hemlock resource and also threatens the unique ecosystem it helps comprise. Hemlock provides habitat for a variety of plants and animals and helps to maintain stream temperatures for a variety of aquatic species. The north end of the CNF has been heavily infested by the HWA in the last several years. There are also well-established populations in North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park adjacent too much of the CNF. Recently, the adelgid has been found in several locations on the Tellico as well as Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger Districts and is quickly spreading. There has been some success in treatment of the HWA where the treatments have been maintained for the last approximately 3-5 years. Southern Pine Beetle The SPB (Dendroctonus frontalis) is the most destructive pine bark beetle in Tennessee and the southern U.S. Pine trees are killed singly, in small groups, or in large numbers, sometimes exceeding hundreds of acres. The SPB is a native pest to the South and occurs in small numbers (endemic) until outbreak or epidemic population levels develop. Infestations can develop into outbreak levels when pine forests are stressed by crowded growing conditions, trees are damaged from ice or wind, during drought conditions, or when stands are considered biologically mature. These stress conditions can often prevent the tree from producing adequate resin flow to "pitch out" the attacking insect, which is the tree’s main defense in a SPB attack. Once pine stands are weakened, they become more susceptible to attack by SPB. Once populations develop in weakened trees, the beetles may spread to healthy trees that normally would resist attack. When beetle populations become large (epidemic), they can successfully attack healthy, vigorous trees and result in widespread mortality. Natural enemies, including diseases, parasites, and predators (primarily the clerid beetle) can help maintain beetle populations at endemic levels. However, these forces seem to have relatively little effect during the early stages of an epidemic when SPB populations explode faster than parasite and predator populations respond to the availability of new host beetle levels. Ultimately, however, these biocontrol agents catch up with and actually exceed the abundant host beetles (food source) and contribute to the collapse of the epidemic.

Most major outbreaks last three to five years and occur in irregular cycles of about seven to ten years, sometimes longer in the mountain region. The SPB attacks all species of pines including white pine, but prefers loblolly, shortleaf, Virginia, and pitch pines all of which occur on the CNF. Pine is a sizeable component of the forested communities on the CNF and represents a large portion of the CNF. The last widespread outbreak on the CNF occurred between the years 1998-2002. Storm Damage Storm damage to trees from tornadoes, hurricanes, snow or ice loading with or without wind, is similar. These stresses cause hardwoods and pines to break off, split, be root sprung, be uprooted, bend and suffer branch and foliage losses. Stresses appear to be much the same, regardless of storm type; however, damage can vary depending on storm severity and the condition of individual trees or the condition of the stand of trees as a whole. Tree crown configuration; age (old, large trees suffer greater damage); size and limberness of stems; branching habit; lean of bole; anchorage based on rooting characteristics and soil; to some degree tree species; and the presence of root and stem diseases can add to or detract from the amount of damage from a storm event to a small degree. Elevation can be important in the case of ice and snow damage. Frequently, a variation of one or two degrees in air temperature can result in bands of varying damage on the same hillside at different elevations, depending on the temperatures at that location at the time of precipitation. However, pre-storm management to minimize damage is extremely difficult because of the natural randomness of weather patterns coupled with the fact that trees live so long; however, the possibility of an 80-90 year-old tree to live through a storm damage event of some degree is fairly high. Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Forest Health

Alternative A No action would result in no immediate change in the existing vegetation. If no regeneration occurs, the present species composition of the forest would eventually shift from the current over-story of predominately shade-intolerant species to that of an increased percentage of shade- tolerant species. Shade intolerant species such as shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, yellow poplar, and oak species would decrease in abundance while shade tolerant species such as red maple, black gum, white pine and hemlock would increase in abundance in the absence of disturbance. The assemblage of understory plants would change following the succession of the forest canopy composition. This alternative would not provide further age-class diversity with the addition of early- successional habitat through timber harvest and regeneration. Barring a major natural disturbance, plant communities favoring oak or shortleaf pine would be replaced under this alternative by the shade-tolerant species currently in the understory. There would be a higher proportional amount of acres in the 70+ age classes which would further imbalance the age-class distribution and lead to susceptibility to tree damage from most of the items listed above (gypsy moth, SPB, and storm damage). This gradual shift of shade-intolerant species to that of shade-tolerant species would result in a reduction of some important wildlife elements such as hard and soft mast production, which

would decline as the percentage of mature scarlet, black, chestnut and white oak trees, as well as hickory declined. Soft mast would also be reduced due to the loss of early-successional habitat. As the trees grow older, there would be an increased vulnerability to insect and disease, which would result in trees with slower growth and decreased vigor. The Gypsy Moth poses real threats to oaks and hardwood stands in general. The SPB, which was noted as a threat to stands of white and yellow pine in the analysis area, has killed some nearly pure pine stands as well as many scattered pine. Hardwood stands of advanced age may be vulnerable to oak decline. The older trees in the analysis area would eventually die as natural processes along with insect and disease impacts continue. Woody debris in the form of large trees and limb wood may increase on the forest floor as older trees and suppressed trees finally die and fall. HWA poses a serious threat to the eastern hemlock found in the analysis area. The CNF HWA Suppression EA and DN (USDA 2005b) includes approximately six hemlock treatment areas within the analysis area all of which are along the Wildcat Road (FSR #384) consisting of approximately 20-25 acres in the area. There is much potential for additional treatment in other locations across the analysis area and would involve biological and chemical control methods. These sites were chosen, as well as new site are chosen for treatment as part of a landscape level effort to maintain the presence and genetic diversity of hemlock in hopes that pollen may be transferred between sites. Even with the No Action, these treatments would continue to occur due to other decisions. There are 30 units (343 acres) of SPB killed pine in the analysis area that occurred during the 1998-2002 SPB epidemic. These areas were scheduled for restoration under previous decisions (CNF, 2005). Most of these areas were allowed to regenerate naturally. Due to the timing of the SPB outbreak, these areas are mostly older than 10 years old and are, therefore, not considered a part of the early successional (age 0-10 years) acres. These units range in size from about 1 to 50 acres. No Action would result in the stands proposed for harvest or thinning to not be harvested or thinned, but instead they would continue growing older and/or continue to have stress from competition from adjoining trees. Both of which would lead to a decrease in individual tree vigor due to stress caused by continued aging and/or competition. This lower tree vigor makes them more susceptible to insect damage from SPB, if it were to occur, and it would make them less able to recover from any potential attack from SPB. White pine, and to a lesser degree eastern hemlock, have benefited from the absence of wildland fire in the analysis area. These species are best suited, ecologically, to occupy lower slope and riparian habitats and do not become established in areas that have periodic fire. Due to the lack of successful understory fire regime fires in the analysis area that would have controlled the spread of white pine from more mesic areas to more xeric sites, the white pine have seeded in on many upland sites often competing with more ecologically suitable tree species such as the oaks and more fire tolerant pine species (shortleaf, pitch, and table mountain pines). The area considered for vegetative cumulative effects is the project area. This is an area of approximately 18,338 acres. See Table 12 for the age class distribution in the previously mentioned compartments, in the various age classes (base year 2013) for all alternatives. The percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Table 12. Age Class Distribution Percentages for Cumulative Effects Age 0-10 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt A 4.1 1.4 7.5 9.6 9.0 2.3 0.4 6.4 11.1 21.4 26.8 100% Alt B 7.5 1.4 7.5 9.4 8.7 2.3 0.4 6.2 10.8 20.0 25.9 100% Alt C 6.5 1.4 7.5 9.6 8.7 2.3 0.4 6.3 10.8 20.4 26.1 100%

In the year 2013, approximately 4.1percent of the forested acres are in the 0-10 age class for the lands in the Conacat analysis area. This equates to approximately 747 acres. With no additional notable areas of early successional habitat created through management, this alternative would not increase the amount of soft mast and low cover desired and necessary by many wildlife species. This alternative does not create any early successional habitat, but it instead, minimizes the areas’ age and structure diversity leading to a more uniform, older forested area increasing its’ susceptibility to gypsy moth, HWA, SPB, and storm damage. Conclusion No action would result in the continued spread of white pine onto dry sites where oaks and more fire tolerant pine species are more suitable to survive. The white pine is more shade tolerant than the oaks and pine species that are better suited for these drier sites and the white pine would likely out-compete them. The long-term effect of no action would be an older, more uniform forest where species composition, age-class distribution, and understory vegetation would continue to change relatively slowly by processes of natural succession. The forest would have low vigor and therefore, would be more susceptible to insect and disease attacks from which it would not be able to recover as well as if it were composed of a more diverse group of tree species with varying age classes. Gypsy moth, HWA, and SPB would affect the forest structure and composition. The gypsy moth could affect the analysis area due to the large amounts of mature oak. Approximately 17 percent of the Conacat analysis area is primarily oak and oak dominated forest types over the age of 70 and vulnerable to gypsy moth damage. The effect would be a decline in the number of oaks and its associated hard mast. The SPB outbreak (1998 through 2002) has impacted the analysis area and the surrounding landscape. Approximately 24 percent of the Conacat analysis area is pine or pine hardwood forest types over the age of 60 and highly vulnerable to SPB. The probability of another SPB outbreak is high, and would result in a further reduction of pine species. The watershed contains approximately 3,236 acres with hemlock as a primary component of the stands. Approximately 1,730 acres are older than 60 years. HWA is likely to kill most of the hemlock if they are not treated. If hemlock do die their position in the forest canopy is likely to be replaced by white pine and possibly yellow poplar. In parts of this analysis area the hemlock treatment has not been very successful due to either treating trees too damaged from the HWA and/or not having treated them before they died. In areas where we have treated hemlock early, before the adelgid has caused much defoliation, there has been success thus far in survival. Alternative A does not respond to the 8.B nor respond to the 9.H prescription area objectives for early successional wildlife species. Alternative A does not provide measures to improve forest health and reduce forest susceptibility to disease and pest outbreaks.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would affect the forested age class distribution by the even-aged and two-aged regeneration treatment of stands. These treatments include the following: clear cut with reserves, shelterwood with reserves, and seed-tree with reserves. The preceding treatment types provide suitable wildlife habitat diversity for those species that require openings in the tree canopy for forage and those species that desire the vegetation changes associated with the ‘edge’ between timber and openings. As part of the prescription for many of the stands, tree planting, as well as a second year release of the wildlife-desirable tree species is planned to occur to favor their continued presence as the stands grow and mature for the purpose of wildlife cover and food source. Many of the stands have tree species occurring that are in potential jeopardy of dying due to their presence in a somewhat unsuitable location, i.e., white pine is better suited to grow and remain healthy in riparian areas – not on ridges where it is currently occurring in several of these stands. Oaks and other nut-bearing species such as hickories are better suited to grow and remain healthy on ridge locations. Alternative B would strive to target white pine to more riparian sites and favor oaks to more xeric mid-slope and ridge top sites thereby increasing the health of the forest by encouraging tree species to grow where they are more ecologically suited. The prescription areas whose age class distribution would be affected are 8.B and 9.H. Approximately 625 acres of early successional habitat would be created with this alternative (535 acres shelterwood with reserves and 90 acres seed-tree with reserves or clear cut with reserves); the acres of mid and late successional habitat would decrease correspondingly. Early- successional forest may be created by even-aged and two-aged regeneration cutting, prescribed burning, or other vegetation management treatments that create open canopy conditions and relatively uniform dense regeneration of woody species across patches larger than two acres (USDA 2004a). Existing early successional habitat is the result of previous even-aged regeneration. The base year for the age class distributions is 2013. The regeneration caused by proposed treatments would not only increase diversity in age, structure, and species it would in turn allow the forest to be more vigorous and resilient to insect and disease attacks. The site preparation burning prescribed along with the broadcast prescribed burning would further reduce those species more susceptible to fire that would compete with more fire tolerant species. This is particularly important on the ridge and mid-slope portions of those stands where natural fires could occur at some time during the life of that stand. Fire intolerant species present in the event of a fire would not only likely suffer greater damage in a fire, but would be more susceptible to other types of damage due to stresses related from a fire. Prescribed fire used for site preparation for planting would also have the benefit of increasing the ease of planting as well as increasing the area available for planting. Any oak seedlings present would only be top-killed and would be expected to sprout back just below the surface of the ground and respond quickly since oaks develop their root system better than most other hardwood species. Seedlings of red maple and yellow poplar develop shoot growth instead of root growth when they are young and repeated fire is more likely to kill them than oak species. White pine and Virginia pine do not typically sprout back when they are seedlings and a single fire could kill them. These scenarios increase the likelihood of oaks and more fire resistant shortleaf or pitch pine being present. The wise use of fire is beneficial to maintaining and restoring many forested communities across the southern Appalachians, especially xeric pine and pine-oak forest; dry and xeric oak forests; and dry and dry to mesic pine-oak forests. Without fire or other vegetation management actions that approximate fire effects, many communities

may decline dramatically in future years and shift towards shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant species (USDA 2004a). Where the intermediate treatments of tree release, mid-story control, and thinning is prescribed, oak species, which are well-suited for the sites, would be promoted and encouraged and a diversity of species would increase across the landscape. These treatments would increase sunlight to the forest floor and help in promoting oak regeneration. Any oak or other tree seedlings that develops or grows as a result would need to receive additional vegetation management to allow their development to continue so the seedlings and saplings would, hopefully, become a part of the future canopy. If no additional treatment were to be performed to help promote any tree seedlings that would be developed as a result of these activities the canopy would continue to close thus shading any seedlings; therefore, the seedlings most likely to continue to survive would be the shade tolerant ones. Oaks, as well as most wildlife preferred tree species, are shade intolerant and tend to grow slower than the less desirable red maple and white pine and Virginia pine that tend to be very prolific. Even shade tolerant seedlings that might survive in the understory for several years would not likely develop healthily without any intermediate treatment to increase the available sunlight. Some current oaks that are already a part of the over-story are beginning to be suppressed, decreasing their vigor and increasing their susceptibility to insects and disease. By thinning around them the trees would have less competition and could increase in vigor. Densely stocked white pine stands do not allow sufficient sunlight to reach the forest floor to promote sufficient regeneration, and they offer little to no wildlife benefit or habitat thus not meeting the wildlife purpose and need for this proposal. The ten stands proposed for mid-story control and the one stand proposed for tree release have oak regeneration present in the understory and would benefit from the added sunlight and decreased competition that would occur due to the prescribed activities. The one stand (110/09) proposed for thinning is a Virginia pine progeny site and has oak regeneration present that would benefit greatly from less competition and added sunlight. Clear cut with reserves would be prescribed where the stands are composed primarily of Virginia pine and would not contain enough suitable reserve trees to reproduce a fully stocked stand of desirable tree species. As much as 10 BA/AC would be left behind for the residual stand. (Basal area is the cross sectional area of a tree measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. Basal area per acre is the sum of all individual tree basal areas on an acre which is used as a measure of stand density. Basal area is measured in square feet. For example, one 14 inch DBH tree is approximately 1 square foot of basal area.) The reserve trees would be trees of value to wildlife such as den trees and mast producers. These stands would receive supplemental planting of shortleaf pine to achieve desirable stocking levels. The goal is for the future stands to be stocked with a mixture of planted shortleaf pine and naturally occurring hardwoods including upland oak species. The use of clear cutting as a regeneration method must be shown to be the optimal method for meeting RLRMP management direction [USC 1604 (g) (3) (F) (i)]. Evaluating the optimality of clear cutting (in this case, clear cutting with reserves) involves the evaluation of site-specific ecological and biological factors. These factors must be screened against the RLRMP MP direction to ensure that the regeneration method is truly optimal. The following factors give compelling reasons to consider the use of clear cutting with reserves for this project: 1. These stands are composed primarily of Virginia pine and do not contain enough suitable reserve trees of other wildlife desirable species to reproduce a fully stocked stand of desirable tree species. 2. Virginia pine tends to be shallow rooted increasing the likelihood of any residual Virginia pine trees to be vulnerable to wind throw, which makes regeneration methods other than 49

clear cutting with reserves problematic. This is especially true in older stands of Virginia pine. 3. Clear cutting with reserves maximizes the sunlight in the area favoring shade intolerant, wildlife-desirable tree species such as southern yellow pine, black cherry, and the oaks. The use of the clear cutting with reserves method for regenerating shade intolerant species such as yellow pine is discussed in the RLRMP (p. 395). Site preparation, planting and release would increase the likelihood of the establishment of shortleaf pine in this stand and contribute to RLRMP Objective 17.03. Based upon the aforementioned considerations, the use of clear cutting is the optimal regeneration method for the stand included in the proposed action for meeting RLRMP goals and objectives. Only one stand (110/05) is proposed for clearcutting with reserves and it is approximately 91% Virginia pine. There is limited oak and hickory regeneration present and that would be favored along with the shortleaf pine that is proposed to be planted. The cumulative effects of Alternative B would be a healthier forest of tree species occupying ridges, south and west slopes, and dry mid slopes which are more prone to damage from fires if they occur. Therefore, it is desirable to have more fire resistant tree species such as shortleaf and pitch pine, and oaks rather than white and Virginia pine occupying these sites. Another effect of Alternative B in improving the health of the forest would be regenerating stands that are older and more prone to insect and disease attack. Also creating early successional habitat across the landscape is beneficial and in compliance with the RLRMP in the affected MPs (8.B and 9.H), and Alternative B would create, through management, an additional 625 acres. Activities listed as being past, present, and reasonably foreseeable that would affect forest health include any planting and subsequent release of areas impacted by SPB. Planting and releasing of any seedlings that are desirable in these areas would help further increase the presence of more fire resistant and wildlife beneficial tree species. Table 13 indicates the age class distribution for the 8.B prescription area in the analysis area before and after the proposed harvest activities. Approximately 591 acres in 8.B would be regenerated with this alternative. The forested 8.B portion of the analysis area is approximately 11,160 forested acres. The percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Table 13. Age Class Distribution Percentages of Conacat 8.B Analysis Area Age 0-10 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt A 6.5 1.8 8.0 10.5 9.7 0.4 0.3 3.4 11.1 24.3 24.0 100% Alt B 11.8 1.8 8.0 10.1 9.1 0.4 0.3 3.2 10.4 22.3 22.6 100%

Table 14 indicates the age class distribution for the 9.H prescription area in the analysis area before and after the proposed harvest activities. Approximately 49 acres in 9.H would be regenerated with this alternative. The 9.H portion of the analysis area is approximately 2,768 forested acres. The percentages may not total 100 due to rounding Table 14. Age Class Distribution Percentages of Conacat 9.H Analysis Area Age 0-10 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101+ Total 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Alt A 0.9 0 9.2 10.6 5.2 5.0 0.9 19.9 11.8 10.0 26.5 100% Alt B 2.6 0 9.2 10.6 5.2 5.0 0.9 19.9 11.8 8.8 26.0 100%

Conclusion Implementing Alternative B over the long-term would lead to a more balanced age-class distribution, and an increased species and structure diversity thus improving the forest’s health and vigor across the landscape. As part of the regeneration of the stand, the site preparation, species planted, and the release of desirable species from competition would help favor tree species more suitable for each site. This is also a large factor contributing to the health of a forest stand. Alternative B would add approximately 5.3% (1.3% more than Alternative C) of the forested acres of prescription area 8.B in the 0-10 age class, contributing to meeting the 8.B objective of 10-17% with a total of 11.8%. Alternative B would add 1.7% (1.2% more than Alternative C) of the forested acres of prescription area 9.H in the 0-10 age class, contributing to the 9.H objective of 4-10% which is currently 0.9%. While this proposal does not meet the 9.H objective of 4- 10% of forested land in the 0-10 year age class it does help contribute by adding to the total. This alternative provides an amount of managed disturbance that would help improve overall vegetative diversity to the area. Alternative B would regenerate 625 acres of forest land by 2- aged methods in this project entry. Alternative B would decrease the risk of SPB outbreak and gypsy moth infestation by promoting vigorous stands and diversifying age class. These forest health concerns would not be eliminated with Alternative B. Some stand age related health problems are likely to occur due to the long average stand rotation. In addition, Alternative B would improve soft mast production. Alternative B contributes to RLRMP objectives for the restoration of oak or oak pine forest (17.02), restores shortleaf pine (17.03), contributes to the reduction of Virginia pine and restoration of fire adapted pine or oak communities (17.05), promotes the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining basal area (18.02), and the creation of early successional habitat for prescription areas 8.B (8.B-1.01) and 9.H (9.H-1.01).

Alternative C Alternative C would affect the forested age class distribution by the even-aged and two-aged regeneration treatment of stands. These treatments include the following: clear cut with reserves, shelterwood with reserves, and seed-tree with reserves. Approximately 449 acres of early successional habitat would be created with this alternative (361 acres shelterwood with reserves and 88 acres seed-tree with reserves or clear cut with reserves) the acres of mid and late successional habitat would decrease correspondingly. In addition to these treatments that would increase early successional acres, some intermediate treatments of thinning and white pine and Virginia pine removal would be proposed for the purpose of increasing stand age and structure diversity and wildlife habitat. In the areas where early successional habitat would be created tree planting along with natural regeneration would occur as proposed in Alternative B. The regeneration caused by proposed treatments would not only increase diversity in age, structure, and species it would in turn allow the forest to be more vigorous and resilient to insect and disease attacks. The site preparation burning prescribed along with the broadcast prescribed burning would further reduce those species more susceptible to fire that would compete with more fire tolerant species. Effects would be the same as described in Alt B.

The effects in the twelve stands proposed for mid-story control and the one stand proposed for tree release would be the same as described in Alternative B. The one stand (103/05) prescribed for thinning has oak regeneration present, but would also be under-planted with oak or another mast bearing tree species after the thinning to supplement the natural regeneration. With the higher amount of post-harvest canopy present which would provide additional shading (compared to the shelterwood with reserves prescription in Alternative B) no chemical release of the oak seedlings is prescribed because the competition from ‘faster growing’ shade intolerant seedlings (poplar, white pine, Virginia pine, etc.) against the ‘slower growing’ oak seedlings would not be as aggressive due to the moderate level of shade caused by the higher residual basal area. However, due to the higher amount of shade produced by the higher residual basal area, an additional entry (appropriate analysis accomplished at that time) would be required to reduce the shade to an appropriate level once the oak, and other desirable, seedlings have become established to allow the oak regeneration to grow and develop into mature trees. Only one stand (110/05) is proposed for clearcutting with reserves and it is approximately 91% Virginia pine. There is limited oak and hickory regeneration present and that would be favored along with the shortleaf pine that is proposed to be planted. Effects would be the same as Alternative B. The cumulative effects of Alternative C would be a healthier forest of tree species occupying ridges, south and west slopes, and dry mid slopes which are more prone to damage from fires if they occur. Therefore, it is desirable to have more fire resistant tree species such as shortleaf and pitch pine, and oaks rather than white and Virginia pine occupying these sites. Another effect of Alternative C in improving the health of the forest would be regenerating stands that are older and more prone to insect and disease attack. Also creating early successional habitat across the landscape is beneficial and in compliance with the RLRMP in the affected MPs (8.B and 9.H), and Alternative C would create, through management, an additional 449 acres. Activities listed as being past, present, and reasonably foreseeable that would affect forest health include any planting and subsequent release of areas impacted by SPB. Planting and releasing of any seedlings that are desirable in these areas would help further increase the presence of more fire resistant and wildlife beneficial tree species. Table 15 indicates the age class distribution for the 8.B prescription area in the analysis area before and after the proposed harvest activities. Approximately 449 acres in 8.B would be regenerated with this alternative. The forested 8.B portion of the analysis area is approximately 11,160 forested acres. The percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Table 15. Age Class Distribution Percentages of Conacat 8.B Analysis Area Age 0-10 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt A 6.5 1.8 8.0 10.5 9.7 0.4 0.3 3.4 11.1 24.3 24.0 100% Alt C 10.5 1.8 8.0 10.4 9.2 0.4 0.3 3.4 10.5 22.7 22.8 100%

Table 16 indicates the age class distribution for the 9.H prescription area in the analysis area before and after the proposed harvest activities. Approximately 15 acres in 9.H would be regenerated with this alternative. The 9.H portion of the analysis area is approximately 2,768 forested acres. The percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Table 16. Age Class Distribution Percentages of Conacat 9.H Analysis Area Age 0-10 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101+ Total 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Alt A 0.9 0 9.2 10.6 5.2 5.0 0.9 19.9 11.8 10.0 26.5 100% Alt C 1.4 0 9.2 10.6 5.2 5.0 0.9 19.9 11.8 10.0 26.0 100%

Conclusion Implementing Alternative C over the long-term would lead to a more balanced age-class distribution, and an increased species and structure diversity thus improving the forest’s health and vigor across the landscape. As part of the regeneration of the stand, the site preparation, species planted, and the release of desirable species from competition would help favor tree species more suitable for each site. This is also a large factor contributing to the health of a forest stand. Alternative C would add approximately 4.0% of the forested acres of prescription area 8.B in the 0-10 age class, contributing to meeting the 8.B objective of 10-17% with a total of 10.5%. Alternative C would add 0.5% of the forested acres of prescription area 9.H in the 0-10 age class, contributing to the 9.H objective of 4-10% which is currently 0.9% for a new total of 1.4%. Alternative C would decrease the risk of SPB outbreak and gypsy moth infestation by promoting vigorous stands and diversifying age class. These forest health concerns would not be eliminated with Alternative C. Some stand age related health problems are likely to occur due to the long average stand rotation. In addition, Alternative C would improve soft mast production, benefitting wildlife. Alternative C contributes to RLRMP objectives for the restoration of oak or oak pine forest (17.02), restores shortleaf pine (17.03), contributes to the reduction of Virginia pine and restoration of fire adapted pine or oak communities (17.05), promotes the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining basal area (18.02), and the creation of early successional habitat for prescription area 8.B (8.B-1.01).

Comparison of Alternatives B and C By comparison, Alternative B increases the 0-10 age class acres of 8.B prescription area by 1.3% more than Alternative C. Alternative B increases the 0-10 age class acres of 9.H prescription area by 1.2% more than Alternative C. The basis for the greater acres of 0-10 age class being created by Alternative B would be that it would regenerate approximately 625 acres while Alternative C would regenerate approximately 449 acres. Another difference between the two alternatives is that in Alternative B 103/05 would help contribute more acres to 0-10 in 9.H than Alternative C by regenerating the stand in one entry. In turn, this one entry from Alternative B would also help maintain the presence of ecologically suited tree species with less prolonged disturbance. Alternative C would help maintain the presence of ecologically suited tree species in two entries – first a thinning, then an additional harvest for the purpose of reducing the basal area to an amount that would allow the established seedlings to develop, grow, and mature.

Management Indicator Species Background Information Management indicator species (MIS) are used in conjunction with other indicators to gauge the effects of management on wildlife species. In general, the MIS approach is used to reduce the complexity of discussing all the species on the Forest and MIS represent groups of wildlife associated with similar habitats. Evaluating the effects of management practices on these species and their habitat also displays the effects that the No Action, Alternative B (Proposed Action), and Alternative C have on the ecological communities they represent and helps to ensure that biodiversity is maintained. The selected bird MIS are also appropriate to address effects of the proposed activities on migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

MIS Selected for this Project The entire list of terrestrial wildlife MIS was reviewed and all nine species were selected as MIS for the actions proposed for the Conacat project. Selection and rationale for these species as MIS are located in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a) and RLRMP Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 2004b). Analysis of MIS is in compliance with the National Forest Management Act.

Table 17. Management Indicator Species and Associated Purposes Selected for Primary Reason(s) Common Name Scientific Name Project for Selection Analysis? To help indicate management effects of creating and maintaining Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Yes early-successional (early forest stage) forest communities To help indicate management effects of Chestnut-sided creating and maintaining Dendroica pensylvanica Yes Warbler high elevation early- successional forest communities and habitat To help indicate effects of management in pine Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Yes and pine-oak communities To help indicate Pileated management effects on Dryocopus pileatus Yes Woodpecker snag dependent wildlife species

Table 17. Management Indicator Species and Associated Purposes Selected for Primary Reason(s) Common Name Scientific Name Project for Selection Analysis? To help indicate management effects Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Yes within mature riparian forest community To help indicate effects of management in xeric Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Yes oak and oak-pine forest communities To help indicate management effects of Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus wildlife species Yes dependent upon mature forest interior conditions To help indicate effects of management on providing dense Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina understory and mid-story Yes structure within mature mesic deciduous forest communities To help indicate management effects on Black Bear Ursus americanus Yes meeting hunting demand for this species

In the effects analysis sections below, it should be noted that wildfires may also be caused by humans. Many of the proposed activities for Alternatives B and C are similar in nature, and more importantly, their effects are similar in nature. This allows us to group and consolidate the specific effects into basic impacts pertaining to wildlife species: • Heavy equipment impacts (timber harvesting, road work, trail improvements, ephemeral pool construction, stream improvements) • Tree removal/felling impacts (timber harvesting, mid-story removal, road work, wildlife opening improvements, high elevation habitat improvements, cane restoration, trail improvements, stream improvements) • Prescribed fire impacts • Herbicide application impacts

MIS Species Effects Analysis Prairie Warbler (Early-successional forest communities) Prairie warblers (Dendroica discolor) are shrub land-nesting migratory birds found in suitable habitats throughout the southern Appalachians. Prairie warblers require dense forest regeneration or open shrubby conditions in a forested setting. Near optimal habitat conditions are characterized by regeneration, and thinned areas or patchy openings ten acres or more in size where woody plants average two to three meters in height, three to four centimeters in diameter, and occur in stem densities around 3,000 stems/acre (USDA 2004b). Populations respond favorably to conditions created three to ten years following forest regeneration in larger forest patches. Providing a sustained flow of regenerating forests is necessary to support prairie warbler populations. Current habitat conditions within the analysis area are below optimum for early-successional habitat dependent species such as the prairie warbler. Table 18 shows the existing and desired acreage as well as percentage of early-successional habitat by MP (acres were calculated using the analysis area bounds). This table also shows the total amount (existing acres plus treatment acres) of early-successional forest created by silvicultural and wildlife treatments (clear cut, seedtree, shelterwood harvest, and high elevation early-successional habitat creation) for each alternative.

Table 18. Comparison of Desired, Existing and Future Early-successional Forest by Alternative Management Alternative Alternative Objective Desired Existing Prescription B C Maintain 10% to 17% of 1,116- 723 acres 1,315 acres 1,171 acres 8.B forested acres in early- 1,897 acres (6.5%) (11.8%) (10.5 %) successional forest Maintain 4% to 10% of 24 acres 73 acres 39 acres 9.H forested acres in early- 111-277 (< 1%) (2.6%) (1.4%) successional forest

The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a declining trend (-2.43%) for the prairie warbler in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the prairie warbler has an annual change of - 7.5% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Under this alternative, lack of any new management activities could prevent or delay the creation of early-successional and open forested habitats needed by this species and other early-successional forest species. Indirectly, habitat for this species would continue to decline and remain limited within the analysis area, unless it is created by natural disturbances such as tornados, disease or insect outbreaks, or wildfires. The periodicity and intensity of natural events would be uncertain and may not produce and maintain sufficient early-successional habitat within the analysis area. Future prescribed burning of Gravelstand would maintain an area of early-successional forest. A future timber sale (Tellico EA) would create 35 acres of early- successional habitat. Overall, early-successional habitat would be limited under this alternative. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Under the proposed activities, heavy equipment, tree removal/felling, or growing season prescribed burns may crush or burn nests, eggs, or young birds on the ground. Adults are highly mobile and should not be directly impacted. Although herbicides could have direct effects on individual prairie warblers by causing injury or mortality from direct spray, drift, or ingestion of contaminated food or water, triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazypyr have low toxicity levels to birds (EPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a, SERA 2011b, SERA 2011c). However, given the standards for herbicide application in the RLRMP, direct effects to individual warblers from this action are expected to be minimal, if any. Under the proposed activities, heavy equipment and tree removal operations used for timber harvest would create regenerating forests and the open, shrubby habitat needed by prairie warblers and other early-successional habitat dependent species. The high elevation early- successional project at Waucheesi would also create open, shrubby habitat. Alternative B would create an additional 641 acres of early-successional habitat in the analysis area while Alternative C would only create 463 acres, a difference of 178 acres. Alternative B would be the preferred alternative for creating and maintaining open, shrubby habitat. Growing season prescribed burns would create and maintain patches of open, shrubby habitat. Higher intensity burns would be expected to benefit prairie warbler habitat and increase numbers whereas low-intensity dormant season prescribed burns would not benefit prairie warbler habitat. Herbicide application and site-prep burns in timber harvest units and the high elevation early- successional project area would help maintain early-successional forest components throughout the analysis area by delaying the regeneration of woody vegetation. The forest management activities proposed in Alternative B or C would lead to a more open forest canopy and shrubby habitat for prairie warblers and an overall increase in species diversity and abundance.

Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests in Big Ridge and Grindstone created approximately 298 acres of early- successional forest and the open, shrubby habitat needed by prairie warblers. One future timber harvest (Tellico EA) would create approximately 35 acres of early-successional forest. The recent Gravelstand wildfire (March 2014) and Tellico/East Cataska prescribed burn also helped set back forest succession in areas of the burn units. The future Gravelstand prescribed burn would help maintain this area in early-successional habitat. Future release of areas planted for SBP restoration would also help set back forest succession. These activities combined with the proposed vegetation management activities (timber, high elevation project and growing season prescribed burns) in Alternative B or C would ensure that early-successional habitat remains scattered throughout the analysis area during the analysis time-frame. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 are tied to forest management activities not related to the creation and/or maintenance of early-successional forest. Forest-wide Trend By not creating additional early-successional habitat in Alternative A, current prairie warbler populations would be expected to decrease, thus decreasing the overall Forest population trend. Alternative B or C would create additional early-successional habitat, increasing prairie warbler numbers and therefore, increasing the overall Forest population trend. Chestnut-sided Warbler (High elevation early-successional forest communities and habitat) The chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) is a migratory bird that breeds primarily in northern hardwood and mixed forests of Eastern North America from Canada south through the Appalachian Mountains. In the South, this species breeds at higher elevations from Virginia to north Georgia. It is associated with early-successional habitats (abandoned farmlands and regenerating forests) and nests in shrubby habitat near the ground. The chestnut-sided warbler responds to forest management associated with regeneration and is considered one of the most abundant breeding warblers in second growth deciduous forests (La Sorte et al. 2007). The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a slight positive trend (0.74%) for the chestnut- sided warbler in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). However, based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the chestnut-sided warbler has an annual change of -7.5% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region. This trend is driven primarily by large declines on National Forests in North Carolina. Despite declines, this species appears to be maintaining healthy populations throughout its range (La Sorte et al. 2007). The analysis area for this species includes high elevation forests (above 3,000 feet) within the project area boundaries, surrounding private land outside of the project boundary and Nantahala National Forest (approximately 834 acres calculated using CNF GIS-Tennessee side only). The temporal bounds are the same as stated in the Scope of Analysis section above. Currently, there is very limited high elevation habitat above 3000 feet within the analysis area bounds, approximately 226 acres. The only high elevation early-successional stage habitat

occurs immediately adjacent to the wildlife opening at Waucheesi, the power line/road corridor to Waucheesi, and Gravelstand. During a trip to Waucheesi Mountain, chestnut-sided warblers were observed in the shrubby habitat surrounding the wildlife opening (Morris, 2013 personal observation). This section also addresses the high elevation early-successional project proposed at Waucheesi Mountain. This proposal includes a 27 acre total area; however, it is estimated that only about 15 acres of early-successional habitat would be created from the proposed activities. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Under this alternative, lack of any new management activities could prevent or delay the creation of high elevation early-successional forests needed by this species and other associated species (such as the golden-winged warbler). Indirectly, habitat for this species would continue to decline and remain very limited within the analysis area, unless it is created by natural disturbances such as tornados, disease or insect outbreaks, or wildfires. However, the periodicity and intensity of natural events would be uncertain and may not produce and maintain sufficient high elevation early-successional habitat within the analysis area. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Direct effects from either Alternative B or C on chestnut-sided warblers would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. The proposed high elevation early-successional habitat treatment under Alternative B or C would create and maintain approximately 15 acres of high elevation early-successional habitat. This early forest stage would provide habitat for neotropical birds such as the chestnut-sided warbler (MIS). The habitat work may also provide habitat for the golden-winged warbler, a species in decline. Chestnut-sided warblers depend on open, shrubby habitat for breeding, which is a result of vegetation management. This bird may also utilize regenerating forest stands at lower elevations (down to 2000’). Therefore, other proposed silvicultural, growing season prescribed burns, and wildlife treatments at lower elevations may also provide breeding habitat for this bird. Efforts to create and maintain high elevation early-successional habitats on NFS lands would be critical to sustaining some associated species such as the golden-winged warbler. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C There are no past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 that would create or maintain high elevation early-successional habitat (above 3000 feet). The majority of the analysis area is inoperable due to steep slopes or within a wilderness study area. The proposed habitat work would only add approximately 15 acres of this habitat to the entire analysis area. Therefore, Alternative B or C would not result in any cumulative effects.

Forest-wide Trend By not creating additional high elevation early-successional habitat in Alternative A, current chestnut-sided warbler populations would be expected to decrease, thus decreasing the overall Forest population trend. Alternative B or C would create and maintain high elevation early- successional habitat, increasing chestnut-sided warbler numbers and therefore, slightly increasing the overall Forest population trend. Pine Warbler (Pine and pine-oak forest communities) The pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) is a common breeding bird in pine habitats and a permanent resident in the south in both Atlantic and Gulf Coast states. This species uses a variety of upland pine and pine-hardwood forest types throughout its range, and will nest in deciduous forests with scattered individual or small groves of pines. The density of forest understory habitat can vary greatly; however this species is most abundant where the understory is sparse. Forest management that retains mature pine trees with sparse understory maintained by prescribed burning provides beneficial habitat for this bird. Based on point count data collected on the Tellico Ranger District, this species is not a predominant component of any community type, but was detected in yellow pine forest types across all successional stages. Point count data collected for this species from 1996-2002 on the Tellico and Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger Districts, indicates 88% of pine warbler observations were in conifer forests, 17% were in early-successional vegetation, 54% were in mid-successional, and 29% were in late-successional. This bird is apparently more abundant on the Tellico and Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger Districts of the CNF than the northern districts because there are more yellow pine forests on the south zone of the CNF. Current habitat conditions of pine forests within the Conacat analysis area (according to current GIS data) include 46.7% of the analysis area in xeric pine and pine-oak forests and 7% in dry, mesic oak-pine forests (may provide suitable habitat in this community type where yellow pine trees are present). These communities are being suppressed by shade tolerant species and lack of fire. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a declining trend (-3.19%) for the pine warbler in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the pine warbler has an annual change of -1.4% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. One future timber harvest (35 acres) would also help restore or maintain pine forests. Future prescribed burning would also help to restore and/or maintain pine and pine-oak forests within the burn units. However, Alternative A would result in a lack of any new management activities and could delay restoration of pine and pine-oak forests needed by this species across the remainder of the analysis area. Indirectly, habitat for this species would continue to deteriorate and decline. Species of higher shade tolerance would continue to encroach upon existing pine and pine-oak forests.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Direct effects from either Alternative B or C on pine warblers would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. Timber operations (heavy equipment and tree removal), mid-story reduction, and prescribed burns would help remove shade tolerant species such as white pine, release desirable yellow pine species (shortleaf and pitch) and restore treatment areas to southern yellow pine and pine-oak forests. Stands proposed for silvicultural and mid-story reduction have high tree densities and currently do not provide the open understory preferred by pine warblers. Prescribed burns would maintain pine forest communities by ensuring shade tolerant species are less abundant, promote fire dependent pine and pine-oak forest stands, and create and maintain an open understory. A study in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park found that desired xeric species (such as yellow pine) regeneration for xeric forest communities was greater at higher fire severity (Alba and DeWald 2014). Growing season burns would be expected to burn with higher severity than dormant season prescribed burns. Herbicide release applications in silvicultural units would increase the survival and establishment of desirable pine species. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests in Big Ridge and Grindstone, prescribed burning/wildfire, site-prep/slash down planting (past) and release of shortleaf pine (future) for SBP restoration, combined with the proposed pine and pine-oak silvicultural activities, mid-story reduction and prescribed burning in Alternative B or C, would be expected to benefit pine and pine-oak forest communities and pine warblers within the analysis area. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 are not related to pine and pine-oak forest restoration; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Forest-wide Trend By not maintaining and restoring pine and pine-oak forest communities in Alternative A, local pine warbler populations would be expected to decrease, thus decreasing the overall Forest population trend. Alternative B or C would ensure pine and pine-oak forest communities are restored and maintained, improve habitat for pine warblers, thus leading to a positive population trend across the Forest. Pileated Woodpecker (Snag dependent wildlife species) The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) utilizes many forest communities, but generally is limited to mature coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests with large, standing, dead trees. Highest densities of this species occur in mixed pine-hardwood mature forests. The pileated woodpecker is a locally common permanent resident of Tennessee found in forests with trees large enough for nesting and foraging. This bird can be found throughout the entire elevation gradient of the Unaka Mountains but is less common at higher elevations and in spruce-fir forests. The pileated woodpecker is typically considered a forest interior species but will readily fly across openings and is somewhat tolerant of forest fragmentation. Forests generally greater

than 70 years old and older are preferred for nesting and roosting. Young forests with scattered, large, dead trees also provide suitable habitat. The occurrence of this species in an area is more dependent on regional forested area than on individual forested tracts. Forest management activities that favor this species include maintaining older forests and retaining dead trees, hollow trees, and older live trees to replace existing snags over time. Based on current GIS data, approximately 61% of NFS land within the analysis area is in forested stands greater than 70 years old. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a slight positive trend (1.4%) for the pileated woodpecker in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the pileated woodpecker has an annual change of 2.8% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. The forests within the analysis area would continue to age, thus increasing the amount of mature forest and number of snags as trees die. Future prescribed burning would also create new snags. Only one future timber sale is planned that would reduce mature forests by 35 acres, but snags would remain. Natural disturbances such as tornados, disease and insect outbreaks, and wildfires could also result in more snags. However, the periodicity and intensity of natural events would be uncertain. The Conacat analysis area contains suitable habitat for snag- dependent species in its current condition. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C The direct effects of herbicide application on pileated woodpeckers under Alternatives B and C would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. Heavy equipment and fire may cause trees and snags to fall or burn down, but these activities would also help create new snags. Nests may be lost as a result of these actions. Although mature trees would be lost in regeneration harvest units, retention trees and snags would continue to provide habitat for this bird in treatment areas. Prescribed burning would be expected to have a negative short-term effect on pileated woodpeckers (1-3 years post burn) due to a reduction in foraging habitat and prey. Thinning and mid-story reduction activities would improve health and vigor of forest stands by reducing competition and providing more space for trees to grow. Herbicide applications are not expected to have any indirect effects on this species or its habitat. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests (2010) reduced mature forests within the analysis area by 298 acres. The proposed activities would reduce mature forest conditions in the analysis area by an additional 512 acres (Alternative B) or 378 acres (Alternative C). One future timber harvest activity would reduce mature forest conditions by an additional 35 acres. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34would not impact this woodpecker or its habitat. Given the

abundance of mature forests and snags within the analysis area, that retention trees and snags would remain in treatment areas and that untreated forested areas would continue to mature, cumulative effects are negligible. Forest-wide Trend An increase in mature forests and snag production in Alternative A would result in stable or increasing pileated woodpecker populations within the analysis area and across the Forest. Alternative B or C should not affect the local or Forest-wide pileated woodpecker population trends given the abundance of mature forest and snags across the analysis area and CNF and that snags and trees would be retained throughout treatment areas. Acadian Flycatcher (Mature riparian forest conditions) The breeding range of the Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) includes southeastern South Dakota east across the southern Great Lakes region to southern New England; south to southern Texas, the Gulf Coast, and central Florida; and west to central Kansas. The Acadian flycatcher also breeds in southwestern Ontario. The highest breeding densities are in the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee and in Virginia and West Virginia. Key habitat requirements include mesic deciduous forests with a moderate understory, generally near a stream. Humid deciduous forest (primarily mature), shaded ravines, floodplain forest, river swamps, hammocks and cypress bays in the South, thickets, second growth, and plantations are used for nesting and breeding. These birds tend to be scarce or absent in small forest tracts, unless the tract is near a larger forested area. Potential habitat for this species includes approximately 14% of the analysis area in mature, mixed mesophtyic forests greater than 80 years old. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a slight declining trend (-0.62%) for the Acadian flycatcher in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the Acadian flycatcher has an annual change of -1.3% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Habitat conditions for Acadian flycatchers would remain relatively stable or possibly increase under this alternative, barring an unexpected natural event such as a tornado, disease or insect outbreak, or wildfire. This alternative would not be expected to have any short-term or long-term effects on this species or its habitat. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C The direct effects of herbicides on Acadian flycatchers under Alternatives B and C would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. Only aquatic approved herbicides would be used in riparian areas. Only two projects are proposed in riparian areas, cane (9 acres) and stream restoration (0.3 miles). Given the riparian protection standards in the RLRMP, other proposed activities would not affect this species or its habitat.

Girdling of over story trees in cane restoration project area and converting the area to a more cane-dominated stand would reduce mature riparian habitat conditions by approximately 9 acres. The area would become unsuitable for Acadian flycatchers because this area would be maintained through prescribed burning, mechanical and herbicide treatments. Heavy equipment work for the stream restoration may temporarily disturb birds and cause them to fly out of the area. Several over story trees may be cut and used for bank stabilization or for stream channel realignment. However, there would be no changes to habitat due to the stream improvements. The stream restoration would improve overall riparian conditions in the proposed stream restoration project area. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Cumulative effects would be negligible because the only other activity that would occur in addition to the proposed activities would be spot treatment of non-native invasive plants and this activity would not affect Acadian flycatchers. Forest-wide Trend Because habitat for this species would remain stable or possibly increase under Alternative A, local and Forest-wide trends would be expect to remain stable or increase. Alternative B or C should not affect local or Forest-wide Acadian flycatcher trends given the protection measures of riparian habitats in the RLRMP and that only 9 acres of potential habitat would be altered to a cane-dominated stand. Scarlet Tanager (Xeric oak and oak-pine communities) The breeding range of scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) in the eastern part of North America extends from southern Canada to north Georgia and Louisiana. This bird uses a variety of deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forest types, including mixed mesophytic to xeric pine-oak woodlands. Large blocks of mature forest are preferred by this species, especially where oaks are common. Bird point count data for the south zone CNF also shows that scarlet tanagers prefer mature oak forests (Keith 2012). Scarlet tanagers have been observed in harvest units where mature oaks have been retained (Morris personal observation 2012). This bird may also occupy young successional woodlands. Forest community types comprising oaks within the analysis area include xeric pine-oak (46.7%), dry mesic oak-pine (7%), dry xeric oak (2.8%), and dry mesic oak (10%). Oak communities are being suppressed by shade tolerant species and a lack of fire. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a slight decreasing trend (-0.8%) for the scarlet tanager in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the scarlet tanager has an annual change of 1.0% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. One future timber harvest and future prescribed burning would help to restore oak and oak-pine forest communities However, no additional management would be implemented under Alternative A and could delay restoration of oak and oak-pine forests needed by this species across the remainder of the analysis area Indirectly, habitat for this species would continue to deteriorate and decline. Species of higher shade tolerance would continue to encroach upon existing oak and oak-pine forests. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Direct effects from either Alternative B or C on scarlet tanagers would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. Timber operations (heavy equipment and tree removal), mid-story reduction, and prescribed burns would help remove shade tolerant species such as white pine, release oak trees and restore treatment areas to oak and oak-pine forests. Prescribed burns would maintain oak forest communities by ensuring shade tolerant species are less abundant, promote fire dependent oak and oak-pine forest stands. A study in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park found that regeneration of xeric species, such as oak, was greater at higher fire severity (Alba and DeWald 2014). Growing season prescribed burns would be expected to burn at a higher severity than dormant season prescribed burns. Herbicide release applications in silvicultural units would increase the survival and establishment of desirable oak species. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests in Big Ridge and Grindstone, future timber harvest, future prescribed burning/timber harvest, current prescribed burning/wildfire, combined with the proposed oak and oak-pine silvicultural activities, mid-story reduction and prescribed burning in Alternative B or C, would be expected to benefit oak and oak-pine forest communities and scarlet tanagers within the analysis area. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34are not related to oak and oak-pine forest restoration; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Forest-wide Trend By not maintaining and restoring oak and pine-oak forest communities in Alternative A, local scarlet tanager populations would be expected to decrease, thus decreasing the overall Forest population trend. Alternative B or C would ensure oak and oak-pine forest communities are restored and maintained, improve habitat for scarlet tanagers, thus leading to a positive population trend across the Forest.

Ovenbird (Mature forest interior conditions) The breeding range of the ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) is fairly widespread across North America, from as far north as eastern British Columbia to Quebec and Newfoundland, to as far south as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina. Nesting typically occurs in older, closed- canopy hardwood and hardwood-pine forests with a deep litter layer and limited understory. Large, contiguous mature forests are required for successful breeding. Fledgling birds will use young, mesic hardwood stands for food and cover. Based on current GIS data, approximately 57.3 % of forest stands on NFS land within the analysis area are over 80 years of age. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a slight positive trend (0.93%) for the ovenbird in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the ovenbird has an annual change of -0.1% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Future prescribed burning may reduce some suitable nesting habitat (leaf litter) for this bird but would not change forest interior conditions. A future timber sale would reduce mature forest and nesting habitat by 35 acres. Due to a lack of any new additional management activities, habitat would remain relatively unchanged, or possibly increase as forests continue to mature across the analysis area, barring an unexpected natural event such as a tornado, disease or insect outbreak, or wildfire. This alternative would be expected to have no short-term or long- term effects. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Direct effects from either Alternative B or C on ovenbirds would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. Areas proposed for timber harvesting (regeneration harvests or heavy thinning) could negatively impact ovenbird nesting habitat due to a reduction in forest canopy closure. However, post- harvest units in regenerating phases (early-successional forest) may provide foraging habitat and escape cover for fledglings. Dormant season prescribed burning may temporarily reduce leaf litter, which is used in nesting. However, unburned patches within burn units would continue to provide suitable habitat and leaf litter would be replaced after the next leaf fall. Dormant season prescribed burning would help protect the closed canopy, mature forests that this bird prefers by reducing fuel loads and impacts from wildfires, should they occur. Growing season prescribed fire would help to create and maintain an open canopy and grass/forb understory, thus suitable habitat would be limited in these areas. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests in Big Ridge and Grindstone and future prescribed burning/timber harvest, current prescribed burning/wildfire, combined with the proposed silvicultural (regeneration or heavy thinning harvests) and prescribed burning activities in Alternative B or C, would be expected to have temporary negative effects on ovenbirds and their habitat. However, given that proposed activities would occur incrementally, treatment areas would continue to provide habitat for ovenbirds, and the majority of the analysis area is in mature forest conditions, cumulative effects would be negligible. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 are tied to forest management objectives and recreation improvements that would not impact mature forest interior conditions; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Forest-wide Trend Given the abundance of mature forests in the analysis area and across the Forest, local and Forest-wide population trends are expected to remain stable or possibly increase under Alternative A. Alternative B or C may have a temporary negative effect on local ovenbird populations within the analysis area. However, ample undisturbed habitat would continue to provide ovenbird habitat within the analysis area. These proposed alternatives should not affect the Forest-wide population trend given the abundance of mature forest conditions across the analysis area and Forest. Hooded Warbler (Dense understory and mid-story structure within mature mesic deciduous forests) The breeding range of the hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) includes the southernmost part of Canada and the eastern U.S. This species favors mesic deciduous forests with a fairly dense understory. Hooded warblers typically inhabit mature forests where large trees fall to create canopy gaps. This bird will also utilize selectively logged deciduous forests, as well as pine plantations, 1-5 years post-harvest, and remain there as long as suitable understory shrubs for nesting are available. Current mesic deciduous forest conditions within the Conacat analysis area (NFS lands) include conifer-northern hardwood (11.3%), mixed mesophytic (16.4%), and dry-mesic oak (10%) forest communities. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a positive trend (3.22%) for the hooded warbler in the Appalachian Mountain region for the time period of 2002-2012 (Sauer et al. 2014). Based on National Forest bird surveys from 1992-2004, the hooded warbler has an annual change of - 1.5% for the Southern Blue Ridge physiographic region (La Sorte et al. 2007). The hooded warbler appears to be common in appropriate habitat on the CNF. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Future prescribed burning and a timber sale would help stimulate some understory structure and improve habitat conditions for this species. Due to a lack of any new additional management activities, dense understory and mid-story habitat would remain relatively unchanged, or potentially decrease unless created by natural disturbances.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Direct effects to hooded warblers under Alternative B or C would be the same as those described under the prairie warbler section. Heavy equipment operation and tree felling for silvicultural treatments would result in an open canopy, providing dense understory structure for nesting within a mature forest setting. Mid- story reductions (cut and leave) would also stimulate growth of the forest understory. Dormant season prescribed burning would also help stimulate the growth of shrubby plants used for nesting. Growing season burns would create and or maintain open canopies and grass/forb understory, providing limited suitable nesting structure for this bird in treatment areas. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests in Big Ridge and Grindstone, future prescribed burning and a future timber harvest, current prescribed burning/wildfire, combined with the proposed timber harvesting, mid- story reduction and prescribed burning activities in Alternative B or C, would be expected to have a positive effect on hooded warblers due to an increase in forest structure diversity. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 are tied to activities that would not impact hooded warbler habitat; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Forest-wide Trend Alternative A should not affect local or Forest-wide hooded warbler populations given the stability of the mature, mesic forests it inhabits and the availability of understory and mid-story habitat structure across the Forest. Alternative B or C would be expected to increase numbers of hooded warblers within the analysis area due to an increase in dense understory structure for nesting, thus increasing the overall Forest-wide population trend. Black Bear (Hunting demand) The black bear (Ursus americanus) uses a wide variety of habitats in the southern Appalachians, occurring primarily on national forests and national parks of the Southern Blue Ridge, Northern Cumberland, and Allegheny Mountains and the Northern Ridge and Valley. These public lands in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia connect to form a forested landscape of over six million acres where bears are generally distributed at low to medium densities. The increase of older oak forests in this large block of habitat, along with increased protection and conservative hunter harvest, has allowed bear populations throughout the southeastern mountain region to increase. Based on Tennessee harvest records, black bear populations have grown. Since 2004, annual harvests have exceeded 300 animals. Bears can now be found in areas of the Plateau and transient bears have been documented as far west as Memphis, TN. During the 2012 hunting season, 64 bears were harvested in Monroe County and 44 were harvested in Polk County (TN.GOV).

In the southern Appalachians, including the CNF, important habitat elements are habitat remoteness, habitat diversity, den site availability, and availability of hard mast. Black bears are opportunistic omnivores and consume a variety of seasonal plant and animal foods including flowering plants, grasses, various roots and tubers, and especially soft mast (grapes, berries, apples, etc.). However, availability of hard mast (acorns and hickory nuts) is critical throughout the winter, and reproductive success is closely related to this habitat factor. Total production of hard mast and production by individual trees can fluctuate from year to year due to climate and other factors (USDA 2004a). Bears den in a wide variety of sites including road culverts, abandoned buildings, and in vegetation. Traditional dens are found on the ground in caves, rock falls, or under the root mass of uprooted trees, and in hollow trees. Some researchers have found that hollow trees are preferred dens. Others have found that ground dens are preferred in the North Carolina mountains. Preference may be related to availability and may be a learned behavior (USDA 2004b). Availability of potential den trees on the CNF is augmented by a forest wide standard requiring their retention during all vegetation management treatments. For this reason, the black bear was selected as an MIS to help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species. The analysis area lacks early-successional forests needed for foraging and escape cover. Oak regeneration is needed to promote hard mast for foraging. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No direct effects to this species would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Future prescribed burning and future timber harvest would help stimulate understory structure, which may increase the amount of soft mast in the understory. Alternative A would result in a loss of habitat diversity as young timber stands mature, leading to a reduction in soft mast production and dense escape cover. Due to a lack of forest management, this alternative would allow white pine and other shade tolerant tree species to become more dominant. Virginia pine would also continue to dominate many stands and suppress oaks, an important mast producer. As a result, hard mast would continue to decrease. This alternative may cause bears to seek areas of more diverse habitat to meet foraging needs and, as a result, reduce hunting opportunities. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Prescribed burning may disturb, injure, or kill bears, especially denning bears. Vegetation management, temporary road construction, wildlife habitat management, and trail improvements may disturb bears if they are in the area during implementation. Activities involving tree removal should not directly impact bears because den trees would be protected. There is a potential for bears to come into contact with contaminated food from herbicide treatments, which could cause them to become sick. However, given the standards for herbicide application in the RLRMP and that triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic to mammals (EPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a, SERA 2011b, SERA 2011c), any indirect effects to bears from herbicide applications would be negligible.

Regeneration harvests, thinning, mid-story removal, edge feathering, high elevation early- successional habitat improvements, and daylighting would open up the forest canopy and increase the amount of sunlight to the forest floor. As a result, there would be an increase in soft mast forage, insects, and cover for bears. These activities would also release hard mast producing trees and increase the amount of mast production. Herbicide treatments would also promote growth and regeneration of oak trees, providing essential hard mast forage for bears. Timber operations would leave behind tree tops and root wads, providing additional cover. Known black bear den sites would be protected by prohibiting vegetation management and ground-disturbing activities within a minimum of 100 feet around the den. Prescribed burning would result in an increase of herbaceous growth and insects for foraging, create new den trees, maintain open areas, and promote oak stands. Improvements and maintenance to wildlife openings may help alleviate the effects of poor mast years by providing nutritious forage for grazing. Cumulative Effects Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed. Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past timber harvests in Big Ridge and Grindstone, future prescribed burning and a future timber harvest, current prescribed burning/wildfire, combined with the beneficial vegetation management described in the above analysis, would be expected to have a positive effect on black bears because of an increase in habitat diversity and forage. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 are tied to activities that would not impact bears. Forest-wide Trend Despite the lack of active management under Alternative A, local and Forest-wide population trends are expected to remain stable due to the amount of remote habitat across the analysis area and CNF. Alternative B or C would be expected to increase local and Forest-wide trends because of an increase in habitat diversity and forage.

Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species (PETs) Background Information This discussion documents the possible effects that the three alternatives would have on Proposed, Threatened and Endangered species. Proposed, Threatened and Endangered species are analyzed to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions of Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species. Effects to federally-listed proposed, threatened, or endangered species (PETs) are analyzed in detail in the Biological Assessment (Appendix B) for this project. The results are summarized here.

Aquatic

Scope of Analysis The analysis area for aquatic resources includes all of the streams within the project area plus it extends approximately 5 miles downstream in the Tellico River from the confluence with Lyons Creek and 5 miles downstream in Conasauga Creek from the confluence with Hatter Branch.

Existing Condition Aquatic PETs There are four known occurrences of aquatic T&E species (Citico darter, smoky madtom, yellowfin madtom and spotfin chub) in this analysis area (Herrig 2014). All four are restricted to the Tellico River. The aquatic habitats in this analysis area not suitable for any other T&E aquatic species found on the Forest (Herrig 2004). The Citico Darter (Etheostoma citikuense) is endemic to tributaries of the Tennessee River systems; one extant population persists (Citico Creek); however, two experimental populations have been established (Abrams Creek and Tellico River). The smoky madtom (Noturus bailey) is endemic to the Little Tennessee River system; one extant population persists (Citico Creek); however, two experimental populations have been established (Abrams Creek and Tellico River). Critical habitat (Citico Creek) is defined for this species on the Cherokee NF. This yellowfin madtom (Noturus flavipinnis) is endemic to the upper Tennessee River (above Chattanooga, TN); four extant populations persist. It occurs naturally on the Cherokee NF in Citico Creek. Two experimental populations have been established (Abrams Creek and Tellico River). The spotfin chub (Erimonax monacha) was once a widespread species historically known from 24 streams in 12 tributaries of the upper and middle Tennessee River system, in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The species now survives in only five isolated tributary systems: Duck River and a very small segment of the Buffalo River; Emory River system; North Fork Holston River; South Fork Holston; and Little Tennessee River.

Direct Effects Aquatic PETs

All Alternatives There will be no direct effects to these fish since no equipment will enter the streams where they occur under any of these alternatives.

Indirect Effects Aquatic PETs Indirect effects to aquatic organisms arise from activities outside the stream channel that allow sediment or herbicides to enter and alter aquatic habitats.

Alternative A No ground disturbance or herbicide uses are associated with this alternative; consequently, there will be no indirect effects to these fish.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Reddington (2014) analyzed the actions associated with these alternatives and determined the ground disturbances and herbicide usage related to vegetation management, transportation, wildlife habitat management, stream improvements, fire management, and trail improvements activities would follow RLRMP standards and limit impacts to soil and water resources to acceptable levels. Effects to aquatic resources (primarily sediment), from all alternatives, are expected to return to pre-implementation conditions within three years (Reddington 2014,Swift 1985). RLRMP standards (USDA 2004a) were designed to protect aquatic PETs (USDA 2004b pp 228- 243). The amounts were determined to be too small (Reddington 2013) to affect the aquatic habitats and consequently are not likely to adversely affect the four aquatic T&E fish in the Tellico River.

Cumulative Effects Aquatic PETs

All Alternatives Indirect effects to aquatic T&E species are caused by activities implemented under one of these alternatives that occur outside the stream channel and riparian corridor but result in adverse consequences within these areas. Movement of sediment and herbicides from disturbed or treated terrestrial areas into the riparian corridor and stream channel are the most common examples of indirect effects. Cumulative effects are the sum of indirect effects plus those affects resulting from past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities not proposed by any of these alternatives. Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or herbicide treatments. There would be no indirect effects to aquatic T&E species and the cumulative effects would be no greater than those associated with past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities. Alternatives B and C would have the potential to generate a small amount of sediment and a minor amount of herbicide into the aquatic habitat. Some sediment and herbicide might reach the segment of the Tellico River where the T&E fish occur. The amounts were determined to be too small (Reddington 2013) to affect the aquatic habitats and consequently are not likely to adversely affect the four aquatic T&E fish in the Tellico River. Terrestrial Wildlife

Species Evaluated and Methods Used Analysis of the project was conducted using best available science. Using information from the analysis area habitat conditions, species habitat requirements, and species distributions and limiting factors, the PET list was reviewed to determine if any PETs were likely to occur in or near the analysis area. Element Occurrence Record Database Maps that include Tennessee Natural Heritage and CNF data (2014) were examined to locate any records of PET species currently in the analysis area. Other pertinent survey data for this area include bat surveys (Cochran et al. 1999, Cochran et al. 2000, Copperhead Environmental Consulting 2009, Sewell et al. 2007, Harvey et al. 1991, Kiser and Kiser 1999, Leftwich et al. 2008, Libby 2004-2005, 3- D International 1998, and O’ Keefe 2011-2012).

Table 19. PET Species Selected for Analysis Taxonomic Scientific Common Federal Presence Group Name Name Status Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Endangered Habitat Present Habitat Myotis Northern Mammal Proposed Present/Known to septentrionalis long-eared bat Occur

Scope of Analysis The terrestrial wildlife analysis area for the Conacat project includes the project area (approximately 18,338 acres) and the encompassing private lands for a total of approximately 27,205 acres. The potential for direct or indirect effects to wildlife resources are contained within the areas where treatments are proposed; thus, all potential direct and indirect effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the activity area boundaries; unless otherwise described in the analysis sections below. All potential cumulative effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the larger wildlife analysis area. These spatial bounds were chosen because vegetative cover types, forest structure, and habitats are similar. These bounds also allow for a “snap-shot” of the overall current condition of a selected area and to focus management needs and analysis in that area. Temporal bounds for cumulative effects include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that have occurred in the past ten years, ongoing activities, and activities that are likely to occur in the next ten years. The analysis period is a reasonable length of time when environmental changes are likely to reoccur. The scope of analysis applies to all species unless otherwise noted in the individual analysis sections below. A list of activities considered for cumulative effects is found on page 34. In the effects analysis sections below, it should be noted that wildfires may also be caused by humans. Many of the proposed activities for Alternatives B and C are similar in nature, and more importantly, their effects are similar in nature. This allows us to group and consolidate the specific effects into basic impacts pertaining to wildlife species: • Heavy equipment impacts (timber harvesting, road work, trail improvements, ephemeral pool construction, stream improvements) • Tree removal/felling impacts (timber harvesting, mid-story removal, road work, wildlife opening improvements, high elevation habitat improvements, cane restoration, trail improvements, stream improvements) • Prescribed fire impacts • Herbicide application impacts

Existing Condition Terrestrial PETs Indiana Bat Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) occurs from Iowa, south to Oklahoma and Alabama, west to South Carolina and north to New Hampshire. Caves are used for hibernacula. Over 90% of the population hibernated in five states (IN, MO, KY, IL, NY) in 2005. No hibernacula are known 73

from the CNF, but one is located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Four additional hibernacula are located within 40-70 miles of the CNF (FWS 2007). This bat has only been documented in Monroe County (summer) on the CNF. In the southern Appalachian region, females currently establish primary maternity roosts under the sloughing bark of dead yellow and white pines and eastern hemlock (O’Keefe 2012). However, bats are able to adapt to their surroundings and use roost trees that are available on the landscape. Reproductive females require multiple alternate roost trees to fulfill summer habitat needs. Single bats also use a variety of tree species for roosts, as long as there is available sloughing bark or crevices on those trees. The majority of roosts are on mid and upper slopes in mixed pine-hardwood stands, but some roosts have been found near streams. This bat forages for flying insects along river and lake shorelines, in canopy gaps over upland waterholes, and along roads and trails. The Indiana bat returns to hibernacula beginning in late August (NatureServe 2014). Indiana bats are threatened by white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that attacks hibernating bats (FWS 2013). Large-scale population declines are expected over the next several years as the disease continues to spread. According to FWS representative at the Tennessee Bat Working Group meeting in November 2013, Appalachian populations of cave bats are down slightly in 2013, but overall are stable. Although suitable maternity and roosting habitat occurs within the analysis area, the closest known Indiana bat maternity colony (Monroe County record) is approximately 11 miles from the analysis area boundary. The closest Indiana bat capture site is approximately 8.5 miles from the analysis area.

Table 20. Relative Risk to the Indiana Bat

Calendar Period Relative Risk on the CNF Activities in Life History (Approximate Dates)

Not on the CNF- near or at October 1- March 31 None hibernacula Bats in transit between hibernacula April 1-May 14 Low to Moderate and summer habitat April 1-April 15 Low Migration starts April 16-May 14 Low to Moderate Bats in transit and migration peaks May 15-August 15 High Summer habitat June 1-July 31 Very High Pups born and become volant Leaves summer habitat- in transit to August 16-September 30 None to Low hibernacula, swarming, and hibernation

Northern long-eared bat Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) is found throughout the eastern U.S. and Canada (FWS 2013). This bat uses caves and man-made structures for hibernation. The nearest known hibernaculum is located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They leave

their hibernacula March-May and return August-November (FWS 2014). In summer, bats roost singly or in small colonies, mainly in trees but occasionally in caves. NLEB typically use large, tall trees (either live or dead) and roost under loose bark or in cavities or crevices. NLEB are somewhat opportunistic when selecting roost trees, not depending on a particular tree species. Structural complexity of roosting habitat may be more important. Forest canopy cover has been found to range from 56 to 84%, with some studies finding roosts in stands with lower canopy cover than the surrounding forest, particularly females (FWS 2013). NLEB has also been occasionally found roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines (FWS 2014). NLEB forage for insects by hawking and gleaning on forested ridges and hillsides. Gleaning behavior suggests that these bats have the ability to maneuver and forage in a cluttered environment (FWS 2013). The single greatest threat to NLEB is white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that attacks hibernating bats (FWS 2013). Large-scale population declines may occur in the future as the disease continues to spread. On the CNF, this bat has been documented in nearly 200 locations, most on the north zone. Mist net and ANABAT surveys have been conducted on the CNF every year since 1998, with over 1,100 net nights and 1,000 NLEB captures. Based on the ratio of NLEB captures to net nights for CNF surveys for the last 10 years, the trend is positive. According to FWS representative at the Tennessee Bat Working Group meeting in November 2013, Appalachian populations of cave bats are down slightly in 2013, but overall are stable. NLEB were absent in some caves in late winter. The population numbers of NLEB are highest in Kentucky and Tennessee (Miller 2013). NLEB have been captured during mist net surveys within the analysis area boundary.

Table 21. Relative Risk to the Northern Long-eared Bat Calendar Period (Approximate Dates Relative Risk on the CNF Activities in Life History (FWS 2014)) In transit to hibernacula; near or at October 15-March 15 None to Low hibernacula (not on south zone CNF) Bats in transit between hibernacula March 16-May 14 Low and summer habitat Summer habitat (only very high May 15-August 15 High to Very High risk during the time when pups are born and are non-volant) Leaves summer habitat- in transit to August 16-November 15 None to Low hibernacula, swarming, and hibernation

Direct and Indirect Effects Terrestrial PETs

Alternative A Indiana Bat There would be no direct effects because no activities are proposed under this alternative. Future prescribed burning (NEPA covered under a Decision Memo) and a timber sale (35 acres, Tellico EA) would improve foraging by allowing more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thus increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey. However, limited active management would occur under this alternative. Overall, forest stands would remain densely stocked, limiting open flight space for bats. Northern Long-Eared Bat There would be no direct effects because no activities are proposed under this alternative. Future prescribed burning (NEPA covered under a Decision Memo) and a timber sale (35 acres, Tellico EA) would improve foraging by allowing more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thus increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey. An increase in open areas would potentially make previously unsuitable roost trees suitable by increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching them. However, limited active management would occur under this alternative. Overall, forest stands would remain densely stocked, limiting foraging and roosting habitat for bats.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Indiana Bat Under the proposed activities, heavy equipment operation and tree felling may cause individual bats to fly out of trees or cause bats to be crushed if trees containing roosting bats are cut down or pushed over during implementation. Direct effects to bats from prescribed burning include displacement, injury, and mortality. Bats in roosts may be exposed to gases and heat in the plume generated by the spreading fire. Exposure would depend on how high bats roost aboveground, fire behavior, winds, and terrain. Dickinson’s research (2010) found that burning later in the season reduces risk to bats because they are less likely to be deeply in torpor during warm weather. To date, no known maternity colonies exist within the analysis area. However, should maternity colonies be present in growing season burn areas, there may be adverse effects to flightless pups. Female bats are able to carry their young after birth (until they are too heavy), which may reduce vulnerability (Dickinson et al. 2009). If bats leave roost trees during prescribed burns, bats are likely to return to the burn area after completion of the burn. Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a, SERA 2011b, SERA 2011c). The likelihood of any adverse effects toward Indiana bats are anticipated to be minimal, because: 1) no known maternity colonies or records of Indiana bats are known from the analysis area; 2) activities would not occur simultaneously but over an approximate 10-15 year implementation

period; and 3) standards from the RLRMP would be followed (except prescribed burning may occur after May 1). Under the proposed activities, open areas would be created and/or maintained through tree removal, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and heavy equipment use. During harvest activities, standards from the RLRMP would ensure roosting habitat would remain in harvested units. Snags with exfoliating bark would also be retained unless removal for safety to the public was necessary. Herbicide application used in silvicultural and wildlife activities would help create/maintain open forested stands. Mowing and herbicide application in wildlife openings would also maintain existing openings. Open areas would increase sunlight on the forest floor, increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey (Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Perry 2012, Taylor 2006). Bats may also benefit from reduced clutter in the canopy and a more open flight space. Construction of ephemeral pools in open areas would also provide additional feeding and drinking sites for bats. Activities such as trail improvements, temporary road construction, and maintenance of linear wildlife openings may be beneficial by providing additional or maintaining travel corridors within the analysis area. Although prescribed fire activities may eliminate some potential roosting and maternity colony snags or live trees, fire would also create new snags providing additional roosting habitat. Research has found that bats often take advantage of fire-killed snags (Perry 2012). If snags are consumed by the fire, they would likely be those that do not provide optimal habitat for this bat (snags with large plates of sloughing bark). There is a need to create new snags as old snags deteriorate and lose sloughing bark. Loss of potential roosting habitat should not cause bats to be “stressed” in finding lost roost trees after emergence from hibernacula. Since roost trees are ephemeral, bats are adapted to finding new roost trees should previous roosts be lost during the fire (O’Keefe 2011). In a 2010 study, prescribed burning caused no change in male Indiana bat roost selection (Johnson 2010). Indirect effects from prescribed burning would be beneficial by improving roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats. Placement of artificial roost structures in the project area after activities are completed may provide additional roosting habitat for bats. Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve bat roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape and manage the pine-oak forests these bats prefer. Northern Long-Eared Bat Under the proposed activities, heavy equipment operation and tree felling may cause individual bats to fly out of trees or cause bats to be crushed if trees containing roosting bats are cut down or pushed over during implementation. Direct effects to bats from prescribed burning include displacement, injury, and mortality. Bats in roosts may be exposed to gases and heat in the plume generated by the spreading fire. Exposure would depend on how high bats roost aboveground, fire behavior, winds, and terrain. Dickinson’s research (2010) found that burning later in the season reduces risk to bats because they are less likely to be deeply in torpor during warm weather. The ability to arouse and move during fires is strong evidence that NLEB adjust to changed habitats resulting from fires (Lacki et al. 2009). Growing season prescribed burning may cause adverse effects to flightless pups. Female bats are able to carry their young after birth (until they are too heavy), which may reduce

vulnerability (Dickinson et al. 2009). If bats leave roost trees during prescribed burns, bats are likely to return to the burn area after completion of the burn. Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a, SERA 2011b, SERA 2011c). Under the proposed activities, open areas would be created and/or maintained through tree removal, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and heavy equipment use. Open areas would increase sunlight on the forest floor, increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey (Owen et al. 2003, Taylor 2006, Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Lacki et al. 2009, Perry 2012). An increase in open areas would potentially make previously unsuitable roost trees suitable by increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching them (Johnson et al. 2009). During tree removal activities, standards from the RLRMP for Indiana bat would ensure roosting habitat would remain in harvested units for NLEB. Snags would also be retained unless removal for safety to the public was necessary. Studies have found that female NLEB roosts are more often in areas with partial harvesting than in random sites, which may be due to trees located in more open habitat receiving greater solar radiation and therefore speeding up development of young (FWS 2013). Silviculture management of pine dominated stands may also be beneficial to this species in the long-term since they have been found to forage in or near pine-dominated stands more often than hardwood dominated stands. Because this bat is better suited for foraging in cluttered habitats, shelterwood and mid-story cuts would be more beneficial to this bat than seedtree and clear cut harvests. In addition to creating and maintaining small openings in the forest, prescribed fire would improve and/or maintain pine-oak forests. NLEB forage in or near pine-dominated stands more often than hardwood dominated stands, in burned habitats more than unburned habitats (Lacki et al. 2009). Although prescribed fire activities may eliminate some potential roosting and maternity colony snags or live trees, fire would also create new snags, providing additional roosting habitat. Research has found that bats often take advantage of fire-killed snags (Perry 2012). Lacki et al. (2009) found that female NLEB preferentially choose roost trees in burned habitats compared to unburned habitats. There is also a need to create new snags as old snags fall down. Construction of ephemeral pools in open areas would provide additional feeding and drinking sites for bats. Activities such as trail improvements, temporary road construction, and maintenance of linear wildlife openings may be beneficial by providing additional or maintaining travel corridors within the analysis area. Placement of artificial roost structures in the project area after activities are completed may provide additional roosting habitat for bats. Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve bat roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape and manage the pine dominated forests these bats prefer. Flexibility in roosting habitats allows NLEB to be adaptable in managed forests (FWS 2013).

Cumulative Effects Terrestrial PETs

Alternative A No cumulative effects would result from this alternative because no activities are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Past /future timber harvests and future prescribed burning, current prescribed burning/wildfire, past ephemeral pond construction, combined with the timber, wildlife, trail, road and prescribed burning activities in Alternative B or C, would be expected to improve bat habitat over time by creating more open space for flight and increasing forage. Alternative B or C would ensure that open areas remain scattered throughout the analysis area during the analysis time-frame. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed on page 34 would not impact bat habitat and therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Plants

Scope of Analysis Unless otherwise described in the sections below, analysis of direct and indirect effects for botanical resources is primarily focused within the boundaries of the individual project areas. The timeframe for short-term effects is within the first year after treatment, and long-term effects up to 10-15 years from treatment. Analysis of cumulative effects also includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities on the forest, and may extend beyond the limits of the defined project areas to include the range of a species or habitat type. Time frames for cumulative effects analysis for terrestrial elements generally include 10 years prior to 10-15 years post treatment. A list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities to be considered is listed on page 34. Prescribed burning of large blocks is a unique activity to analyze because direct effects on the ground are hard to predict due to variability in burn location and intensity. The prescription is to complete understory burning targeted within xeric pine and oak dominated forest types, in the spring or fall dormant season, and/or, in the growing season. Vegetation, 3-inches and less in diameter at the ground level would be targeted. These prescribed burns would use primarily backing and flanking fire. By using low to moderate intensity firing techniques there is little damage to larger trees. Portions of the prescribed burn areas are not expected to burn due to vegetation type and high fuel moisture. However, some areas may burn with higher intensity, depending on terrain, wind and vegetation type. North and east aspects and coves and riparian areas dominated by mesophytic forest types do not readily burn and no effort would be made to force them to burn. Ridge-tops, upper slopes, and south and west facing aspects dominated by oak and pine tend to carry backing fires and would be the target of these prescribed burns. This would produce a mosaic of burned and unburned area. RLRMP FW Standard 97 states “Dormant season burns have a cutoff date of May 1st or the break of dormancy, as recommended by a multi-disciplinary review and TWRA with decision by line officer.” Flexibility in the cutoff date was intentionally included because “dormancy” as defined as the time period (primarily winter months) when herbaceous plants are below ground or when above-ground portions of plants have not begun spring growth, will vary based upon both annual climate and the elevation of a particular site. It is reasonable to assume, however, that with the advent of climate change,

in which we have already begun to experience milder winters and “early” springs, there is the possibility that the “dormant season” is shrinking in portions of the southern Appalachians, particularly at the lower elevations. For that reason, this analysis considers potential “growing season” fire effects to species that may be emerging as early as March. Effects of these types of prescribed burns have been described previously for many rare plant species on the forest (Pistrang, 2013). Botanical surveys were contracted through Copperhead Environmental Consulting and Falcon Engineering during the field seasons of 2010 and 2011 (Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc., 2010a and 2010b, Falcon Engineering, Inc., 2011). Additional surveys were conducted by the Forest Botanist in 2013 and 2014 (Pistrang, project record). No surveys were conducted within portions of dormant or growing season fuel reduction burn blocks not subject to ground disturbance. Some proposed activities such as curve-widening, which could occur in conjunction with transportation improvements, are dependent upon factors that are unknown at this time. Haul routes and the type of haul vehicle used for future timber sales that may result from this project would not be known until contracts are awarded, and thus actual locations of improvements, and whether they are even needed, would occur much later in the process. These types of improvements typically occur on a very small scale (measured in terms of square feet as opposed to acres), thus site specific surveys would be implemented as a part of the contract sale administration prior to actual disturbance on the ground. Existing Condition Plant PETs No federally listed proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species were found during the botanical surveys within any areas of proposed ground disturbance for this project. Potential effects to one federally listed plant species (Isotria medeoloides) are considered as this species could be present within suitable habitat within the burn blocks where surveys were not conducted. Effects to all other federally-listed species are analyzed in detail in the Biological Assessment for this project. Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) is a federally threatened species that has an historic range that includes most of the eastern U.S. Despite its wide geographical distribution however, it is extremely rare throughout its range. According to NatureServe 2014 this is “a widely distributed species with approximately 93 extant sites with better than poor viability known. The largest cluster of sites is centered around the Appalachian Mountains of New England and coastal Massachusetts, with two moderate-sized clusters centered around (1) the southern Appalachians and (2) the Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey. There are also a few widely scattered outlying sites. Populations are typically very small and the total number of individuals is estimated to be less than 3000.” The species is known to occupy a wide range of habitats, thus making it one of the more difficult species to look for based upon habitat parameters. The 1992 Recovery Plan describes habitat requirements as follows: “The small whorled pogonia occurs on upland sites in mixed- deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third-growth successional stages. Characteristics common to most Isotria medeoloides sites include sparse to moderate ground cover in the species’ microhabitat, a relatively open understory canopy, and proximity to features that create long-persisting breaks in the forest canopy. Soils at most sites are highly acidic and nutrient poor, with moderately high soil moisture values. Light availability could be a limiting factor for this species” (FWS 1992). However, in regards to the description

of “typical” habitats and site conditions, the recovery plan also states “Beyond this “common ground” of habitat characteristics, there are a myriad of exceptions and variations that may occur regionally and/or locally.” According to NatureServe 2014, typical habitats include “acidic soils, in dry to mesic second-growth, deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forests; typically with light to moderate leaf litter, an open herb layer (occasionally dense ferns), moderate to light shrub layer, and relatively open canopy. Isotria medeoloides frequently occurs on flats or slope bases near canopy breaks.”Nearly all Isotria medeoloides populations are described as occurring in "second growth" or successional forest communities. This fact alone should not elicit the notion that Isotria medeoloides therefore requires such relatively young-aged forests. Rather, Isotria medeoloides is a forest plant and virtually all forests in the region reflect past logging or clearing” (NatureServe 2014). Direct and Indirect Effects Plant PETs

Alternative A No new management activities are proposed under this alternative. Natural processes would proceed within the analysis area as they do on other portions of the forest that are not under direct active management. Projects and activities that have been approved under other authorities would be ongoing in the area and are considered in conjunction with this proposal under cumulative impacts. Implementation of this alternative would have no known direct or indirect effects on Isotria medeoloides.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) All areas of proposed ground disturbance associated with the various elements of this project as described above were surveyed (Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc., 2010a and 2010b; Falcon Engineering, Inc., 2011; Pistrang, project record) in order to determine the potential effects of the action alternatives on this species. Isotria medeoloides was not found within any surveyed area and thus no direct or indirect effects to the species from ground disturbing activities would occur. The use of herbicides as a part of the various silvicultural and wildlife habitat improvement activities that are proposed would conform to standards outlined in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a) that are designed to eliminate any potential effects to TES plant species (FW Standard 87). Prescribed burning includes both dormant and growing season burns. Dormant season prescribed burning would be conducted when above ground stems of this species are absent, thus there would be no effects to Isotria medeoloides in areas of proposed dormant season burns. Prescribed burning conducted during the growing season has some potential to affect this species if present within the burn area, however, there appears to be little to no current information in the literature regarding the effects of fire on this species (Hessl and Spackman 1995). In a paper entitled “The Effects of Fire on Rare Plants” (Owen 2004), the effect of fire was classified for all 186 federally listed, proposed, or candidate plant species that were known to occur on NFS lands at that time. Plants were classified into four categories; those that require fire, those that tolerate it, those that are never exposed to fire based upon their habitats, and those that are adversely affected by fire. While not specifically mentioned in that paper, Isotria medeoloides was lumped into the group of species that is tolerant of some fire based upon habitats in which it is found (pers. com. Wayne Owen 2005). There is no mention of fire within the 78 page recovery plan for this species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992) though the plan does state that the species

tends to occur on sites with soils that have relatively high moisture content. This suggests the species would occur within vegetative communities that would only burn during periods of drought. There are currently no records of this species known on the CNF. There are two known occurrences within the state of Tennessee, one located in Washington County on private land near the Forest and the other in extreme western Hamilton County. The CNF has been conducting botanical surveys on all areas of proposed ground disturbing activities for well over 20 years. Many thousands of acres representing all major habitat types on the forest have been inventoried, and this species has never been detected. Habitat modeling developed in the northeast U.S. where the species has many more known occurrences suggests that occupied sites require overland vernal flows in conjunction with an impervious soil layer which leads to the seasonally high moisture content of soils (VonOettingen, pers com. 12/10/12). While the analysis area falls within the overall range of the species, the lack of previous detections combined with the xeric nature of the habitat proposed to be burned within the burn areas, presents an extremely low likelihood that the species would be present within impact areas. Based upon this, any potential impacts to the species would be discountable and the finding would be “not likely to adversely affect” for this species (Geoff Call, pers com. 12/10/12).

Alternative C There are differences in the amounts of proposed ground disturbance between the two action alternatives, however, all these areas were surveyed and Isotria medeoloides was not found. Prescribed burning proposals are the same in both action alternatives. Based upon this, potential effects under Alternative C are the same as those described above for Alternative B. Cumulative Effects Plant PETs

Alternative A Under this alternative there are no anticipated direct or indirect effects, and thus there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative effects to the species from this alternative. Historically, this species was widespread in the eastern U.S. with known occurrences in New York, Vermont, District of Columbia, Maryland, and Missouri that are now extirpated. The primary causes for declines have been, and continue to be, habitat destruction for residential or commercial development or forestry; and other threats such as herbivory, recreational use of habitat, and natural succession (NatureServe 2014). Currently, the species is known from 93 extant populations, and while most of these sites are now protected, NatureServe estimates the short-term trend for the species to be a decline of 10-30 percent, stating some populations could be lost to housing development and non-selective logging without voluntary landowner protection (NatureServe 2014).

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Under the action alternatives there are no anticipated direct or indirect effects, and thus there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative effects to the species from either of these alternatives. Cumulative effects would be the same as those described in Alternative A.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. For a detailed analysis of all Regional Forester’s Sensitive species please see the Biological Evaluation (Appendix C) that was prepared for this project. Three Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant species; stoneroot (Collinsonia verticillata), pigmy pipes (Monotropsis odorata), and ash-leaved bush pea (Thermopsis fraxinifolia) were found during the botanical surveys conducted for this project. Numerous additional species are also considered in the analysis as they could potentially occur within suitable habitat within the un-surveyed portions of the prescribed burn blocks There are five known occurrences of aquatic Sensitive species: the blotchside logperch and wounded darter are in the Tellico River; and the Junaluska salamander is present in the Tellico River, Lyons Creek and Wildcat Creek. Many of these stream reaches could provide habitat for other Sensitive species including: mountain brook lamprey, Tennessee dace, Helma’s net- spinning caddisfly, Cherokee clubtail, green-faced clubtail, mountain rive cruiser, and Allegheny snaketail. Nine Regional Forester’s Sensitive terrestrial species could occur within the Conacat project area; Tellico Salamander (Plethodon aureolus) Southern Appalachian Salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Diana Fritillary (Speyeria diana) Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Eastern Small-footed Bat (Myotis leibii) Glossy Supercoil (Paravitrea placentula) Delicate Vertigo (Vertigo bollesiana) Cupped Vertigo (Vertigo clappi), and Ocoee covert.

Viability Concern Species Species of viability concern typically include threatened and endangered species, Regional Forester sensitive species, and other species for which viability is of concern in the analysis area. Threatened and endangered species and Regional Forester sensitive species are discussed under separate headings. Forest managers also have responsibility to maintain occurrences of all native and desired non- native species that are necessary to maintain viable populations of these species on the Forest under RLRMP FW Standard 28. Appendices E and F to the RLRMP FEIS (USDA 2004c) lists species of viability concern known to occur on the Forest. Appendix D describes the existing condition and effects by alternative for each species of viability concern that was found in the analysis area.

Rare Communities, Riparian Forests and Old Growth Forests Scope of Analysis Unless otherwise described in the sections below, analysis of direct and indirect effects for botanical resources is primarily focused within the boundaries of the individual project areas. The timeframe for short-term effects is within the first year after treatment, and long-term effects up to 10-15 years from treatment. Analysis of cumulative effects also includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities on the forest, and may extend beyond the limits of the defined project areas to include the range of a species or habitat type. Time frames for cumulative effects analysis for terrestrial elements generally include 10 years prior to 10-15 years post

treatment. A list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities to be considered is listed on page 34 Prescribed burning of large blocks is a unique activity to analyze because direct effects on the ground are hard to predict due to variability in burn location and intensity. The prescription is to complete understory burning targeted within xeric pine and oak dominated forest types, in the spring or fall dormant season, and/or, in the growing season. Vegetation, 3-inches and less in diameter at the ground level would be targeted. These prescribed burns would use primarily backing and flanking fire. By using low to moderate intensity firing techniques there is little damage to larger trees. Portions of the prescribed burn areas are not expected to burn due to vegetation type and high fuel moisture. However, some areas may burn with higher intensity, depending on terrain, wind and vegetation type. North and east aspects and coves and riparian areas dominated by mesophytic forest types do not readily burn and no effort would be made to force them to burn. Ridge-tops, upper slopes, and south and west facing aspects dominated by oak and pine tend to carry backing fires and would be the target of these prescribed burns. This would produce a mosaic of burned and unburned area. RLRMP FW Standard 97 states “Dormant season burns have a cutoff date of May 1st or the break of dormancy, as recommended by a multi-disciplinary review and TWRA with decision by line officer.” Flexibility in the cutoff date was intentionally included because “dormancy” as defined as the time period (primarily winter months) when herbaceous plants are below ground or when above-ground portions of plants have not begun spring growth, will vary based upon both annual climate and the elevation of a particular site. It is reasonable to assume, however, that with the advent of climate change, in which we have already begun to experience milder winters and “early” springs, there is the possibility that the “dormant season” is shrinking in portions of the southern Appalachians, particularly at the lower elevations. For that reason, this analysis considers potential “growing season” fire effects to species that may be emerging as early as March. Effects of these types of prescribed burns have been described previously for many rare plant species on the forest (Pistrang, 2013). Botanical surveys were contracted through Copperhead Environmental Consulting and Falcon Engineering during the field seasons of 2010 and 2011 (Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc., 2010a and 2010b, Falcon Engineering, Inc., 2011). Additional surveys were conducted by the Forest Botanist in 2013 and 2014 (Pistrang, project record). No surveys were conducted within portions of dormant or growing season fuel reduction burn blocks not subject to ground disturbance. Some proposed activities such as curve-widening, which could occur in conjunction with transportation improvements, are dependent upon factors that are unknown at this time. Haul routes and the type of haul vehicle used for future timber sales that may result from this project would not be known until contracts are awarded, and thus actual locations of improvements, and whether they are even needed, would occur much later in the process. These types of improvements typically occur on a very small scale (measured in terms of square feet as opposed to acres), thus site specific surveys would be implemented as a part of the contract sale administration prior to actual disturbance on the ground.

Existing Condition Rare Communities, Riparian Forests and Old Growth Forests Rare communities, riparian forests, and old growth forests are special habitats that often harbor unique species assemblages. They typically represent only a small percentage of the land base of an area, yet contribute significantly to regional biodiversity. For example, within the southern

Blue Ridge Mountains, the 1996 Southern Appalachian Assessment documented 31 rare communities each occupying less than one percent of the land base, yet 75 percent of the rare plants and animals of the region can be found within those communities (SAMAB 1996). These communities have suffered serious historic declines across the U.S., especially on private lands, and are in need of protection and restoration (Ernst and Brown 1988, Knopf et al. 1988, Dahl 1990, Noss et al. 1995). Within the Conacat analysis area, no specific rare communities were identified within the stands proposed for vegetation management, however the site identified for the proposed native cane enhancement project was selected because it includes both stands of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and wetlands habitat, both of which can be enhanced through the proposed management activities. The pictures below show existing stands of cane, open wetlands habitat, and current encroachment of non-native invasive plant species in the area.

Dense growth of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) Open wetland habitat within cane enhancement area Privet infestation within cane enhancement area..

Native cane currently occupies a large portion of this area, however non-native species such as privet (Ligustrum sinense), multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are also found throughout the area, in some cases forming dense thickets that exclude all other vegetation. Riparian forests occur within the Conacat analysis area along the major streams and creeks that drain the watersheds. These areas are typically excluded from any impacts from projects through adherence to RLRMP standards, however, in the case of the proposed stream improvements project, a small area along Conasauga Creek would be affected in order to move the necessary equipment in to perform the proposed work. The riparian forest in this area is similar to that found along adjacent reaches and is composed primarily of Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Lyquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) in the over-story, with iron wood (Carpinus caroliniana), silverbell (Halesia carolina), rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), dog hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana), alder (Alnus serrulata), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) in the mid-story and shrub layer. The herbaceous layer is diverse and typical for stream-side forests in our area. The mesic micro- climate of riparian forests also makes them excellent sites for a variety of species of bryophytes and lichens. Typical species encountered within the site proposed for stream improvements include Thuidium delicatulum, Hypnum imponens, Nowellia curvifolia, Atrichum undulatum, Platygyrium repens, Frullania asagrayana, Leucobryum sp., Forsstroemia trichomitria, Ulota crispa, Leucolejeunea clypeata, Usna strigosa, Parmotrema spp., Flavoparmelia caperata, Cladonia spp., and Collema sp. Infestations of the non-native invasive species Japanese spiraea and Japanese honeysuckle are also found within this area. Due to extensive cutting in eastern forests throughout the early and mid-1900’s true old growth forests are rare on the landscape in the eastern U.S. In June of 1997 a team chartered by the

Southern Regional Forester completed a report entitled Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region; (USDA 1997). Using this report as a guide, the CNF outlined an old growth strategy during its RLRMP revision which was completed in 2004. This strategy is listed in Appendix D to the 2004 RLRMP. The Plan lists three types of old growth: Existing Old Growth is defined by four criteria which include factors of age, basal area, diameter at breast height, and disturbance; Possible Old Growth is defined as forest stands that meet the minimum age requirement for a given old growth community type; and Future Old Growth is defined as those stands that do not necessarily exhibit old growth characteristics now, but are allocated to old growth through land management decisions (examples include allocations of wilderness and other MPS that are designated as unsuitable for timber management including riparian areas.) No large patches of old-growth forest were found within the boundaries of the various projects proposed within the two action alternatives, however, a portion of the forest within the high elevation early successional habitat project supports a mixed oak community that likely would meet the operational old growth definition as described in the R8 guide. At least one white oak was cored in this area, and based upon a field reading of rings, was estimated to be in excess of 200 years old. This un-even aged forest is located on the steeper, rocky slopes at the lower elevational bands of the Waucheesi project and extends downslope toward Sixmile and Little Sixmile Creeks. Closer to the top of Waucheesi Mountain, this forest transitions into a more even-aged, mid-successional, forest that has grown in around the original opening. Direct and Indirect Effects Rare Communities, Riparian Forests and Old Growth Forests

Alternative A Under this alternative no project activities would be implemented. There would be no changes to rare communities, riparian forests, or old growth forests beyond those attributed to natural events if this alternative were selected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would implement the proposed action. Under this alternative, native cane (Arundinaria gigantea) communities and wetlands would be enhanced within 9 acres along Conasauga Creek. Impacts to these communities from non-native invasive plant species would be reduced and consequently wildlife habitat would be improved. Across the analysis area, riparian forests have been excluded from management activities and protected. An exception is a small area (approximately 0.3 miles) of riparian forest between the two northern fords of Conasauga Creek along NFSR 341 would be impacted in order to bring in the equipment necessary to perform the proposed stream-bank improvements. Any cutting of trees would be minimized and limited to those absolutely necessary to maneuver equipment in the area. No unique species were found within this area and it would be expected that the area would recover rapidly, re-colonizing from abundant seed sources nearby. Any short-term impacts to the riparian vegetation in this area from the proposed activities would be outweighed by the long-term recovery of the stabilized stream banks and overall improved stream function. Potential for invasion by non-native invasive plant species is always high when ground is disturbed. Two species (Japanese spiraea and Japanese honeysuckle) were observed in this area

and should not be allowed to spread as a result of the proposed activities. See the following section on non-native invasive species for additional information. Potential impacts to old growth forests were raised as a concern through public scoping for this project. There was an initial concern that reduction of basal area to a target of 35 sq. ft./acre across the stand would compromise the old growth character, as the Region 8 guidance uses a target of at least 40 sq. ft./acre in the old growth definition for the “dry-mesic oak forest” type (USDA 1997 pp24). A field trip to the Waucheesi project resulted in modification of the original proposal to ensure that no impacts would occur to possible old growth forest in the area. As described in the proposed action, the proposed treatments to create high elevation early successional habitat would be implemented in a way that would result in a mosaic of retained basal areas. Lower basal areas (0-40 sq. ft./acre) would be focused primarily within the younger, even-aged forest immediately surrounding the existing opening. Moving downslope, higher retention levels of 40-60 sq. ft. would be expected, and in the steep and more mesic portions of the analysis area, 60+ basal area would be retained. This would accomplish project objectives without compromising the integrity of the mature canopy trees or the old growth characteristics of the area. Some concerns were also expressed that the use of prescribed fire could further reduce basal areas within this area and thus negatively affect old growth character. The use of prescribed fire in this area would be intended to target small diameter stems, preventing future mid-story encroachment within the newly created early successional habitat. No over-story mortality would be prescribed.

Alternative C There are no differences in the action alternatives potentially affecting rare communities, riparian forests, or old growth forests, thus effects from implementing Alternative C are the same as those described above in Alternative B Cumulative Effects Rare Communities, Riparian Forests and Old Growth Forests

Alternative A It is estimated that more than 50% of the nation’s wetlands have been destroyed in the past 200 years (Ernst and Brown 1988, Dahl 1990) and almost 90% of virgin forests are gone (Noss et al. 1995). This is a statistic that cannot easily be reversed, however, conservation and restoration of these communities is occurring on public lands. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities are listed in the project environmental assessment. No project activities would be implemented under this alternative, though many other routine and ongoing activities may occur within the analysis area. Based upon this, there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative effects on these resources from this alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Canebrakes and beaver pond wetlands are both considered to be rare communities in the RLRMP, and as such, are afforded protection where found on the landscape. The proposed native cane enhancement project will restore and enhance beaver pond wetlands and canebrakes. It is estimated that more than 50% of the nation’s wetlands have been destroyed in the past 200 years (Ernst and Brown 1988, Dahl 1990). Because wetlands are so vulnerable to destruction on private land, it is critical to maintain and enhance these communities where they occur on NFS

land. Based upon this, the implementation of this alternative would contribute a positive increment to offset the overall cumulative effects to these rare communities occurring on private lands. Riparian vegetation is protected across the analysis area through RLRMP standards requiring buffers to ground disturbing activities and other best management practices. The small area (approximately 0.3 miles) along Conasauga Creek would only be subject to short-term impacts to riparian vegetation which should quickly recover and be outweighed by the long-term benefits of a stabilized stream system. Based upon this, there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative declines in this habitat type. The CNF old growth strategy is listed in Appendix D to the 2004 RLRMP. Its goal is to “manage through protection, maintenance, or restoration, a variety of large, medium, and small old growth patches to provide biological and social benefits.” (USDA 2004a) No impacts to old growth forests are expected from the proposed action, thus there would be no incremental contribution to cumulative declines in this habitat type. Lands set aside in Wilderness designations or other lands unsuitable for timber management are likewise contributing to future old growth, which is intended to offset some of the historical losses of this important habitat.

Alternative C There are no differences in the action alternatives potentially affecting rare communities, riparian forests, or old growth forests, thus potential cumulative effects from implementing Alternative C are the same as those described above in Alternative B.

Non-Native Invasive Species Scope of Analysis Unless otherwise described in the sections below, analysis of direct and indirect effects for botanical resources is primarily focused within the boundaries of the individual project areas. The timeframe for short-term effects is within the first year after treatment, and long-term effects up to 10-15 years from treatment. Analysis of cumulative effects also includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities on the forest, and may extend beyond the limits of the defined project areas to include the range of a species or habitat type. Time frames for cumulative effects analysis for terrestrial elements generally include 10 years prior to 10-15 years post treatment. A list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities to be considered is listed on page 34. Existing Condition Non-Native Invasive Species A multitude of non-native invasive plant species threaten the integrity of native ecosystems in the southern Appalachian area. The Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB 1996) provided a summary of the major threats to southern Appalachian forests from non-native invasive species and much of this information has been revised and updated in the recent Southern Forest Futures Project (USDA 2013). In 1999 President Clinton issued Executive Order 13112 on invasive species which among other things, states that federal agencies shall “not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and

made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.” Also in 1999, the Southern Region released a Noxious Weed Management Strategy that outlined five emphasis areas, 1) Prevention and Education, 2) Control, 3) Inventory, Mapping, and Monitoring, 4) Research, and 5) Administration and Planning. This was followed in 2001 with the development of the Regional Forester’s Invasive Exotic Plant Species list for Region 8. The RLRMP includes numerous Goals, Objectives, and Standards to address the potential impacts of non-native invasive species. These include control efforts and maintenance and restoration of native species. On the CNF, the following non-native invasive plant species are tracked through project level inventories: Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), small carpetgrass (Arthraxon hispidus), autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), English ivy (Hedera helix), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). While other non-native invasive plant species may occur with scattered distributions on the Forest, these species are recognized as having substantial occurrences with a high potential for impacts to native communities on the Forest. Within the Conacat analysis area non-native invasive plant species are abundant, yet mostly restricted to roads and trails and other disturbed sites. Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), and sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) are a particular problem along linear and spot wildlife openings, and roads. Wildlife do not use Nepal grass, thus the plant is having an adverse effect on wildlife habitat within the analysis area. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is one of the most widespread weeds in southern forests and is likely present in every area where actions are proposed. Infestations of invasive species specifically noted within the botanical reports for this area include, Japanese honeysuckle (present in most stands proposed for vegetation management, noted specifically within the stream improvements project and native cane enhancement area), Japanese spiraea (stands 66/34 & 115/05, stream improvements project, native cane enhancement project), privet (stand 103/05 and native cane enhancement project), Multi-flora rose (listed for many stands but described specifically within stands 111/22 & 103/12, stream improvements project, native cane enhancement project), kudzu (road along western edge of stand 115/05), princess tree (old roads in stand 103/12 and roads to access dozer lines), and Oriental bittersweet found at the junction with an old logging road and Warrior’s Passage Trail (N 35.30832 W -84.23363) between stands 77/14 and 418/02 and also along the margins of the existing opening at Waucheesi mountain. Contract clause BT6.35 would be included in any contracts that would result from the Conacat EA. Contract clause BT6.35 is specifically designed to both prevent new infestations from being introduced from outside the NFS boundary and also to minimize spread of existing populations within the Forest. It specifically states: “(a) Areas, known by Forest Service prior to timber sale advertisement, that are infested with invasive species of concern are shown on Sale Area Map. A current list of invasive species of concern and a map showing the extent of known infestations is available at the Forest Supervisor’s Office. For purposes of this provision, “Off-Road Equipment” includes all logging and construction machinery, except for log trucks, chip vans, service vehicles, water trucks, pickup trucks, cars, and similar vehicles.

(b) Purchaser shall adhere to the following requirements with regard to cleaning “Off-Road Equipment”: (i) Prior to moving Off-Road Equipment onto the Sale Area, Purchaser shall identify the location of the equipment's most recent operation. Purchaser shall not move any Off-Road Equipment that last operated in an area infested with one or more invasive species of concern onto Sale Area without having cleaned such equipment of seeds, soil, vegetative matter, and other debris that could contain or hold seeds, and having notified Forest Service, as provided in (iii). If the location of prior operation cannot be identified, then Purchaser shall assume that the location is infested with invasive species of concern. (ii) Prior to moving Off-Road Equipment from a cutting unit that is shown on Sale Area Map to be infested with invasive species of concern to, or through any other area that is shown as being free of invasive species of concern, or infested with a different invasive species, Purchaser shall clean such equipment of seeds, soil, vegetative matter, and other debris that could contain or hold seeds, and shall notify the Forest Service, as provided in (iii). (iii) Prior to moving any Off-Road Equipment subject to the cleaning requirements set forth above, Purchaser shall advise Forest Service of its cleaning measures and make the equipment available for inspection. Forest Service shall have 2 days, excluding weekends and Federal holidays, to inspect equipment after it has been made available. After satisfactory inspection or after such 2 day period, Purchaser may move the equipment as planned. Equipment shall be considered clean when a visual inspection does not disclose seeds, soil, vegetative matter, and other debris that could contain or hold seeds. Purchaser shall not be required to disassemble equipment unless so directed by the Forest Service after inspection. (iv) If Purchaser desires to clean Off-Road Equipment on National Forest land, such as at the end of a project or prior to moving to, or through an area that is free of invasive species of concern, Purchaser shall obtain prior approval from Contracting Officer as to the location for such cleaning and measures, if any, for controlling impacts.” Direct and Indirect Effects Non-Native Invasive Species

Alternative A Under this alternative no project activities would be implemented. The southern Forest Futures Project (USDA 2013) provides projected annual rates of spread (absent control programs) for numerous high-priority invasive plant species in southern forests. These range from a low rate of an average of just over 50 acres per year across the southeast for Oriental bittersweet, to an average rate of over 60,000 acres per year for Japanese honeysuckle. If Alternative A were chosen, there would be no change in effect to, or from, invasive plant species, over their base- line rates of spread. Specific actions to treat invasive plant infestations on highest priority acres may occur within the analysis area under other authorities, and such treatments would be considered under cumulative impacts.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would implement the proposed action. All ground disturbing activities create favorable conditions for the spread and establishment of weeds. Ground disturbing activities within this proposed action include activities associated with timber harvest, transportation improvements, stream improvements, trail and parking area construction, and proposed control 90

lines for prescribed burns. Habitat alteration resulting from prescribed burning may also create favorable conditions for the establishment of some non-native invasive plant species. The primary species noted in the analysis area are species that are widespread and common across the forest. No thorough survey was completed specifically for non-native invasive plant species across the entire analysis area, so there are likely many more locations in the analysis area than those reported from the botanical surveys that were conducted only within the areas of proposed ground disturbance. This is relevant, as many invasive plant species have wind-borne or other easily transferred propagules that could colonize ground exposed by disturbance if source populations are nearby. If Alternative B were chosen, newly disturbed ground would be places of high risk for invasive plant species establishment. Potential introduction of new species and spread of existing non- native species through timber sale activities would be mitigated through the use of contract clause BT6.35 as described above. Japanese honeysuckle, multi-flora rose, and privet are present in fairly high densities within the native cane enhancement project area. These species would be specifically targeted for treatment in that area as a part of the proposed project implementation. No other specific treatments for non-native invasive species are proposed as a part of this project, however, the site for Oriental bittersweet between stands 77/14 and 418/02 should be considered for treatment under the KV program if future timber sale contracts are initiated from this proposal. Treatment of Oriental bittersweet at Waucheesi mountain and Japanese honeysuckle at the site of the stream improvements along Conasauga Creek, may be warranted using the authority of the Forest-wide invasive plant EA (CNF 2008). Treatment of non-native invasive plant species is occurring Forest-wide on the basis of prioritized acres. If an infestation within the analysis area meets the criteria of highest priority acres for treatment as outlined in the forest wide environmental assessment (CNF 2008) it would be treated accordingly. The southern Forest Futures Project (USDA 2013) provides projected annual rates of spread (absent control programs) for numerous high-priority invasive plant species in southern forests. These range from a low rate of an average of just over 50 acres per year across the southeast for Oriental bittersweet, to an average rate of over 60,000 acres per year for Japanese honeysuckle. Mitigations that are a part of this proposal, and possible future treatments, should work together to slow the spread of these species.

Alternative C Potential effects from implementing Alternative C are essentially the same as those described above in Alternative B, though acreages of ground disturbance in this alternative are less than those proposed for Alt B. Any differences in effects from invasive plant species would be negligible. Cumulative Effects Non-Native Invasive Species The southern Forest Futures Project (USDA 2013) provides an excellent summary of the various impacts non-native invasive plant species are having within southern forests. Projected annual rates of spread (absent control programs) for numerous high-priority invasive plant species are provided. These range from a low rate of an average of just over 50 acres per year across the southeast for Oriental bittersweet, to an average rate of over 60,000 acres per year for Japanese honeysuckle.

Alternative A Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities are listed on page 34. No project activities would be implemented under this alternative, though many other routine and ongoing activities may occur within the analysis area. Treatment of non-native invasive plant species is occurring Forest-wide on the basis of prioritized acres. If an infestation within the analysis area meets the criteria of highest priority acres for treatment as outlined in the forest wide environmental assessment (CNF 2008) it would be treated accordingly. Cumulatively, Forest Service actions are intended to slow the spread of these species on the landscape. Despite best efforts, weed species continue to spread. Dispersal mechanisms are wide and varied and only some are within the control of land managers. It is hoped that the mitigating efforts described above would result in cumulative benefits over time.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative would implement the proposed activities and all associated ground disturbance. Invasive plants occur throughout much of the analysis area along roads, trails, and other disturbed sites, and they rapidly colonize newly disturbed habitats when seed sources are nearby. Contract clause BT6.35 would be included in any contracts that would result from the decision based on this EA. This clause is specifically designed to both prevent new infestations from being introduced from outside the NFS boundary and also to minimize spread of existing populations within the Forest. The CNF is currently treating non-native invasive species on high priority acres through an environmental assessment that was completed in June of 2008 CNF 2008). The action is intended to slow the spread of these species on the landscape. Despite best efforts, weed species continue to spread. Dispersal mechanisms are wide and varied and only some are within the control of land managers. It is hoped that the mitigating efforts described above would result in cumulative benefits over time.

Alternative C Possible cumulative effects from implementing Alternative C are essentially the same as those described above in Alternative B.

Physical Resources ______Soil Resources The Conacat project area spans an area approximately four miles from north to south and 12 miles from east to west. The project area is located generally to the southeast, south, and southwest of Tellico Plains, Tennessee. The majority of the project area is within Monroe County with the exception of approximately 700 acres on the northeastern flank of Starr Mountain which spills over into McMinn County. The Conacat project area covers approximately 18,340 acres; 766 acres of private lands and 17,574 acres of NFS lands. The majority (96%) of the project area is located in the Blue Ridge physiographic province. Within the Blue Ridge physiographic province, the project area lies primarily within the Southern Metasedimentary Mountain Eco-region (66g), with the far western portion of the project area (Starr Mountain) in the Southern Sedimentary Ridges Eco-region (66e). A small area at the northeastern base of Starr mountain spills into the Valley and Ridge 92

Physiographic Province and the Southern Limestone/Dolomite Valleys and Low Rolling Hills Eco-region (67f ) (TDEC 2000). The Blue Ridge physiographic province characteristically exhibits steep mountain terrain in headwater areas where much of the planned management activities for the Conacat project would occur. The rocks are primarily Precambrian and Cambrian-age sedimentary (shale, siltstone, graywacke, arkose, conglomerate, dolostone, limestone, and quartzite). All but one stand proposed for commercial treatment in all alternatives is underlain by the Walden Creek Group (pCw). The Sandsuck (pCss), Wilhite, Shields, and Licklog Formations are included within the Walden Creek Group. Stand 103/5 is underlain by the Rome Formation (Cr). Detailed information on dominant Geologic formations in the project area is presented in Appendix E (Table 1). Elevation in the project area ranges from 3,692 on Waucheesi Mountain to about 900 feet near the confluence of Lyons Creek with the Tellico River, 2,227 feet on Borin Top to approximately 1,000 feet neat the confluence of Steer Creek and Conasauga Creek, and 2,365 feet on Black Mountain to 918 feet where Hatter Branch flows out of the project area. Due to the variation in elevation there can be quite a difference in annual weather across the project area. The area has an average annual temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. January is usually the coldest month with an average temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit, while July is usually the hottest month with an average temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The area averages about 55 inches of precipitation annually, which is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. May is usually the wettest month with an average of six inches of precipitation, while October is usually the driest with an average of three inches of precipitation. (NRCS 2014a). Overview of concerns and issues addressed Concerns raised about projects similar to this proposal, frequently relate to potential impacts to soils, their future productive potential, loss of nutrients, disruption of nutrient cycling, loss of soil organic matter, and effects on erosion rates in view of the presence of steep slopes present in many treatment units. This analysis incorporates lessons learned from similar activities that have been implemented on the CNF. It also takes into consideration results of various monitoring activities. This new and best information has led to updated project specific design criteria as seen later in the document. The key factors affecting soil productivity include soil physical, chemical, and biotic properties. Forest management activities such as silvicultural treatments and prescribed fire have the potential to increase or decrease soil productivity by altering one or more of these three properties. To evaluate these specific concerns this assessment utilized local experience and knowledge of fire and fire effects on soils, and interpretations of potential damage to nutrient, physical, and biotic soil characteristics by fire and erosion, developed by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In addition, impacts to soil productivity due soil removal/displacement and compaction associated with bladed constructions of temporary skid trails, log landings, and fire lines are addressed below. This report specifically addresses the following comments raised during public scoping: • Concern about the effect to Soil Quality from harvesting and burning activities; and • Concerns about inappropriate use of fire due to lack of fire regime on CNF and the effect it has on vegetation and soils.

Soils Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework providing direction and guidance for protection of a soil’s inherent capacity and productivity comes from the principle sources below:

• Forest Service Manual - Section 2500 (WO Amendment 2500-90-2) • Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 • National Forest Management Act of 1976 • Forest Service Handbook - FSH 2509.18-2003-1, Region 8 Soil Quality Standards • Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest, 2004 • Guide to Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Tennessee (TDF 2003) • Forest Service - Region 8 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, 2003 The RLRMP goal for soil productivity is “GOAL 6: Design and implement projects in ways that will maintain or improve the long-term productive capacity of the soil” (USDA, 2004a). There are multiple RLRMP Standards related to soil productivity. In summary, the standards identify the use of best management practices during projects to avoid impacts to soils and minimize the extent of detrimental soil disturbance so that it is less than 15 percent of vegetation management treatment areas. Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives Cherokee National Forest standard operating procedures in addition to those presented in the Regulatory Framework section, above, include the following: • Skid trails and temporary roads for the purpose of timber harvest would not be constructed for sustained distances over 200 feet in areas with slopes of 35% or greater (“steep area”). The 200-foot length can be exceeded however where the skid trail and/or temporary road is needed to traverse a steep area in order to access the remaining harvest unit(s). Such an exceedance requires approval from a forest interdisciplinary team composed of an appropriate group of specialists. Trees within the traversed steep area would not be harvested, except where possible through cable winching to equipment placed outside the steep area. • To achieve restocking levels required by the National Forest Management Act survival checks are performed on regeneration units at the following intervals: st rd th o Natural regeneration sites are checked in the 1 , 3 and 5 year post-harvest with the objective of certifying stocking levels in year 5. st rd o Planted sites are checked 1 and 3 year post-harvest. Stocking level is certified in year 3. • During survival checks, the timber staff also evaluates the effectiveness of BMP implementation on skid roads, landings, and temporary haul roads. If deficiencies are found, they are addressed with appropriate corrective measures which may include the following: seed, straw, fertilizer, lime, mulch, matting, slash, tops, and others.

• Different seed mixes are used depending on soil type, steepness, time of year, and other factors. Generally, annual grains are used. • Unacceptable ruts created on skid roads or log landings during harvesting operations are smoothed out, water is diverted appropriately, and erosion is thusly limited. • If rutting occurs within the unit (off of skid trails), operations are halted by the sale administrator until soil moisture conditions improve. • Use non-bladed skid roads whenever possible • Prior to implementation, collect a composite soil sample from the areas to be revegetated to be analyzed through University of Tennessee extension for the purpose of obtaining locally appropriate recommendations on lime and fertilizer applications. Alternatively, consult with district personnel responsible for revegetating landings/skid roads and/or maintaining wildlife openings on similar soils to determine lime/fertilizer concentrations that have been most effective in the past. Unit specific revegetation plans should be in place prior to the occurrence of any ground disturbance.

Project-Specific Application of Standard Design Criteria: • Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on the following soil map units as part of erosion control: Ranger, Wallen, Calvin, Ramsey, and Litz. Ground cover may include mulch, logging slash, matting, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. • Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed surfaces on Ranger, Wallen, Calvin, Ramsey, and Litz soils in regeneration units. Scope of Analysis The geographic boundary used for assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soils encompasses all land within an individual treatment or activity area. The analysis area is composed primarily the stands proposed for commercial timber harvest, including timber harvest-related road maintenance and temporary road construction, and the proposed road authorizations. This boundary was chosen because it can be used to determine effects to soil quality from the proposed actions. For instance, the direct effects from a log landing is the acreage used for the landing because it is the area of soil directly impacted by the activity. The following activities could potentially affect soil quality and productivity through soil disturbances that can alter existing soil conditions (machines causing impacts are listed): • Harvesting commercial dimension trees – feller-buncher machines • Moving felled trees from stump to processing and loading areas – skidders • Processing logs in loading areas – skidders, loaders, bulldozers, transport trucks • Construction, maintenance, and closure of log landings, skid roads and temporary roads – bulldozers, dump trucks • Maintaining or constructing National Forest Service System Roads – bulldozers, graders, dump trucks

These activities have the potential to cause detrimental soil disturbance that can directly impact soil productivity through compaction, rutting, erosion, displacement, and loss of ground cover. Other ground disturbing actions, such as the proposed prescribed burning, wildlife improvements, road decommissioning, stream restoration, etc. are considered part of the analysis as well. In general, soils outside the boundaries of the activity areas are not expected to be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected by the actions of this proposal and are therefore excluded from the analysis area. The most productive portion of a soil occurs near the surface at the contact between the forest litter and the mineral soil. This is also the part of the soil that is easiest to disturb during management activities. Therefore, the analysis of activities was limited to this most productive portion of the soil. Evaluation of deeper soil layers and underlying parent material was used only to determine how they influence the productivity of upper soil layers. The temporal scale for project analysis is dependent on the specific issue being addressed with no one scale being appropriate in all issues. Generally, detrimental disturbance effects on soils are not permanent and depend primarily on soil texture, parent material, aspect, and moisture. For this project, field assessments detected soil disturbance related to past timber harvest up to 30 years in the past and the effects of the proposed management activities can be estimated to be evident about 5-10 years into the future. The temporal (time) boundary used to assess effects varies by the activity. Short-term effects from: (1) increases in soil moisture from harvesting may last a year or two until new vegetative growth occurs; or (2) disturbance or mixing of the soil organic horizon may disrupt decomposition processes for a few weeks or months. Long-term effects of five to over 50 plus years may result if the highly productive upper layer of soil is compacted or removed. For example, soil displacement or compaction could result from skid trail development and use. This may remove the organic matter and available nutrients in the upper layer of the skid trails and affect water infiltration. This effect may persist from the time use of the skid trails begins until three to five years following the completion of timber harvest activities, and soils are ripped and revegetated; or, if compacted soils on the skid trails are not ripped after use, impacts to soil productivity on the skid trails may persist for 30 to 40 years. The cumulative effects analysis also considers future activities in the next five years since this timeframe coincides roughly with Forest Service out-year planning. Existing Condition Soil Existing conditions of soil resources were determined using evaluation of soil survey reports and data, past records and evidence of treatment activities (harvest, road construction, prescribed burning) and field visits. Field visits were made to several proposed timber harvest units, existing road locations and proposed prescribed burning units to evaluate existing soil conditions and potential soil disturbance. On-site assessment included short transects in proposed treatment units and existing closed and rehabilitated road corridors that could require soil excavation or displacement during treatments. Soil series were inventoried and classified during soil survey mapping within the analysis area boundaries. Eighteen soil series were identified as being in the affected environment for commercial logging activities. Primary soils in the proposed treatment stands are Ranger (65%) and Wallen (11%). Other soil series are also found in the treatment area but at very low

percentages (less than 5% each) (Table 22). Select NRCS Soil Interpretations for all commercial timber harvest activity area soils are presented in Appendix E (Table 2). These interpretations can aid in identifying possible operational constraints or needs for additional mitigation measures. A stand-by-stand listing of soil map units is presented in Appendix E (Table 3), along with details of the alternative(s) in which that stand is included. Stand-by-stand soil maps and soil series map unit descriptions can also be found in Appendix E.

Table 22. Commercial Logging Analysis Area Soils

Soil Series Symbol Soil Series Acres Percent of Activity Area Rg RANGER 425 65% Wa WALLEN 74 11% Ct CITICO 32 5% Ca CALVIN 29 4% Je JEFFERSON 22 3% He HARTSELLS 16 3% Fh FLETCHER 13 2% Lk LINKER 12 2% Ra RAMSEY-ROCK 10 2% Lt LITZ 5 1% An ALLEN 4 1% ShC SHELOCTA 4 1% Ph PHILO 3 1% Po POPE 3 0% EtD ETOWAH 0.2 0% Ag ALLEGHENY 0.02 0% Sa SEQUATCHIE 0.003 0% Total 653 100% Notes: Cove/Riparian Soil Series Most of the series identified are upland soils. Five series were identified that occur on coves and/or riparian areas in the mountains; Citico channery silt loam. Philo silt loam, Pope loam, Etowah silt loam, and Allegheny loam. The Citico channery silt loam comprises 5% of the area proposed for commercial timber harvest. The other cove/riparian soil series each comprise less than 1% of the activity area and would not likely be affected by ground based equipment operations as they would be included in streamside management zones per the buffer distances specified in the RLRMP. An additional six soil series are found only in the prescribed burn activity area; Cataska channery silt loam, Chagrin silt loam, McCamy loam, Shouns silt loam, Spivey cobbly loam, and Unicoi gravelly sandy loam. This information was derived from an analysis of existing GIS map and attribute data and is presented in Appendix E. Based on NRCS Soil Interpretations, all of these soils have a low to moderate potential for damage by fire. Soils within the proposed stand boundaries have undergone intensive management in the past and have remained stable and productive. However, the soil types found within the stand

boundaries have limitations that should be considered before ground disturbing activities take place.

Soils of Concern Soils of concern are those with properties that may require specific mitigations in order to minimize impacts that have the potential to degrade soil quality and productivity. An analysis of area soils was undertaken to identify soils of concern with respect to erosion risk, revegetation challenges, and slope stability. Primary factors used in this analysis were depth to a root restrictive layer, available water, and fertility. The rationale and process associated with that analysis, and spreadsheets used for data evaluation and selection of soils of concern are available in the project file. Soils of concern for this project are (in order of abundance): Ranger, Wallen, Calvin, Ramsey, and Litz Ranger channery silt loam The Ranger soil series belongs to the soil order Inceptisols which are soils that have limited horizon development and retain a close resemblance to their parent material. These soils have udic moisture regime which means that, generally, there is enough precipitation for plant growth at any time that the temperature is also favorable (Buol et al. 1997). The parent material of Ranger soils is channery residuum weathered from metasedimentary rock. These soils have a depth to bedrock of about 26 -30 inches (64-74 cm). A large portion of the soil volume is made up of phyllite channers; 10-35% in the top six inches (55 cm) and 35-65% until the restrictive layer has been reached. Channers are small flat fragments approximately 1/16th to 6 inches or 0.2 to 15 cm long. This volume and type of rock fragments presents challenges in soil and site management and with construction of logging roads, skid roads and log landings. The depth to bedrock of 26 -30 inches (64-74 cm) increases the limitations for the construction of bladed skid trails, haul roads and log landings. The Ranger textural class is loamy-skeletal which results in the soil being highly susceptible to erosion, particularly on steeper slopes. Ranger soils have slow soil regeneration characteristics and are expected to be able to withstand erosion rates of three tons per acre per year without losing productivity. This translates to a layer of soil 0.45 mm thick. Erosion hazard ratings for harvesting activities that disturb 50 -75% of the area resulting in exposed, roughened mineral soil surfaces for Ranger soils are moderate for slopes 12 to 25 percent and severe for slopes of 25 to 60 percent, indicating that erosion is likely to very likely on any exposed area with these slopes. Erosion hazard ratings for skid roads on Ranger soils are severe for 12 to 60 percent slopes, indicating that appreciable accelerated erosion can be expected, that skid roads are expected to require frequent maintenance, and that erosion control measures are needed. Ranger soils have low fertility, are well to excessively drained and have very low available water. Despite the udic moisture regime, which generally means that water is not limiting, on Ranger soils these factors can lead to difficulty with revegetation of exposed mineral soil, particularly where forest floor materials (litter and duff layers) have been displaced and vegetation has been removed. The forest floor materials release plant nutrients as they decompose and hold moisture that in turn keeps the soil surface from drying out, thus facilitating germination of seeds and development of plants.

The rutting hazard associated with the Ranger soils is severe for all slope classes. Rutting on skid roads and log landings can be mitigated through proper application of design criteria and BMPs. The ratings for erosion hazard, rutting hazard, construction limitations for haul roads and log landings, and harvest equipment operability are listed in Table 23. Table 23. Select NRCS Soil Interpretations for Ranger Soils Limitations Potential affecting Suitability Soil Suitability Potential erosion erosion construction for Log rutting for harvest Ranger hazard (off hazard of haul roads landings hazard machinery road/off trail) (road/trail) and log operation landings Moderately Poorly suited D Severe Severe suited Moderate Moderate (slope, low 12-25% (slope (low (Low (Slope/erodibility) (slope, dusty) strength, slopes erodibility) Strength) strength, dusty) dusty) Poorly Poorly suited F Severe Severe suited Severe Severe (slope, low 25-60% (slope (low (Slope, low (slope erodibility) (slope, dusty) strength, slopes erodibility) Strength) strength, dusty) dusty) Primary management concerns on Ranger soils include the potential for erosion and difficulties with revegetation on areas with exposed mineral soils. Pre-activity evaluations are recommended before access routes are constructed along with timely attention to implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation criteria include not displacing the forest floor materials where ever possible and/or using mulch to simulate forest floor materials when necessary to re-establish vegetative cover following harvesting activities. Implementation of applicable BMPS would be used to mitigate erosion, compaction, slope creep, or exposure of mineral soils. Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on Ranger soil map units as part of erosion control. Ground cover, may include mulch, logging slash, natural leaf-fall, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. Twelve percent slope is used because it is the lower end of the slope range where the Road/Trail erosion hazard rating is severe for most soils. Wallen channery sandy loam (Polk County), Wallen gravelly fine sandy loam (Monroe County) The Wallen soil series belongs to the soil order Inceptisols which are soils that have limited horizon development and retain a close resemblance to their parent material. These soils have udic moisture regime which means that, generally, there is enough precipitation for plant growth at any time that the temperature is also favorable (Buol et al. 1997). The parent material of Wallen soils is cobbly residuum and/or creep deposits derived from interbedded sedimentary rock. These soils have a depth to bedrock of 20-40 inches (50-100 cm). Twenty five to 45 percent of the soil volume is made up of angular sandstone fragments mostly between one and four inches (2.5 to 10 cm) but with some as big as 10 inches (30 cm). This volume and type of rock fragments presents challenges in soil and site management and with construction of logging roads, skid roads and log landings. The depth to bedrock of 20-40 inches

(50-100 cm) increases the limitations for the construction of bladed skid trails, haul roads and log landings. The Wallen textural class is loamy-skeletal which results in the soil being highly susceptible to erosion, particularly on steeper slopes. Wallen soils have slow soil regeneration characteristics are expected to be able to withstand erosion rates of two tons per acre per year without losing productivity. This translates to a layer of soil 0.30 mm thick. Erosion hazard ratings for harvesting activities that disturb 50 -75% of the area resulting in exposed, roughened mineral soil surfaces for Wallen soils is severe for the entire slope class of 20 to 60 percent, indicating that erosion is very likely on any exposed area with these slopes. Erosion Hazard ratings for skid roads on Wallen soils are severe for the entire slope class of 20 to 60 percent, indicating that appreciable accelerated erosion can be expected and that roads are expected to require frequent maintenance and that erosion control measures are needed. Wallen soils have low fertility, are somewhat excessively drained and have very low available water. Despite the udic moisture regime, which generally means that water is not limiting, on Wallen soils these factors can lead to difficulty with revegetation of exposed mineral soil, particularly where forest floor materials (litter and duff layers) have been displaced and vegetation has been removed. The forest floor materials release plant nutrients as they decompose and hold moisture that in turn keeps the soil surface from drying out, thus facilitating germination of seeds and development of plants. The rutting hazard associated with the Wallen soils is severe for all slope classes. Rutting on skid roads and log landings can be mitigated through proper application of design criteria and BMPs. The ratings for erosion hazard, construction limitations for haul roads and log landings, rutting hazard, and harvest equipment operability are listed in Table 24. Table 24. Select NRCS Soil Interpretations for Wallen Soils Limitations Soil Potential Potential affecting Suitability for Suitability erosion erosion construction rutting for harvest Wallen Log landings hazard (off hazard of haul roads hazard machinery road/off trail) (road/trail) and log operation landings Poorly F Severe Severe Poorly suited Severe Severe suited 20-60% (slope (slope (slope, low (low (slope) (slope, low slopes erodibility) erodibility) strength) Strength) strength) Primary management concerns on Wallen soils include the potential for erosion and difficulties with revegetation on areas with exposed mineral soils. Pre-activity evaluations are recommended before access routes are constructed along with timely attention to implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation criteria include not displacing the forest floor materials where ever possible and/or using mulch to simulate forest floor materials when necessary to re-establish vegetative cover following harvesting activities. Implementation of applicable BMPs would be used to mitigate erosion, compaction, slope creep, or exposure of mineral soils. Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on Wallen soil map units as part of erosion control. Ground cover, may include mulch, logging slash, natural leaf-fall, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. Twelve percent slope is used

100

because it is the lower end of the slope range where the Road/Trail erosion hazard rating is severe for most soils. Calvin channery silt loam The Calvin soil series belongs to the soil order Inceptisols which are soils that have limited horizon development and retain a close resemblance to their parent material. These soils have udic moisture regime which means that, generally, there is enough precipitation for plant growth at any time that the temperature is also favorable (Buol et al. 1997). The parent material of Calvin soils is channery residuum weathered from shale and siltstone. These soils have a depth to bedrock of 22-27 inches (53-66 cm). A large portion of the soil volume is made up of siltstone channers; 20% in the top three inches (7cm) and 35-50% until bedrock has been reached. Channers are small flat fragments approximately 1/16th to 6 inches or 0.2 to 15 cm long. This volume and type of rock fragments presents challenges in soil and site management and with construction of logging roads, skid roads and log landings particularly if excavation is required due to the risk of landslides. The depth to bedrock of 22-27 inches (53-66 cm) increases the limitations for the construction of bladed skid trails, haul roads and log landings. The Calvin textural class is loamy-skeletal which results in the soil being highly susceptible to erosion, particularly on steeper slopes. Calvin soils have slow soil regeneration characteristics and are expected to be able to withstand erosion rates of three tons per acre per year without losing productivity. This translates to a layer of soil 0.45 mm thick. Erosion hazard ratings for harvesting activities that disturb 50 -75% of the area resulting in exposed roughened mineral soil surfaces for Calvin soils are moderate for slopes over 5 to 20 percent and severe for slopes over 20 to 40 percent, indicating that erosion is likely to very likely on any exposed area with these slopes. Erosion Hazard ratings for skid roads on Calvin soils are severe for 5 to 40 percent slopes, indicating that appreciable accelerated erosion can be expected and that roads require frequent maintenance and that erosion control measures are needed. Calvin soils have low fertility, are well drained and have very low available water. Despite the udic moisture regime, which generally means that water is not limiting, on Calvin soils these factors can lead to difficulty with revegetation of exposed mineral soil, particularly where forest floor materials (litter and duff layers) have been displaced and vegetation has been removed. The forest floor materials release plant nutrients as they decompose and hold moisture that in turn keeps the soil surface from drying out, thus facilitating germination of seeds and development of plants. The rutting hazard associated with the Calvin soils is severe for all slope classes 5 to 40 percent. Rutting on skid roads and log landings can be mitigated through proper application of design criteria and BMPs. The ratings for erosion hazards, rutting hazard, construction limitations for haul roads and log landings, suitability for log landings and harvest equipment operability are listed in Table 25.

101

Table 25. Select NRCS Soil Interpretations for Calvin Soils Limitations Soil Potential Potential affecting Suitability for Suitability erosion erosion construction rutting for harvest Calvin Log landings hazard (off hazard of haul roads hazard machinery road/off trail) (road/trail) and log operation landings Poorly suited Moderately D Moderate Severe Severe Slight (slope, low suited 5-20% (Slope, (slope (low (dusty) strength, (Low slopes erodibility) erodibility) Strength) dusty) strength) Poorly suited Moderately E Severe Severe Severe Moderate (slope, low suited 20-40% (slope, (slope (low (slope, dusty) strength, (Slope, low slopes erodibility) erodibility) Strength) dusty) strength) Primary management concerns on Calvin soils include the potential for erosion and difficulties with revegetation on areas with exposed mineral soils. Pre-activity evaluations are recommended before access routes are constructed along with timely attention to implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation criteria include not displacing the forest floor materials where ever possible and/or using mulch to simulate forest floor materials when necessary to re-establish vegetative cover following harvesting activities. Implementation of applicable BMPs would be used to mitigate erosion, compaction, slope creep, or exposure of mineral soils. Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on Calvin soil map units as part of erosion control. Ground cover may include mulch, logging slash, natural leaf-fall, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. Twelve percent slope is used because it is the lower end of the slope range where the Road/Trail erosion hazard rating is severe for most soils. Ramsey Series (usually occurrence on the CNF is as Ramsey-Rock outcrop) The Ramsey soil series belongs to the soil order Inceptisols which are soils that have limited horizon development and retain a close resemblance to their parent material. These soils have udic moisture regime which means that, generally, there is enough precipitation for plant growth at any time that the temperature is also favorable (Buol et al. 1997). The parent material of Ramsey soils is loamy residuum weathered from sandstone. These soils are shallow with a depth to bedrock of 7 to 20 inches (18 to 50 cm). Five to 35 percent of the soil volume is made up of sandstone fragments mostly less than three inches, but some as much as ten inches. This volume and type of rock fragments and the fact that this is a soil/rock outcrop complex presents challenges in soil and site management and with construction of logging roads, skid roads and log landings. The shallow depth to bedrock of seven to twenty inches (18 to 50 cm) increases the limitations for the construction of bladed skid trails, haul roads and log landings. The Ramsey textural class is loamy which has about 68% sand and 16% clay which in turn results in the soil being highly susceptible to erosion, particularly on steeper slopes. Ramsey soils have slow soil regeneration characteristics and are expected to be able to withstand erosion rates of one ton per acre per year without losing productivity. This translates to a layer of soil 0.12 mm thick. Erosion hazard ratings for harvesting activities that disturb 50 -75% of the area resulting in exposed, roughened mineral soil surfaces for Ramsey soils are severe for the entire

102

slope range of 20 to 70 percent, indicating that erosion is very likely on any exposed area. Erosion Hazard ratings for skid roads on Ramsey soils are severe for the entire slope range of 20 to 70 percent, indicating that appreciable accelerated erosion can be expected and that roads are expected to require frequent maintenance and that erosion control measures are needed. Ramsey soils have low fertility, are somewhat excessively drained and have very low available water. Despite the udic moisture regime, which generally means that water is not limiting, on Ramsey soils these factors can lead to difficulty with revegetation of exposed mineral soil, particularly where forest floor materials (litter and duff layers) have been displaced and vegetation has been removed. The forest floor materials release plant nutrients as they decompose and hold moisture that in turn keeps the soil surface from drying out, thus facilitating germination of seeds and development of plants. The rutting hazard associated with the Ramsey soils is severe for all slope classes. Rutting on skid roads and log landings can be mitigated through proper application of design criteria and BMPs. The ratings for erosion hazard, construction limitations for haul roads and log landings, rutting hazard, and harvest equipment operability are listed in Table 26. Table 26. Select NRCS Soil Interpretations for Ramsey Soils Ramsey Potential Potential Limitations Suitability for Soil Suitability erosion hazard erosion hazard affecting Log landings rutting for harvest (off road/off (road/trail) construction of hazard machinery trail) haul roads and operation log landings F Severe Severe Severe Poorly suited Severe Poorly 20-70% (slope (slope (slope, low (slope, low (low suited slopes erodibility) erodibility) strength, dusty) strength, Strength) (slope, low dusty) strength, dusty) Primary management concerns on Ramsey soils include the potential for erosion and difficulties with revegetation on areas with exposed mineral soils. Pre-activity evaluations are recommended before access routes are constructed along with timely attention to implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation criteria include not displacing the forest floor materials where ever possible and/or using mulch to simulate forest floor materials when necessary to re-establish vegetative cover following harvesting activities. Implementation of BMPs would be used to mitigate erosion, compaction, slope creep, or exposure of mineral soils. Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on Ramsey soil map units as part of erosion control. Ground cover may include mulch, logging slash, natural leaf-fall, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. Twelve percent slope is used because it is the lower end of the slope range where the Road/Trail erosion hazard rating is severe for most soils. Litz shaly silt loam The Litz soil series belongs to the soil order Inceptisols which are soils that have limited horizon development and retain a close resemblance to their parent material. These soils have udic moisture regime which means that, generally, there is enough precipitation for plant growth at any time that the temperature is also favorable (Buol et al. 1997).

103

The parent material of Litz soils is channery residuum weathered from shale. These soils have a depth to weathered bedrock of 22-36 inches (56-91 cm) and a depth to bedrock of about 36-40 inches (91-102 cm). A large portion of the soil volume is made up of weathered shale channers; 10-30% in the top 12 inches (30cm) and 75% until the restrictive layer has been reached. Channers are small flat fragments approximately 1/16th to 6 inches or 0.2 to 15 cm long. This volume and type of rock fragments presents challenges in soil and site management and with construction of logging roads, skid roads and log landings particularly if excavation is required due to the risk of landslides. The depth to weathered bedrock of 22-36 inches (56-91 cm) increases the limitations for the construction of bladed skid trails, haul roads and log landings. The Litz textural class is loamy-skeletal which results in the soil being highly susceptible to erosion, particularly on steeper slopes. Litz soils have slow soil regeneration characteristics are expected to be able to withstand erosion rates of three tons per acre per year without losing productivity. This translates to a layer of soil 0.50 mm thick. Erosion hazard ratings for harvesting activities that disturb 50 -75% of the area resulting in exposed, roughened mineral soil surfaces for Litz soils are moderate for slopes 12 to 35 percent, indicating that erosion is likely on any exposed area with these slopes. Erosion Hazard ratings for skid roads on Litz soils are severe for 12 to 35 percent slopes, indicating that appreciable accelerated erosion can be expected and that roads are expected to require frequent maintenance and that erosion control measures are needed. Litz soils have low fertility, are well drained and have very low available water. Despite the udic moisture regime, which generally means that water is not limiting, on Litz soils these factors can lead to difficulty with revegetation of exposed mineral soil, particularly where forest floor materials (litter and duff layers) have been displaced and vegetation has been removed. The forest floor materials release plant nutrients as they decompose and hold moisture that in turn keeps the soil surface from drying out, thus facilitating germination of seeds and development of plants. Rutting on skid roads and log landings can be mitigated through proper application of design criteria and BMPs. The ratings for erosion hazard, construction limitations for haul roads and log landings, log landing suitability, rutting hazard, and harvest equipment operability are listed in Table 27. The rutting hazard associated with the Litz soils is severe for all slope classes. Table 27. Select NRCS Soil Interpretations for Litz Soils Limitations Potential Soil Suitability Potential affecting Log landing Litz erosion hazard rutting for harvest erosion hazard construction of suitability (slope) (off road/off hazard machinery (road/trail) haul roads and trail) operation log landings Moderately Poorly suited Moderate Severe Severe suited D Moderately suited (Slope, low (slope, (slope, (low (low (12-20%) (slope, dusty) strength, erodibility) erodibility) Strength) strength, dusty) dusty) Moderately Poorly suited Moderate Severe Severe suited E Moderately suited (Slope, low (slope, (slope, (low (low (20-35%) (slope, dusty) strength, erodibility) erodibility) Strength) strength, dusty) dusty)

104

Primary management concerns on Litz soils include the potential for erosion and difficulties with revegetation on areas with exposed mineral. Pre-activity evaluations are recommended before access routes are constructed along with timely attention to implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation criteria include not displacing the forest floor materials where ever possible and/or using mulch to simulate forest floor materials when necessary to re-establish vegetative cover following harvesting activities. Implementation of applicable BMPs would be used to mitigate erosion, compaction, slope creep, or exposure of mineral soils. Ground cover shall be applied to all bladed areas with greater than 12% slope on Litz soil map units as part of erosion control. Ground cover may include mulch, logging slash, natural leaf-fall, etc. These areas would also have drainage controls installed before closure. Twelve percent slope is used because it is the lower end of the slope range where the Road/Trail erosion hazard rating is severe for most soils.

Steep Slopes Many of the stands proposed for commercial logging operations in this EA contain areas of steep ground (greater than 35% slope). In general, unacceptable impacts to soil quality and productivity are more likely to occur where soils of concern intersect with steep slopes. Thus a desktop/field soil resource review was undertaken to verify conditions on the ground and to assess the effects of previous management activities on similar terrain and soils. Soil and topographic maps for each stand proposed for commercial timber harvest were evaluated to determine if it is appropriate for ground-based harvesting equipment and if any site-specific design criteria above and beyond those required in the RLRMP and TN BMP manual are warranted. Due to time, weather, and access constraints, the areas visited were prioritized based on the prevalence of soils of concern, and complex and/or steep topography. For each stand visited, the team documented soil and slope conditions, clarified areas intended for equipment operation, and developed stand-specific design criteria/mitigations where necessary. A Soils Field Investigation Report, completed in December 2015, documenting the methods and results of the field investigation is available in the project file. General results and observations from the soils investigation are presented in the following sections.

Historic Timber Sales Several previous Forest Service timber sales have occurred in the vicinity of the proposed Conacat project in the past ten years. These sales included areas mapped as soils of concern on steep slopes. Three closed timber sale units were evaluated as part of the field investigation described above (Figures 2-4). Each historic sale was evaluated for soil condition and revegetation both on heavily impacted areas such as skid roads and landings, and within the interior of the unit. Disturbed areas such as log landings and skid roads were documented to be appropriately located. Skid road construction was minimized, located primarily on slopes less than 15 percent, along ridges and upper sideslopes. There was some variability in the extent of revegetation, particularly on Big Ridge Unit 4. This was partially attributed to incomplete application of brush. If the slash applied to the landing and skid roads had been spread out, broken up, and in contact with the soil rather than piled erratically, more extensive revegetation would likely have occurred. However, BMP implementation on that unit and the others was sufficient to protect water quality and the area of decreased soil productivity did not likely exceed the 15% threshold specified in RLRMP Goal 8 based on a visual estimate.

105

Figure 2. View looking East from Old Furnace Road (NFSR 76) along temporary road used on Big Ridge Unit 1. Area mapped as Ranger "F"(25-60% slopes). Road has appropriate location and grade, lots of organic matter on it, and does not show signs of accelerated erosion.

Figure 3. Skid trail in Big Ridge Unit 4 has appropriate location and grade, lots of slash on it, and functioning waterbars but still shows extensive areas of bare soil. Area mapped as Area mapped as Ranger "F"(25-60% slopes).

106

Figure 4. Landing in Big Ridge Unit 11. Vegetation density on landing is highly variable with more vegetation in the vicinity of piles of logging slash. Area mapped as interspersed Ranger "F"(25-60 percent slope) and Fletcher “C” (5-12 percent slope).

Since the variable revegetation at Big Ridge Unit 4 resulted from incomplete BMP implementation, not an effectiveness failure of properly implemented BMPs, it was thus determined that standard design criteria and mitigations were effective in achieving the desired outcome of compliance with Forest Service R8 soil quality standards when properly implemented. Additionally, many of the stands proposed for commercial timber harvest in this EA contained old skid roads that have vegetated and remained stable over time (Figures 5-6). It is therefore not anticipated that the proposed action treatments would result in violation of the USFS R8 soil quality standards given proper implementation of BMPs and timber sale contract provisions.

107

Figure 5. Looking west from NFSR 76 (Old Furnace Road) along old skid road prism extending into 66/5. Area mapped as RgF.

Figure 6. Looking northeast into 66/29 along old road prism. Road prism is stable and surrounding slopes are operable. Area mapped as RgF.

Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest Stands In general, field analysis showed that the stands proposed for commercial timber harvest are topographically appropriate for ground-based harvesting operations. Operable portions of the stands inspected had lesser slopes than the larger soil map units within which they are located (Figures 7-8). Several of the areas showed evidence of old skid roads from past timber operations that have re-vegetated and remained stable over time; therefore, with planned design criteria and BMPs, it is not anticipated that the results from the proposed entry would create

108

issues with erosion and or/instability (Figures 5-6). Harvesting could be implemented in these stands in compliance with the RLRMP. Where the RLRMP standards and guidelines are unclear as they pertain to specific soil map units, specific recommendations are presented in the Project- Specific Application of Standard Design Criteria section.

Figure 7. Looking west along main ridge in 66/5 towards 200 ft. run of 25% slope leading to saddle. Area mapped as RgF. Side slopes range from 32% to much steeper (i.e. marginally operable to inoperable).

Figure 8. Looking west from main ridge in 78/22 towards an area with slopes greater than 35%. Ground based equipment would be excluded from this area but trees could be directionally felled and cable winched to operable ground. Area mapped as interspersed RgF and FhC.

109

Select stands proposed for commercial timber harvest using ground-based operations were visited by an interdisciplinary team consisting of a soil scientist and a hydrologist. No stands were determined to require a subsequent review during the layout phase. It is anticipated, based on past performance and design criteria, that the project can be implemented as proposed in compliance with all relevant guidance and direction. Direct and Indirect Effects Soil

Alternative A There would be no direct or indirect effects to soils because no activities would be implemented. Current rates of soil building and erosion would continue. However, under this alternative, opportunities typically concomitant with timber harvest pre-haul road maintenance to correct or improve National Forest system roads and/or road drainage problems that can lead to erosion and increased sedimentation would be missed, as would the opportunity to restore a stream currently being affected by soil movement from incised banks. Standard scheduled road maintenance would continue, and may result in some soil disturbance. Maintenance activities, however, typically result in minimal soil loss and sedimentation potential. Activities covered under other NEPA decisions would continue under Alternative A including prescribed fire, maintenance of openings, and herbicide use to treat non-native invasive species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Timber Harvesting Alternative B proposes approximately 653 total acres (28 stands) of commercial timber harvest: 23 acres (1 stand) of clear cut with reserves, 67 acres (4 stands) or seedtree with reserves, 535 acres (21 stands) of shelterwood with reserves, 13 acres (1 stand) of thinning, and 15 acres (1 stand) or white pine removal. The proposed 246 total acres (11 stands) of noncommercial treatment—231 acres (10 stands) of mid-story control and 15 acres (1 stand) of tree release— would have little to no potential to affect soil resources, primarily due to the absence of heavy equipment associated with commercially-harvested stands. The commercial logging method proposed is ground based, (tractor skidding) and has the potential to affect soils by creating skid trails and ruts where felled timber is cabled to a landing. This can result in soil compaction, erosion, soil disturbance, reduced infiltration rates, nutrient reduction, reduced soil productivity, and increased sediment production. However, research has shown that the application of BMPs substantially reduces the impacts to physical resources (Anderson and Lockaby 2011). For example, Tennessee State BMPs (TDF 2003) for forest management include practices for locating, constructing, and retiring forest (temporary) roads, provisions for proper drainage and erosion control measures, location and stabilization of log landings, location and design of skid trails, etc. This is not to say that soil compaction, erosion, etc., would not occur with the application of BMPs, but that any impacts would be greatly reduced with proper implementation Timber harvesting involves various types and intensities of ground disturbing activities that can potentially affect the soil resource. Soil disturbance and compaction during timber harvest vary depending upon both the type of soil and harvest method (Swank et. al. 1989). Effects from this action likely include immediate changes in water infiltration rates, soil compaction, and soil erosion rates due to soil and/or organic matter displacement.

110

Displacement and or loss of organic matter in the forest floor layers can result in disruption to nutrient cycling in the soil and reduced nutrient availability for trees and other plants. Nutrient removal varies with the intensity of the activities and degree with which those organic materials are removed or displaced. Compaction can limit root growth and development in the soil, decreasing tree growth (Swank et. al. 1989) and increase risk for blow down or tree stress. Water infiltration rates may be reduced due to compacted soils increasing the amount of overland flow. Soil rutting and erosion can reduce soil productivity and result in permanent loss of soil function. Where soil compaction is severe and unmitigated, soil productivity would be reduced due to loss of soil structure. Compaction is most likely to occur on those areas where heavy equipment operates repeatedly, especially if soils are wet. Areas subject to compaction include skid trails, temporary roads, and log landings. The potential effects of soil erosion, sediment yield, and compaction have a spatial and temporal context. Research (Dissmeyer and Stump 1978; Miller et al. 1986), local experience, and field verification has shown that effects of timber harvest and associated site preparation on soil erosion rates are identifiable for up to three years, post-treatment. Timeframes for recovery of soil compaction and topsoil displacement vary, depending on soil type, slope, aspect, and other factors. The amount of soil erosion, sediment yield, and compaction produced depends upon the topographic, soil, and climatic characteristics of the affected area along with the intensity of management practices being implemented. The potential for surface erosion is also directly related to the amount of bare, compacted soil exposed to rainfall and runoff (Reid and Dunne 1984). In Alternative B, as well as other alternatives, bare and compacted soil is related to roads, trails, and landings. The areas associated with skid trails, landings and temporary roads would be directly affected. Soil disturbance from log landings, skid trails, and bladed fire lines is constrained by the disturbance limit of 15% as specified in RLRMP Goal 8 which states that “[d]uring mechanical disturbance on all soils dedicated to growing forest vegetation, the organic layers, topsoil and root mat will be left in place over 85 percent of a project area” (USDA, 2004a, p. 24). Disturbed area measurements on prior timber sales have demonstrated that this goal is achieved when skid roads, log landings etc. are designated, as required by contract, by the CNF timber sale administrator. As a result of the limited spatial extent, impacts to the soil resource would be limited to acceptable levels for the activity area. Tennessee State BMPs and RLRMP Standards and Guidelines (USDA, 2004a) would be followed, as a minimum, to address soil concerns regarding road maintenance, temporary road construction and closure and landing placement and construction. These BMPs include standards for stabilization and revegetation of disturbed areas and for rehabilitation of severely compacted areas. Where Forest Service standards exceed BMPs, those standards shall take precedence. Prescribed Burning Approximately 6,215 acres (four burn blocks totaling 5,655 acres, 505 acres within the control lines of site prep burns, 19 acres of existing wildlife openings, 9 acres of native cane improvement, and 27 acres of high elevation early successional habitat on Waucheesi Mountain)

111

of prescribed burning are proposed in this alternative. This acreage constitutes 34% of the project area. Of this area, 603 acres comprising 37 units (11 commercial harvest site-preparation and 2 mid-story control units – 280 acres, portions of 24 wildlife stand improvement units – 296 acres, and the early successional habitat on Waucheesi Mountain – 27 acres) are likely to burn with higher intensity due to increased loading of heavy fuels. This acreage constitutes 3% of the project area. 94% of the soils in the area likely to burn with higher intensity have a low potential for damage by fire, the remainder of the area has a moderate potential for damage by fire (NRCS 2014b). Supplemental documentation including definitions of these ratings is available in the project file. The grass fuel type in wildlife openings and cane breaks generally burns quickly, resulting in low fire duration and consequently low burn severity. Wildlife openings burns and the proposed cane restoration area comprise less than 1% of the project area. The use of prescribed burning, including short interval repeat burning, is not expected to negatively impact the soil resource as discussed below. Prescribed burns are generally low duration and low intensity and have much lower intensity than the high-intensity fell and burn treatments discussed in several of the following paragraphs (which more accurately describe the effects of site prep burning). Thus, the effects of prescribed burns on nutrient flux to streams, and soils are less than the effects of fell and burn treatments or wildfires. Some areas may be re-burned on a two to five year interval schedule in order to achieve management goals. The effects of an initial prescribed burn, as well as subsequent burns, would depend on existing fuel loading and burn conditions. Depending on the interval, subsequent short interval burns would have less fuel present than longer interval burns for the same site and thus short interval burns would be relatively less severe. There is a substantial difference between the effects of large wildfires (notably in the western U.S.) and the effects of prescribed fire (e.g. Nave et al. 2011). In fact, much of the rationale for prescribed fire is to prevent the impacts of wildfires. Prescribed fires are used for a wide variety of objectives throughout the eastern U.S. They can reduce hazardous fuels, dispose of logging debris, prepare sites for seeding or planting, improve wildlife habitat, manage competing vegetation, control insects and disease, improve forage for grazing, and improve conditions for species and communities adapted to fire. In general, single, dormant season Rx fire can temporarily achieve the above objectives without adverse effects on either soil organic matter pools, soil microbial activity or prospects for longer-term restoration (Boerner et al. 2008, 2009). Fire generally affects soil erodibility if mineral soil is exposed. Other than dozer or handline, there would be little, if any, mineral soil exposure resulting from low intensity burning. Reports show little to no erosion after light to moderate intensity fires in the southeastern U.S. (Swift et al. 1993). The Forest Service limits the effects to the soil resource by burning under prescriptions where the duff and surface mineral soil layers can be protected. This is achieved by burning when forest floor and soil moisture contents are high and when weather condition are correct for the desired burn objectives. By burning within strict parameters and lighting ridges and upper slopes, the fire burns dryer sites and extinguishes in the moist streamside and bottomland areas. Prescribed burning uses existing roads and natural barriers (riparian areas, creeks, streams and rivers) as firelines, wherever possible. Constructed firelines, built by dozer or by hand, include drainage features such as dips, lead-outs, or reverse grades at regular intervals, where needed, to reduce concentrated water flow, erosion, and sediment. Nonetheless, construction of dozer lines

112

and/or hand lines would displace topsoil and reduce soil productivity locally. Hand lines would result in less soil impacts. Existing firelines generally need to be re-bladed prior to burning or otherwise treated during subsequent burning activities, which would also result in soil displacement. Where necessary to prevent soil erosion, firelines would be seeded following completion of the burn, in accordance with FW-88 (USDA, 2004a, p. 53). Dozer lines constructed using best management practices would persist as a source of accelerated erosion for three years, post construction, based on research on similarly constructed skid trails (Miller et al., 1986; Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978), local experience, and field verification. Effects to the organic layer and on soil organisms from burning depend greatly on heat penetration into the soil. Heat penetration depends upon duration of heating and soil moisture (ibid). Prescribed burns typically result in a mosaic pattern of burned/non-burned areas, as well as areas experiencing varying burn intensities. Where only surface material is burned, the duration of heating would tend to be very low due to rapid consumption. However, direct mortality to invertebrates/organisms typically found in this layer, such as nematodes, springtails, insect larvae, mollusks (snails and slugs), mites, woodlice, and millipedes, and fungi, would occur. Where larger fuels, such as dead and down logs and limbs, and areas of higher fuel concentrations occur within the burn area, the potential for greater heat intensity and duration could also result in direct mortality of vertebrate organisms, such as salamanders, small mammals, etc. However, soil moistures tend to be higher beneath larger fuels which may offer some measure of protection to these organisms. Additionally, these areas tend to be small and scattered across the burn landscape. The surrounding unburned and less severely burned areas allow soil and ground dwelling organisms to rapidly move back into areas of higher heat intensity/duration after the fire. Greenberg et al. (2010) found no difference in populations of arthropods following burning when compared to no treatment or mechanical removal of trees (Polk Co. NC). Decreases in micro and macro invertebrate populations were found to be larger with more frequent fires (every 1-3 years) and not as large with less frequent (4+ years) fires (Callaham et al., 2012). Microbial populations and activity are not generally negatively affected by low severity fires, regardless of frequency, instead, evidence indicates that populations shift to microbes that are more able to utilize more recalcitrant food sources (Callaham et al. 2012). Studies looking at short interval repeat prescribed burning found changes in ectomycorrhizal communities with a two year burning interval but no effects with a four year interval between burns (Bastias et al. 2006, Campbell et al. 2008). Given the maximum expected soil temperature at 2cm deep of 40ºC with low severity burns, fine, as well as, larger root mortality is not expected and was not found in studies on prescribed burning (Callaham et al. 2012, Busse et al. 2014). No cases of hydrophobicity associated with prescribed fire have been documented in the Eastern U.S. (Lafayette et. al. 2012), consequently impacts of prescribed fire on the ability of soil to absorb water are not of concern for this project. Long term soil moisture characteristics are not anticipated to be affected by low severity fire in our area due to the low maximum temperatures reached in the mineral soil (Busse et al. 2014), the higher moisture conditions under which prescribed burns are conducted, the amount of yearly rainfall and the average relative air humidity. Maximum soil surface temperatures are expected to be in the 200-300ºC range, at 2 cm 25-40ºC, and at 5 cm 20-30ºC (Busse et al. 2014).

113

Typically, the forest floor humus layer, also referred to as the duff layer, contains the largest collection of nutrients for that particular ecosystem. With prescribed burning in the southern Appalachians, including short interval burning, the duff layer remains largely intact, which mitigates surface erosion and movement of sediment and nutrients off-site (Clinton et al. 1996, Elliott and Vose 2005, Vose et al. 2005, Elliott and Vose 2006, McKee 1982, Busse et al. 2014). The longer a fire persists in one place, the more severe the fire and the more likely there would be substantial loss of the duff layer, including nutrients. Minimizing consumption of the duff layer not only has important implications for short-term site recovery, but also for long-term site productivity. Results from burn studies in the southern Appalachians vary regarding nutrient loss from the duff layer. Elliott et al. (2012) found 18-39% of the duff layer was consumed after cut-and-burn treatments in pine-hardwood stands. The greatest loss occurred on the most severely burned sites. However, in a number of studies where there were low to moderate intensity prescribed burns, the results indicate little to no loss of the duff layer (Vose et al. 1999, Hubbard et al. 2004, Knoepp et al. 2009). Vose and Swank (1993) reported a range of 63-94% consumption of the litter layer and 2-14% consumption of the duff layer in pine–hardwood sites where fell and burn treatments occurred. In another study of pine-hardwood without felling of trees, Vose et al (1999) found large reductions (65% loss) in the litter layer with little change in the duff layer (7% loss). Kodama and Van Lear (1980) reported that understory burning in loblolly pine plantations resulted in the 60% loss of the litter layer, but only 6% loss of the duff layer. In another study, Knoepp et al. (2009) reported large ground losses in mesic, mixed-oak forests understory prescribed fires: 82-92% loss in the litter layer and 26-46% in the duff layer. Based on best available science, the interpretation of the range of responses is due to variations in the environment: fuel load, fuel conditions, fire intensity, and duration. All of the above parameters contribute to fire severity and/or the magnitude of response to the existing conditions. Even with the most severe burn treatment (fell-and-burn) in pine-hardwoods no loss in soil carbon (C) or soil nitrogen (N) was detected (Knoepp et al. 2004). Across 12 sites of the Fire and Fire Surrogate Study, Boerner et al. (2009) found no statistically significant reductions in soil carbon or nitrogen pools following fire, thinning or fire and thinning treatments. Based on a meta-analysis of 57 studies, Nave et al. (2011) found that some severe wildfires in the western U.S. reduced forest floor carbon and nitrogen storage (pools); however, across all regions, prescribed fires did not reduce mineral soil carbon and nitrogen storage. Some volatilized N in + the form of NH3 (NH4 ), can be directly transferred to the mineral soil by convection as a result of burning, but in the case of low severity burns this effect has not been observed (Busse et al - + 2014) nor has increased leaching of NO3 or NH4 been observed (Knoepp and Swank, 1993). Low intensity burning in pine-hardwood stands, reduced understory biomass as well as the carbon and nitrogen pools in coarse woody debris, small wood and litter resulting in a total net loss of 55 kg N ha-1 from these sources; however, there was no statistically significant loss of carbon and nitrogen from the humus and soil layers (Hubbard et al. 2004). Short interval prescribed burning has also not, in general, resulted in reduction in soil mineral total N and C pools (McKee 1982, Liechty et al. 2005). According to Busse et al. (2014), an estimate of nitrogen loss is 10 kg ha-1 for every Mg ha-1 of duff consumed, which translates to approximately 60 kg N ha-1 cm-1 duff burned (Johnson 1995). Nitrogen losses from the forest floor layers due to repeat prescribed burning do not translate to a reduction of N available for plant uptake as indicated by studies showing no decreases in soil mineral N nor in foliar N levels after repeated burning (Binkley et al. 1992; Liechty et al. 2005).

114

Decay dynamics of leaf litter in southern Appalachian ecosystems indicate that prescribed burning intervals around four years allow much of the N in leaf litter to be incorporated into the mineral soil N pools (Melillo et al., 1982; Blair, 1988; Blair et al., 1990; Scott and Binkley, 1997). The amount of N lost during initial prescribed burns and moderate intensity site preparation burns will be replenished by atmospheric deposition and nitrification in about ten years according to Johnson (1995) and Van Breemen (2002). Estimates based on site specific data for the CNF indicate an N replacement range of two to eight years. In temperate forests, Nave et al. (2011, page 19) found a statistically significant reduction in forest floor C and N storage. They also concluded: “Mineral soil C and N storage showed no overall changes in response to fire. Prescribed fires caused smaller reductions in forest floor C and N storage than wildfires, and the presence of hardwoods also mitigated fire effects on forest floor C and N storage (compared to purely coniferous stands). Finally, geographic variation in fire effects on soil C and N storage indicate the need for region-specific fire management plans.” The role of fire type in mediating C and N shifts (especially in the forest floor) indicates that averting wildfires through prescribed burning is desirable from a soils perspective. Calcium, Mg, K and P pools can be affected by burning. McKee (1982) found that, like nitrogen and carbon, total forest floor (litter and duff layer combined in this case) concentrations of Ca, Mg, K and P were lower under repeat burning regimes. Elliot et al. (2012) did not find any reductions in the duff layer concentrations of N Ca, Mg or P following burning, however after burning there wasn’t enough litter layer to sample for comparison of the combined litter and duff layers. Some portion of these elements that was previously inaccessible in litter and woody debris can be released in the form of ash (Busse et al. 2014) and studies have found that burning can result in increases in soil Ca, Mg and P levels (Liechty et al. 2005, Carter and Foster 2004, McKee 1982). Losses of these elements can occur via ash in smoke, but reductions in soil levels of these nutrients has not been found (Liechty et al. 2005, Carter and Foster 2004, McKee 1982). Estimates calculated from Radke et al. (1990) as well as Reid (2005) and Patterson et al. (1986) indicated a possible loss of 0.24 to 4.4 kg ha-1 of Ca, 0.012 to 0.22 kg ha-1 Mg and 0.012 to 0.44 kg ha-1 of P from prescription fires, assuming fuel consumption of 3-5 Mg ha-1. Calcium deposition, on the other hand, has been reported by Elliott et al. (2013) to be less than 0.8 kg ha-1 yr-1 for the southern Appalachians and Monk and Day (1988) put atmospheric contributions of Ca at 4.0 kg ha-1yr-1. In general, detrimental effects on soil properties, including nutrient status, have not been found with one time or short interval repeat prescribed burning (McKee 1982, Busse et al. 2014, Callaham et al. 2012, Campbell et al. 2008). Wildlife Stand Improvements, Daylighting of Linear Wildlife Openings Edge Feathering of Spot Openings, and High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain 816.5 acres of non-commercial primarily midstory reduction would be implemented under Alternative B for the purposes of wildlife stand improvements (774 acres), daylighting of linear wildlife openings (42 acres), edge feathering of spot openings (3.5 acres), and creation of early successional habitat on Waucheesi Mountain. These activities would be accomplished via cut and leave using chainsaws or other hand tools. Since heavy equipment would not be used, no mineral soil would be exposed and no increase in erosion or soil compaction would occur. Little, if any, measurable effect to soil quality or productivity would occur.

115

In general daylighting of linear wildlife openings would increase sunlight to the roads increasing vegetative cover on the roads which would lead to a dryer less erosive road. In this case there would be a beneficial effect to the soil resource. Herbicides may also be used for daylighting and creation of high elevation early successional habitat on Waucheesi Mountain. Herbicide use is discussed in detail in a subsequent section. Wildlife Opening Maintenance Treatments of spot (5 acres) and linear (4 acres) wildlife openings are proposed under Alternative B. Wildlife opening maintenance may include mowing, fertilizing, sowing, burning, and herbicide treatment. Mowing would not disturb the soil profile or accelerate soil erosion above current levels. Sowing would assist in stabilizing soils by promoting full vegetative cover. Application of fertilizer, when done as directed based on results from analytical soil samples collected on site, and in compliance with state BMPs (TDF 2003) would help maintain soil productivity. The effects of burning are discussed in a previous section. It should be noted that the grass fuel type in wildlife openings generally burns quickly, resulting in low fire duration and consequently low burn severity. Herbicide use is discussed in detail in a subsequent section. Wildlife Pond Construction The construction of up to 30 waterholes would result in some minor soil disturbance; however, any changes in analysis area soil characteristics would be minimal given the small areas involved and proposed pond locations on level terrain. Some of the soils within the proposed stands are not well suited for creating ephemeral pools due to their drainage characteristics. Direct effects would be the removal of the surface soil horizons, and an increase in water retention within the localized area. There would be some soil displacement from the removed soil. Based on observations at a waterhole on Big Ridge Unit 4, the exposed mineral soil may or may not revegetate over time depending on site conditions (soil type, depth to bedrock, slope, aspect, elevation, etc.). Indirect effects may be an eventual change from aerobic to anaerobic conditions of the soil within the wetland. This would depend on how well the depression holds water. Native Cane Habitat Improvements This proposal involves prescribed fire, removal or girdling of overstory trees using chainsaws, removal of competing vegetation using chainsaws or other hand tools, and herbicide treatment of both native and non-native vegetation competing with cane. The effects of fire are addressed in a previous section, although it should be noted that a handline following an old road and a creek would be used as fire breaks. The installation of a handline would result in a minimal amount of soil displacement and associated loss of productivity. Since heavy equipment would not be used to girdle/remove overstory trees and/or remove competing vegetation, no mineral soil would be exposed and no increase in erosion or soil compaction would occur. Little, if any, measurable effect to soil quality or productivity would occur. Herbicide use is discussed in detail in a subsequent section. Nest Box Installation Wildlife habitat improvements such as the placement of boxes for bats, birds and small mammals would have no impacts on soil resources. Wildlife Plantings Wildlife plantings would assist in stabilizing soils by promoting full vegetative cover.

116

Herbicides Under Alternative B, herbicides would be used to control woody vegetation and treat non-native invasive species on a total of 737 acres: • Silviculture (640 acres) – targeted application of triclopyr for seedling release; • Wildlife opening improvements (19 acres) and daylighting of linear wildlife openings (42 acres) – targeted application to treat non-native plants and encroaching woody vegetation (triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazapyr); • Native cane habitat improvements (9 acres) - targeted application to treat non-native plants and encroaching woody vegetation (aquatic approved triclopyr and/or glyphosate); and • High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain (27 acres) – stump- surface herbicide application (triclopyr or glyphosate) following midstory removal, targeted application (triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazapyr) may be used to control woody vegetation in the understory. Minimal amounts of chemical would come in contact with the soil since the herbicides would be applied on the leaf surface or would be directed into the vegetation Unless otherwise specified, the following information is from Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA) Risk Reports for the specific herbicide used. Effects of the individual herbicides can be found below: Glyphosate (Roundup) would have negligible to no impacts on soil resources. The herbicide is highly adsorbed by and tightly bound in most soils, especially those with a high organic content (SERA 2003a). This results in little transference of the herbicide by rain or other water sources from the point of soil contact. The herbicide is readily metabolized by soil bacteria, with many species of microorganisms using glyphosate as a carbon source (ibid). Imazapyr is the common name for the active ingredient in Arsenal and Chopper. The herbicide is applied to foliage, freshly cut stumps, or applied to cuts made around the base of a tree. The EPA categorizes Imazapyr as practically non-toxic to mammals, birds, honeybees, fish, and aquatic invertebrates (SERA 2004). Since the herbicide does not bind to organic material in the soils (Mallipudi et al. 1991), the impacts to soils and soil microorganisms would be negligible, if at all. Triclopyr ester (Garlon 4), also a common herbicide used in forestry applications, poses a slightly greater risk to soil resources than the other two herbicides. The most common effect is the inhibition of soil microorganism growth, with the degree of inhibition varying by species and herbicide concentration levels (SERA 2003b). Temporary shifts in the population structure of microbial soil communities could occur, again depending on species present (ibid). However, based on the concentrations of chemical typically used by the FS, the potential for substantial effects on soil function and soil microorganisms would be low. Compliance with Forest Wide Standards for herbicide use would further reduce this potential. Herbicide applications to control competing vegetation do not disturb the topsoil layer, do not create additional bare soil, and do not adversely affect soil condition when used responsibly (Neary and Michael 1996). By utilizing herbicides as opposed to mechanical pre- and post-

117

preparation methods, the organic matter is left in place, and off-site soil movement does not increase the loss of nutrients following harvest activities. Maxwell and Neary (1991) concluded that the impact of vegetation management techniques on erosion and sediment losses occurs in this order, herbicides < fire < mechanical. Stream Improvements Implementation of the proposed stream channel restoration could initially result in up to 2.7 acres of soil disturbance. The prevailing soil map unit in the vicinity of this work is the Pope Loam (Po). Work would include reshaping the stream channel and installing in-stream structures using heavy equipment. Direct effects would include some soil displacement, rutting, and compaction. Disturbed areas would be revegetated using a combination of transplants available onsite, native seed, and/or non-native annual seed. Additional stabilization measures would be employed on a site specific basis. Indirect effects of stream channel restoration include a long- term reduction in the amount of stream bank erosion that is currently occurring on Conasauga Creek and retention of soil on the stream banks to support riparian vegetative communities. Stream restoration would also improve the connection between the stream and the floodplain, thereby promoting the natural replenishment of the soil through deposition of flood sediments. Transportation Improvement Many of the roads on NFS land in the project area are presently closed. Under this alternative, the proposed 8 miles of road reconstruction and 15 miles of pre-haul maintenance would result in some short-term soil erosion and sedimentation due to soil/roadbed disturbance from heavy equipment. Road maintenance operations such as blading the road surface and pulling the ditches can lead to short-term increases in soil sediment production, as can reconstruction activities such as curve widening and installation of road drainage features. However, the action would also provide opportunities to correct and/or improve approximately 23 miles of Forest Service system roads, thus reducing or eliminating problems that can lead to chronic soil erosion and increased sedimentation over the long term. NFSR 341 (Conasauga Creek Road) is in especially poor condition and would benefit greatly from implementation of this proposal. Other open roads would also benefit from implementation of this proposal, including the following: NFSR 76 (Lyons Creek/Old Furnace Road), NFSR 384 (Wildcat Road), NFSR 11111 (Alvin Branch Ridge Road), and NFSR 443301 (Payne Ridge Road). The following roads are currently managed as maintenance level 2 roads open to administrative use only: Lyons Creek Spur B (NFSR 76B), Payne Ridge Spur (NFSR 443302), Conasauga Spurs B and C (NFSR 341 B and C), Grindstone Ridge (NFSR 2112), Hatter Branch (NFSR 2002), and North Pine Mountain (NFSR 11092). These roads are generally stable (i.e. not eroding) but have limited productivity due to historic compaction. The soil resource on these roads would not benefit from the repeated disturbance of reconstruction or pre-haul maintenance, however the scale of impacts is small. There would be a potential for soil erosion, compaction, reduced infiltration rate, and sediment production from the proposed 2 miles of temporary road construction. Measures designed to stabilize the road surface during construction, such as armoring the soil by adding aggregate surfacing, and the placement of water control measures, such as installing water diversion devices (dips, reverse grades, out slopes, leadoff ditches, and culverts), would greatly reduce any adverse effects. All temporary roads would be closed and stabilized post-harvest. Again, Tennessee State BMPs and RLRMP Standards would be applied during and after temporary road construction to reduce any impacts. The detachment and distance soil particles move would be

118

reduced by limiting water concentration and movement on disturbed surfaces and/or fill materials. All temporary road locations have been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with applicable design criteria. Approximately 0.7 miles of NFSR 2104A (Borin Top-Kingdom Spur Road) would be authorized, i.e. added to the Forest’s road system. This road is currently in place and in use, and was considered necessary for resource management and/or public access, per the pertinent Travel Analysis Reports. By adding this road to the system, it would be eligible to receive periodic maintenance to prevent/correct drainage or erosion problems, as needed. Thus, adding it to the system would be of benefit to the soil resource. Alternative B proposes to decommission approximately 1.8 miles of authorized roads. This action would improve the condition of soil and water resources in the project area. It should be noted that a short-term increase in soil erosion would likely result from construction work associated with decommissioning, areas of which may require drainage repair, recontouring, removal of culverts, ripping and seeding. Decommissioning would reduce the long-term amount of soil eroded. All reduction in potential sediment would eventually benefit Tellico River and Conasauga Creek. Alternative B also proposes to install a gate on NFSR 40661 (East Fork Lyons Creek Road) where it intersects with NFSR 40781 (Head Lyons Creek Road). This action would reduce use of the road to administrative use only, thereby reducing the localized areas of moderate erosion currently occurring on the road surface and benefitting the soil resource. Trail Improvements Trailhead Construction The construction of a 200-300 sq. ft. parking area would result in some minor soil disturbance; however any changes in analysis area soil characteristics would be minimal given the small area involved and proposed locations on level terrain. Direct effects would be the removal of the surface soil horizons, soil structure disturbance, and compaction. There would be some soil displacement from the disturbed soil, however, the exposed mineral soil would be stabilized with aggregate, seed and straw as appropriate. Indirect effects may be an eventual loss of soil productivity resulting from the presence of the parking area. Trail Relocation/Decommissioning The construction of an approximately 0.33 mi trail would result in some minor soil disturbance; however any changes in analysis area soil characteristics would be minimal given the small area involved and proposed locations on level to gently sloping terrain. Soil disturbance required for construction would be further minimized due to the proposed location of the new trail segment on an existing legacy road. Nonetheless, direct effects would be the removal of the surface soil horizons, soil structure disturbance, and compaction. There would be some soil displacement from the disturbed soil, however, installation of appropriate trail drainage structures per the Forest Service National Design Parameters would minimize erosion. Indirect effects may be an eventual loss of soil productivity resulting from the presence of the trail. Obliteration of a 0.2 mile section of trail would initially result in soil disturbance, however the restoration of the land to its approximate original contour would eventually allow the soil to recover to its pre-trail condition.

119

Alternative C Timber Harvesting Alternative C proposes approximately 490 total acres (24 stands) of commercial timber harvest: 23 acres (1 stand) of clear cut with reserves, 65 acres (4 stands) or seedtree with reserves, 361 acres (17 stands) of shelterwood with reserves, 29 acres (1 stand) of thinning, and 12 acres (1 stand) of white pine removal. The proposed 307 total acres (13 stands) of noncommercial treatment—292 acres (12 stands) of mid-story control and 15 acres (1 stand) of tree release— would have little to no potential to affect soil resources, primarily due to the absence of heavy equipment associated with commercially-harvested stands. Potential impacts to soils from timber harvest in Alternative C would be slightly less than those for Alternative B, due to fewer acres receiving commercial treatments (490 acres vs. 653 acres, Alternative C and B respectively). Prescribed Burning Under Alternative C, the overall acreage of prescribed burning is the same as Alternative B. However, the area likely to burn with a higher intensity under this Alternative is 590 acres, as compared to 603 acres under Alternative B. The difference in acreage is due to reduction in the area of some stands proposed under Alternative C as compared to Alternative B, not to the removal of any stands from the burning proposal. Due to this reduction in areas likely to burn with higher intensity, the effects to soils from prescribed burning under Alternative C would be slightly less than under Alternative B. Wildlife Stand Improvements, Daylighting of Linear Wildlife Openings Edge Feathering of Spot Openings, and High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain, Wildlife Opening Maintenance, Wildlife Pond Construction, Native Cane Habitat Improvements, Nest Box Installation, Wildlife Plantings, Stream Improvements, Trail Improvements Same as Alternative B. Herbicides Under Alternative C, herbicides would be used to control woody vegetation and treat non-native invasive species (on a total of 558 acres, as compared to 737 acres under Alternative B. This reduction can be attributed to 179 fewer acres proposed for seedling release using triclopyr under Alternative C (461 acres in Alt. C vs. 640 acres in Alt. B). Although herbicide would be applied to a fewer acres in Alternative C than in Alternative B, the effects would be the same as a result of the properties of the selected herbicides and effectiveness of RLRMP standards in protecting the soil resource. Transportation Improvements Under Alternative B, the entire length (0.6 miles) of NFSR 76B (Lyons Creek Spur B) would be reconstructed to facilitate commercial harvest of stand 66/16. Under Alternative C, no silvicultural treatment are proposed for stand 66/16 and the entire length (0.6 miles) of NFSR 76B (Lyons Creek Spur B) would be decommissioned. Lyons Creek Road Spur B is currently managed as a maintenance level 2 road, is closed to public access, and grown up with small trees. This road is generally stable (i.e. not eroding) but has limited productivity due to historic

120

compaction. The soil resource on this road would not benefit from the repeated disturbance of reconstruction or pre-haul maintenance, however the scale of impacts is small and this activity would not have a measurable effect on soil quality in the analysis area. Nonetheless, the detrimental effects of Alternative C on the soil resource would be less than those of Alternative B with respect to this action. Under Alternative B, 1.8 miles of NFSR 384 (Wildcat Creek Road) would receive pre-haul maintenance to facilitate commercial harvest of stand 65/15. Under Alternative C, no silvicultural treatments are proposed for stand 65/15 and no actions are proposed for NFSR 384 (Wildcat Creek Road). Wildcat Creek Road is managed as a maintenance level 3 road suitable for passenger cars. This section of Wildcat Road is in generally good condition. While pre-haul maintenance would result in a short-term increase in soil erosion, it would result in a long term decrease in soil erosion. The the effects of Alternative B would be approximately equivalent to those of Alternative C. Under Alternative B, stand 112/30 is proposed for commercial treatment, and the roads proposal includes 0.15 miles of pre-haul maintenance on NFSR 341 (Conasauga Creek Road) past the extent needed to access stands 112/11 and 110/42. Under Alternative C, stand 112/30 is proposed for noncommercial treatment and consequently 0.15 miles less pre-haul maintenance is proposed on NFSR 341 (Conasauga Creek Road). This section of Conasauga Creek road is in poor condition and would continue to deteriorate under Alternative C. Thus, Alternative B would have a more beneficial effect on the soil resource along the relevant 0.15 mile section of NFSR 341 than Alternative C. Overall detrimental effects of the Alternative C Transportation Improvements proposal on the soils resource would be less than the effects of Alternative B due to the proposed decommissioning of NFSR 76B (Lyons Creek Spur B) under Alternative C. Cumulative Effects Soil

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would have no direct cumulative effects on soil resources within the analysis area since no actions would be implemented. Although scheduled NFSR maintenance would continue, the alternative would have an indirect cumulative effect when considered with anticipated reduced system road improvements in the future, and current soil erosion/sedimentation problems associated with county and private roads found within the analysis area.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C No future timber entries are currently planned in the analysis area. Thus, the evaluation of cumulative effects with respect to timber harvest is limited to current and historic effects. Outside of roads, skid trails and landings, impacts on soils resulting from timber harvests have generally recovered. As a result, cumulative impacts relative to compaction and displacement from successive harvesting operations would be expected to be minimal for the majority of harvested areas. Historic log decks, skid trails, and roads continue to exhibit decreased soil productivity and decreased water infiltration. Re-use of areas historically used for logging decks and skid trails, would be cumulative with historic effects and would result in more continuous periods of decreased soil productivity and decreased water infiltration. Although rehabilitation of

121

these sites would decrease the duration of the recovery period for soils and lessens the potential for cumulative degradation of soil conditions, the re-opening and use of these areas during successive harvest operations generally results in decreased soil quality on these sites. These areas are a small fraction of the analysis area and per RLRMP Goal 8, must not constitute more than 15% of any given harvest unit. Due to the differences in the silvicultural proposals (i.e. more acres proposed for commercial timber harvest in Alternative B), the cumulative effects associated with implementation of Alternative B would be slightly greater than those associated with implementation of Alternative C. Unacceptable cumulative effects are defined as cumulative effects that exceed a legal or administrative threshold. Implementation of either alternative vegetation management activities should not result in unacceptable cumulative effects to the soils resource. Approximately 6,644 acres of prescribed burning, spread across four burn blocks has occurred in the project area within the past ten years. The most recent prescribed burns occurred in 2014 (T- 44 Tellico Mountain and T-45 East Cataska which have been burned on a four to six year interval since 2000). Additionally, approximately 40 wildfires have occurred in the project boundary over the last ten years (with 90% or greater occurring before 2008 when an arsonist was apprehended). The majority of these wildfires were less than 10ac. Notable recent exceptions include the Pine Fire (70 ac) and the Gravelstand Fire (1,056 acres), both in 2014. It should be noted that the Gravelstand Wildfire was collocated with the Gravelstand Burn Block for Prescribed Fire. The proposed 6,215 acres of prescribed burns proposed under Alternatives B and C would be cumulative with the past and planned future burns. Cumulative effects of the proposed action would be minor provided that the soil organic layer and populations of soil organisms within the past burn areas would have recovered since the past burns were conducted/wildfires occurred. CNF Feat Firemon Integrated burn severity data from 2015 (available in project file) indicates that severity greater than moderate was not detected at any monitoring plot and that the majority of the plots were lightly burned. This data confirms that the soil organic layer and populations of soil organisms would recover between burn cycles at the locations monitored. It is reasonable to extrapolate these findings to the larger burn areas. However, burns conducted in areas with previous soil disturbance, such as where skidding of logs has occurred, increases the probability of soil erosion after burning (Swift et al. 1993). Cumulative impacts on analysis area soil conditions relative to compaction, displacement and subsequent erosion from past prescribed burning, wildfire fighting, and connected actions are considered minimal. Established prescribed burn dozer line currently present in the project area includes 0.2 miles associated with T-17 Big Ridge, and 0.4 miles shared by T-29 Gravelstand and T-30 Basin Lead. An additional 1.4 miles of dozer line was installed to contain the Gravelstand wildfire in March 2014. The effects on soils of this 2.0 miles of dozer line would be cumulative with the 6.7 miles of dozer line proposed under Alternatives B and C, and any additional dozer line present on the landscape in association with the ~40 wildfires which have occurred in the project boundary over the last ten years. (However, any cumulative effects would be minor since fireline construction has and would continue to employ erosion control measures such as relatively permanent drainage dips, reverse grades, out-sloping and lead-off ditches along with other erosion control measures. Activities proposed for wildlife habitat improvement (including Wildlife Stand Improvements, Daylighting of Linear Wildlife Openings Edge Feathering of Spot Openings, High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain, Wildlife Pond Construction, Native Cane

122

Habitat Improvements, Nest Box Installation, and Wildlife Plantings) and herbicide use would have no cumulative effect to the soil resource. This is based on the low impact of the planned activities and the limited area that may be impacted. The initial soil disturbance associated with the stream restoration project would be cumulative with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable ground disturbing activities. However, the short-term disturbance is small in scale and would not result in unacceptable cumulative effects. Additionally, the project would benefit the soil resource in the long-term (>1 year or until disturbed area is fully vegetated). This project would complement the previous work done to delineate campsites along Conasauga Creek (4 sites, implemented in 2010), thereby protecting riparian soils from compaction, erosion and rutting associated with the spread of camping areas and vehicular access across riparian soils. Transportation improvements would result in an initial increase of soil disturbance that would be cumulative with all other ground disturbing activities. However, most of the disturbance would occur within already disturbed soils (such as existing road prisms). It should be noted that the intent of the proposals for open roads is to implement structural improvements and improvements to drainage structures which reduce soil erosion and sediment production from the road surfaces over the long term. However, implementation of improvements to stable closed roads would interrupt the process of soil recovery that is currently underway and contribute incrementally to cumulative effects on soil productivity. However, the increment of this contribution is small and would not result in unacceptable cumulative effects to the soil resource at the scale of the analysis area. Construction of a 200-300 sq. ft. parking area would result in a small, localized, relatively permanent loss of soil productivity which would be cumulative with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. The construction of 0.33 miles of trail would contribute similarly to cumulative effects. The obliteration of 0.2 miles of existing trail would return some soil to productivity. None of the actions associated with Trail Improvements would result in unacceptable cumulative effects. Based on field work, local knowledge, experience, and best available science, implementation of the Conacat project would not result in unacceptable cumulative effects to soil resources, provided design criteria are implemented. Compliance with RLRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Based on this analysis, this proposed project is consistent with RLRMP direction and meets Forest Service Handbook guidance and responsibilities and soil quality standards for soil resource protection.

123

Water Overview of concerns and issues addressed Concerns often raised about projects similar to this proposal, frequently concern potential impacts to water quality from stream sedimentation in view of the amount of steep slopes present in treatment units. The key factors affecting sediment delivery to streams include proximity of disturbed areas to stream channels, presence of streamside filter zones, and construction of stream crossings. Forest management activities such as silvicultural treatments, prescribed fire, wildlife improvements, transportation improvements, stream restoration, and trail improvements have the potential to increase or decrease sediment delivery to streams. To evaluate this specific concern this assessment utilized local experience and knowledge, fieldwork, and best available science. In addition, potential impacts to stream chemistry, temperature, and water yield are addressed in the sections below. This report specifically addresses the following comment raised during public scoping: Concern about the effects to water quality in Conasauga Creek from sedimentation due to proposed activities Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives Design criteria common to all alternatives include: Tennessee Best Management Practices (BMPs) Forest Standards FW-2, FW-3, FW-4, FW-5, FW-6, FW-7, FW-8, FW-9, FW-10, FW-11, FW- 14, FW-15, FW-16, FW-18, FW-19, RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11-13, RX11-14, RX11-18, RX11-29, RX11-30, RX11-31, RX11-32 Forest Wide Goal 8 Scope of Analysis The scope of analysis for direct and indirect effects to Water Resources includes all NFS lands in the Upper Tellico River and Conasauga Creek 6th level Watersheds. Cumulative effects analysis includes private lands within these watersheds. The cumulative effects analysis will consider activities that have occurred in the past 10 years since sediment delivered to the stream should work its way through the system within this timeframe. Cumulative effects will also consider future activities in the next five years since this timeframe roughly coincides with USFS out-year planning. Existing Condition Water Most areas proposed for management are in the Conasauga Creek Upper (Hydrologic Unit Code: 060200020801) and Tellico River Upper (Hydrologic Unit Code: 060102040305) 6th level Watersheds (NHD 2012) which cover approximately 38,181 acres and 40,877 acres, respectively. The Conasauga Creek Upper watershed is part of the Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee Basin. The Tellico River Upper watershed is part of the Upper Tennessee Basin. The project area overlaps five other 6th level watersheds, with actions proposed in 3 of those 5. A summary of actions in Alternative B by watershed is presented in Table 28. Table 29 presents the designated uses of waterbodies in or immediately downstream from the analysis area (TDEC 2013a).

124

Table 28. Comparison of Selected Actions in Alternative B by Watershed Towee Creek- Conasauga Tellico River Hiwassee Creek Upper Upper River Spring Creek Bald River HUC 60200020801 60102040305 060200020907 060200020908 060102040302 Watershed Area Acres 38,181 40,877 35,184 21,185 13,867 Not Not Not NFS Ownership Acres 8,974 24,148 Calculated Calculated Calculated Not Not Not NFS Ownership % 24 60 Calculated Calculated Calculated Portion of Project Area In Acres 9,170 8,688 343 123 10 Watershed Commercial Timber Harvest Acres 393 260 ------Road Reconstruction Miles 7 1 ------Temporary Rd Construction Miles 1.8 0.2 ------Road Decommissioning Miles 1.6 0.2 ------Pre-Haul Maintenance Miles 1 14 ------Gate Installation # -- 1 ------Roads added to system Miles 0.7 ------Herbicide Use Acres 441 295 -- -- 2 Steam Channel Restoration Miles 0.3 ------Fire Management Acres 3867 1952 345 52 -- Dozer Line Miles 5.1 1.4 0.2 -- -- Trail Construction Miles -- 0.36 ------Trail Decommission Miles -- 0.22 ------Trailhead Development Acres -- 0.07 ------Note: Coker Creek (HUC 12: 060200020905) contains 6 acres of the Conacat analysis area. Shuler Creek (HUC 12: 060200020903) contains 0.05 acres of the project area. No actions are proposed in either of these watersheds. -- None Proposed

125

Table 29. Use Classifications for Surface Waters Conasauga Creek Tellico River (Ruralvale Mill to Origin) (Mile 28.0 to 41.0) Domestic Water Supply X Industrial Water Supply Fish and Aquatic Life X X Recreation X X Livestock Watering and Wildlife X X Irrigation X X Navigation Trout Stream X X Naturally Reproducing Trout Stream All waters within the CNF are classified as Exceptional Tennessee Waters (TDEC 2013b), consequently no degradation that threatens the designated uses of these waters is permitted. The TDEC Stream/Waterbody Assessments revealed that both the Tellico River and the portion of Conasauga Creek on NFS land are categorized as fully supporting their designated uses (TDEC 2014). Neither Lyons Creek nor Wildcat Creek (the subwatersheds where all project activities within the Tellico River Upper watershed would occur) was assessed. Lyons Creek and Wildcat Creek have limited access and do not have roads in close proximity. The Forest Service owns 91% of the land in their watersheds. Thus, water quality in these streams is assumed to be excellent. The same assumption is made regarding the tributaries of Conasauga Creek that flow down off of the northeastern shoulder of Starr Mountain until they cross the forest boundary and flow onto private land. It should be noted that Conasauga Creek is categorized as impaired for its Fish and Aquatic Life designated use from its confluence with Steer Creek all the way to its confluence with the Hiwassee River. The confluence with Steer Creek is approximately 1.3 miles downstream of the Forest Boundary. The TDEC Interactive Mapper lists the source of impairment as sediment/siltation resulting from grazing in the riparian/shoreline zones and Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area) (TDEC 2014, EPA 2014). Both of these sources are located downstream of the Forest Boundary. It should also be noted that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) For Siltation and Habitat Alteration in the Hiwassee River Watershed (HUC 06020002) Bradley, Hamilton, McMinn, Meigs, Monroe, and Polk Counties, Tennessee was completed by TDEC in 2006 (TDEC 2006). This TMDL includes a target sediment load reduction of 70% for the entire Conasauga River Upper 6th level watershed (060200020401) (p. 25). It lists the type of pollutant responsible for the impairment as “siltation” and the source as “discharges from MS4 area/pasture grazing” (p.7). The TMDL also lists a variety of potential non-point sediment sources applicable to the Hiwassee River Watershed HUC 8 (pp. 20-21). Sediment generated by timber harvest and associated activities is included on this list, however it is not identified as a primary source. “For the listed waterbodies within the Hiwassee River Watershed, the primary sources of nonpoint sediment loads include agriculture, roadways, and urban sources (p.21).” On 4/5/2013 and 2/3/2013 fieldwork was conducted to evaluate the sources of turbidity in Conasauga Creek and determine if water flowing off of NFS lands was in compliance with

126

applicable water quality criteria. Sampling sites are displayed on Figure 9, along with the 2013 EPA Assessed Waterbody Data. Data and observations from this fieldwork are presented in Table 30.

Figure 9. Conasauga Creek Sample Locations

127

Table 30. Conasauga Creek Field Observations and Data 4/5/2013 2/3/2014

24-hr precip (in) 1.53 a 1.81 b

Visual Observations Creek Apprearance/ Turbidity (NTU) Sample Appearance Sample Site 1 Slightly cloudy Light Brown/Clear 11.9 Sample Site 2 Slightly cloudy Green/Clear 8.51 Sample Site 3 Slightly cloudy - - Sample Site 4 Chocolate Milk Chocolate 65.4 a Precip Data Source: http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KTNETOWA1&graphspan=we ek&month=4&day=5&year=2013 b Precip Data Source: http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KTNETOWA1&graphspan=we ek&month=2&day=3&year=2014

The TDEC water quality assessments presented in Figure 9 and the visual observations in Table 30 are corroborated by the photos presented in Figures 10 – 13. After a rain event, the stream becomes slightly turbid as it flows through NFS land, which is a natural occurrence. However, it becomes extremely turbid and violates water quality criteria only after it flows through private property (with primarily agricultural land use). Sample Site 4 is approximately 9 stream miles downstream of Sample Site 1 and 10.3 stream miles downstream of the forest boundary.

Figure 10. Sample Site 1 (4/5/2013) - Looking downstream towards the confluence of Conasauga Creek and Steer Creek (the point where designated impaired status begins). 128

Figure 11. Sample Site 2 (2/3/2014) - Looking upstream towards mouth of Hooper Branch and Ford 1.

Figure 12. Sample Site 3 (4/5/2013) - Just below log jam at Ford 2.

129

Figure 13. Sample Site 4 (2/3/2014) - Off of Hwy 39, just upstream of junction with Mecca Pike. The Conasauga Creek road and aforementioned fords are certainly sediment sources, but do not result in a water quality violation and do not constitute point sources. Turbidity values for sample Sites 1 and 2 presented in Table 30 fall within the range of those found in reference streams (Table 31) (TDEC 2000). The turbidity value for Site 4 exceeds the range of reference values.

Table 31. Descriptive Statistics of Water Quality Data for Blue Ridge Ecoregion Number of Parameter Unit Observations Minimum Maximum Median Mean Temp ° C 153 1.01 24.72 11.60 11.67 Dissolved Mg/l 152 7.74 16.60 10.06 10.31 Oxygen Suspended Mg/l 164 5.00 49.00 5.00 5.51 Residue Dissolved Mg/l 164 5.00 126.00 22.00 26.96 Residue Turbidity NTU 163 0.10 15.00 0.90 1.50 The analysis area has a dendritic drainage pattern. Landforms of the area are primarily characterized by steep, dissected mountains and narrow V-shaped valleys draining into progressively wider and less steep alluvial valleys. Streams common to these landforms are categorized by Rosgen (2012) as “A” and “B” types: generally high energy but stable with a low

130

sediment supply due to their “bouldery” composition. Lyons Creek and Wildcat Creek would be considered “B” type streams over most of their length, as would several tributaries of Conasauga Creek. “C” type streams (Rosgen 1996) occur where valley bottoms are wider due to the deposition of alluvial materials over time. “C” type streams on the CNF are often naturally unstable due to a continuous supply of large woody debris to the channel. This is true of Conasauga Creek although the functionality of portions of the floodplain is compromised by a road and dispersed recreational sites. One large wetland is present within the Conacat analysis area. This 1.5 acre wetland is within the area proposed for cane restoration. Within the Conasauga Creek Upper watershed, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI 2013) identifies 3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands, 1 Freshwater Emergent Wetland, and 1 Riverine Wetland all ranging from 1.1 to 2.1 acres in size and all located on private lands. Within the portion of the Tellico River Upper Watershed where actions are proposed (Wildcat Creek and Lyons Creek subwatersheds), the NWI identifies one 4-acre Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland spanning the forest boundary along the upper reaches of Lyons Creek. Additionally, it indicates the presence of 0.04 acres of Riverine Wetland at the junction of Wildcat Creek with the Tellico River. In other portions of the Tellico River Upper watershed, the NWI identifies five Freshwater Emergent Wetlands ranging in size from 0.8 to 2.4 acres and four Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands ranging in size from 1.2 to 3.5 acres. The NWI also identifies multiple freshwater ponds on private land in both the Conasauga Creek Upper and Tellico River Upper watersheds. Multiple small wetlands are likely present at seeps and adjacent to streams in the analysis area. Direct and Indirect Effects Water

Alternative A There would be no direct or indirect effects to water resources because no activities would be implemented. Rainfall events and natural erosion processes would continue to influence stream systems within the analysis area. However, under this alternative, opportunities typically concomitant with timber harvest pre-haul road maintenance to correct or improve NFSRs and/or road drainage problems that can lead to erosion and increased sedimentation would be missed, as would the opportunity to restore a reach of an impaired stream currently being affected by bank erosion and resulting sedimentation. Standard scheduled road maintenance would continue, and may result in some soil disturbance. Activities covered under other NEPA authorities would continue under Alternative A including prescribed fire, maintenance of openings using herbicides and mechanical means, and herbicide use to treat non-native invasive species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Timber Harvesting Alternative B proposes 260 acres (11 stands) of commercial timber harvest in the Tellico River Upper watershed, which is approximately 1% of the NFS land in the watershed area and 0.6% of the total watershed area. Alternative B proposes 393 acres (17 stands) of commercial timber harvest in the Conasauga Creek Upper watershed, which is approximately 4% of the NFS land in the watershed area and 1% of the total watershed area.

131

There is always a risk of sedimentation of streams and riparian areas from activities associated with commercially-harvested stands. Noncommercially harvested stands have a low risk of sedimentation since equipment associated with commercial timber harvest (e.g. skidders) would not be used; skid trails, landings, etc would not be present; and temporary roads would not be needed. Research (Anderson and Lockaby 2011), experience, and field verification confirm that Tennessee Best Management Practices are effective in preventing sedimentation. BMPs and RLRMP standards would be implemented for all timber harvest activities. In addition, all streams and riparian areas adjacent to proposed treatment stands (including noncommercially harvested stands) would be buffered according to RLRMP standards. Research has also shown that impacts of timber harvesting on sediment yield are directly related to skid trail layout and road building, as well as maintenance activities on access roads used for removing timber. When roads and skid trails are properly constructed and maintained [per Tennessee BMPs and RLRMP standards] there is generally minimal impact on stream sedimentation (Anderson and Lockaby 2011). See Roads below for discussion of road impacts. Changes in water yield may occur in response to timber harvest, skid trail development, and silvicultural activities such as mechanical slashdown of vegetation. These activities would increase water yield by decreasing the interception of precipitation by trees and the loss of soil water due to transpiration. Research indicates that achieving a measurable increase in streamflow requires at least a 20% decrease in basal area (Douglas and Swank 1972; Patric 1994). As basal area reduction increases to 100%, greater increases in streamflow take place. Any basal area left on harvested areas would tend to reduce the water yield increase. Given the limited amount of the total NFS land in the watershed area affected, the widespread (rather than concentrated) distribution of treatment areas across the two watersheds, and the implementation of Tennessee BMPs and RLRMP standards, little to no measureable effects on stream flow or water yield should occur. Buffering the streams (per the RLRMP) would ensure that stream temperatures would not be affected. The chemistry of water flowing through forests changes as water passes through the canopy, soil, and, subsoil and eventually into streams. Forest harvesting reduces interception losses, allowing more water to reach the soil, thereby diluting nutrient concentrations (all else equal). The removal of mature trees would result in a temporary decrease in the demand for nutrients therefore; more nutrients are available and are potentially free to move off site. Nutrients can be dissolved in precipitation and infiltrate into underlying mineral soil. Subsequent drainage through the soil can carry some nutrients such as nitrogen, calcium and magnesium to nearby streams. The duration of this possible effect is generally considered to be less than five years. After this time period, sprouts, seedlings and other vegetative growth reestablish the cut area and effectively tie up available nutrients. Long term measurements of chemical changes in water quality at Coweeta Hydrologic Lab are summarized as follows: • Based on observations beginning in 1972, none of the harvested areas or other disturbances at Coweeta produced nutrient concentrations that would have an adverse impact on water quality for municipalities or downstream fisheries.

132

• Compared to other forested regions of the U.S. increases in nutrient concentrations of streams at Coweeta were small, even for the most drastic vegetative disturbances. • Nitrate-N is a sensitive indicator of forest disturbance and although concentrations are quite low (<0.2 mg/1), elevated levels in streams draining clear cuts appear to persist for 20 years after cutting. However the increase is substantially diminished by the fifth year after cutting and appears to approach pre-logging levels (Swank et. al. 2001). Implementation of RLRMP standards such as SMZ’s would greatly reduce the amount of nutrients reaching the stream. Vegetation within the buffer zone would quickly absorb any available nutrients. Any chemical changes that might occur from the project should be examined in the context of the streams natural or background chemical composition. Streams draining the affected area are low in dissolved solids and fertility. Any small infusion of fertility into these streams that are nutrient poor would have benign or possibly positive effects in terms of aquatic habitat. Prescribed Burning Alternative B proposes 1,952 acres of prescribed fire in the Tellico River Upper watershed, which is approximately 8% of the NFS land in the watershed area and 5% of the total watershed area. Alternative B proposes 3,867 acres of prescribed fire in the Conasauga Creek Upper watershed, which is approximately 43% of the NFS land in the watershed area and 10% of the total watershed area. Fire generally affects soil erodibility, if mineral soil is exposed (see below). Other than where dozer-created or handline-created fire line occurs, there would be little, if any, mineral soil exposure from the low intensity burns. Reports show little to no erosion (which can lead sediment movement into rivers and streams) after light to moderate intensity fires in the southeastern U.S. (Swift et al. 1993). However, burns conducted in areas with previous soil disturbance, such as where skidding of logs has occurred, increases the probability of soil erosion (and sedimentation) after burning (ibid). All dozer line locations have been determined to be in compliance with relevant RLRMP standards. Blading or plowing a fire line by using a dozer exposes mineral soil by removing vegetation, leaf litter and duff, thereby increasing the exposed areas’ susceptibility to soil erosion and displacement of nutrients and organic matter offsite. Fire lines can recover quickly, however, through revegetation efforts, post burn, and as they accumulate litter from the forest canopy. Erosion control measures, such as relatively permanent drainage dips, reverse grades, out-sloping and lead-off ditches, would be constructed along fire lines to concentrate and redirect water flow and soil erosion. Thus, the effects of fire lines on sediment delivery would be minimized. Streamside areas would be marginally impacted by the proposed burns since timber harvest would not occur in riparian corridors and therefore logging slash would not exist. The burns would be allowed to back down into streamside areas, but fire typically does not carry far into these moister/damper areas. In addition, RLRMP standards prohibit placing fire lines in or adjacent to perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams (USDA 2004a, FW Standards 18 and 19, p. 27). All handlines must be constructed to run perpendicular to a stream course, resulting in less exposed mineral soil. Finally, since little vegetation mortality occurs in riparian areas from low-intensity burns, the vegetation within these areas would help trap and filter out sediment before runoff entered a stream.

133

Prescribe burn activities have the potential to increase the solubility of some cations in the forest floor, but would not diminish water quality (Knoepp et. al 2004). It should be noted that the portion of the prescribed fire proposal related to cane restoration occurs entirely in the riparian zone and encompasses a wetland. A handline following an old road and a creek will be used as fire breaks. The installation of a handline would result in a minimal amount of soil displacement and sediment delivery to the stream and the receiving wetland. Prescribed fire would help to maintain the extent of the wetland by discouraging growth of woody vegetation around the perimeter. Wildlife Stand Improvements, Daylighting of Linear Wildlife Openings Edge Feathering of Spot Openings, and High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain These activities would be accomplished via cut and leave using chainsaws or other hand tools. Since heavy equipment would not be used, no mineral soil would be exposed and no increase in erosion or sedimentation would occur. Intermediate treatments including mid-story removal would not remove sufficient basal area to cause a measurable change in water yield. In general daylighting of linear wildlife openings would increase sunlight to the roads increasing vegetative cover on the roads which would lead to a dryer less erosive road, and consequently reduced sediment delivery to streams. In this case there would be a beneficial effect to the water resource. Herbicides may also be used for daylighting and creation of high elevation early successional habitat on Waucheesi Mountain. Herbicide use is discussed in detail in a subsequent section. Wildlife Opening Maintenance Treatments of spot (5 acres) and linear (4 acres) wildlife openings are proposed under Alternative B. Wildlife opening maintenance may include mowing, fertilizing, sowing, burning, and herbicide treatment. Mowing would not disturb the soil profile or accelerate soil erosion above current levels. Sowing would assist in stabilizing soils by promoting full vegetative cover, thereby reducing sediment delivery to streams. Application of fertilizer, when done as directed based on results from analytical soil samples collected on site, and in compliance with Tennessee BMPs (TDF 2003) would help maintain soil productivity and would not negatively impact water chemistry. The effects of burning are discussed in a previous section. It should be noted that the grass fuel type in wildlife openings generally burns quickly, resulting in low fire duration and consequently low burn severity. Herbicide use is discussed in detail in a subsequent section. Wildlife Pond Construction Direct and indirect effects to water resources from the proposed wildlife habitat improvements would be similar to those described in the Alternative B soils analysis above. Effects from the construction of five water holes would be the capture and retention of water in the localized area; however, any impacts would be negligible given the small areas involved and their locations on level terrain. Native Cane Habitat Improvements This proposal involves prescribed fire, removal or girdling of over story trees using chainsaws, removal of competing vegetation using chainsaws or other hand tools, and herbicide treatment of

134

both native and non-native vegetation competing with cane. It should be noted that this proposal takes place entirely in the riparian zone and encompasses a wetland. The effects of fire are addressed in a previous section. Herbicide use is discussed in detail in a subsequent section. Since heavy equipment would not be used to girdle/remove over story trees and/or remove competing vegetation, no mineral soil would be exposed and no increase in erosion or sediment delivery would result from this action. Little, if any, measurable effect to water quality would occur. Nest Box Installation Wildlife habitat improvements such as the placement of boxes for bats, birds and small mammals would have no impacts on water resources. Wildlife Plantings Wildlife would assist in stabilizing soils and reducing sediment delivery to streams by promoting full vegetative cover. Herbicides Under Alternative B, herbicides would be used to control woody vegetation and treat non-native invasive species on a total of 737 acres: Silviculture (640 acres) – targeted application of triclopyr for tree release; Wildlife opening improvements (19 acres) and daylighting of linear wildlife openings (42 acres) – targeted application to treat non-native plants and encroaching woody vegetation (triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazapyr); Native cane habitat improvements (9 acres) - targeted application to treat non-native plants and encroaching woody vegetation (aquatic approved triclopyr and/or glyphosate); and High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain (27 acres) – stump-surface herbicide application (triclopyr or glyphosate) following midstory removal, targeted application (triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazapyr) may be used to control woody vegetation in the understory. Minimal amounts of chemical would be transmitted to surface waters as these herbicides would be applied on the leaf surface or directed into the vegetation. Timing of application and quantities applied would ensure that no measurable effects to water quality would occur even in aquatic scenarios (such as the herbicide application of the cane restoration proposal, which occurs partially in a wetland). Overall, the action would have negligible effects on water resources. Unless otherwise specified, the following information is from Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA) Risk Reports for the specific herbicide used. Effects of the individual herbicides can be found below: Glyphosate (Roundup) would have minimal to no impacts on water resources. The herbicide is highly adsorbed by and tightly bound in most soils especially those with high organic content. This results in little transference of the herbicide by rain or other water sources from the point of soil contact. The herbicide is readily metabolized by soil bacteria, and when present in water by

135

aquatic microorganisms. Many species of microorganisms can use glyphosate as a carbon source (SERA 2003a). Imazapyr is the common name for the active ingredient in Arsenal and Chopper. The herbicide is applied to foliage, freshly cut stumps, or applied to cuts made around the base of a tree. The EPA categorizes Imazapyr as practically non-toxic to mammals, birds, honeybees, fish, and aquatic invertebrates (SERA 2004). Triclopyr ester (Garlon 4), also a common herbicide used in forestry applications, poses a slightly greater risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates than the other two herbicides. However, in a review of studies looking at the stream flow fate of triclopyr, the highest water concentrations of the herbicide in streams are found where buffer strips are not utilized. When buffer strips are employed, as they would be for the Conacat project, peak concentrations of the chemical have not been found to exceed action levels. Compliance with RLRMP Standards for herbicides would minimize herbicide effects on surface water (SERA 2003b). Herbicide applications to control competing vegetation do not disturb the topsoil layer, do not create additional bare soil, and do not adversely affect watershed condition when used responsibly (Neary and Michael 1996). By utilizing herbicides as opposed to mechanical pre- and post-preparation methods, the organic matter is left in place, and off-site soil movement does not increase the loss of nutrients following harvest activities. Maxwell and Neary (1991) concluded that the impact of vegetation management techniques on erosion and sediment losses occurs in this order, herbicides < fire < mechanical. Targeted application of aquatic approved triclopyr and/or glyphosate to treat non-native plants and encroaching woody vegetation in and adjacent to the wetland on Conasauga Creek would enhance the water resource by enhancing the functionality of the wetland. Where buffer strips are used and/or other mitigation measures are employed, herbicides used in forestry management generally do not pose a threat to water quality. The small quantity of herbicide used and the application method and strict handling standards, when combined with streamside management zones, would insure that no measurable direct or indirect effects would occur from proposed herbicide treatments in the analysis area. Stream Improvements Implementation of the proposed stream channel restoration would initially increase sediment delivery to Conasauga Creek. Work would include reshaping the stream channel and installing in-stream structures using heavy equipment. Disturbed areas would be revegetated using a combination of transplants available onsite, native seed, and/or non-native annual seed. Additional stabilization measures will be employed on a site specific basis. Implementation of this work would require removal of some trees, which would result in an increase in sunlight reaching the stream and a corresponding increase in water temperature. The magnitude and duration of this effect would depend on the number of trees removed. Indirect effects of stream channel restoration include a long-term reduction in the amount of stream bank erosion that is currently occurring on Conasauga Creek and a concurrent reduction in sediment delivery to the stream. Stream restoration would also improve the connection between the stream and the floodplain, thereby promoting the natural replenishment of the soil through deposition of flood sediments and increasing the ability of the system to support healthy riparian vegetative

136

communities. The improved connection between the stream and the floodplain would also reduce downstream flooding and channel incision. Transportation Improvements Many of the roads on NFS land in the analysis area are presently closed. Under this alternative, the proposed 8 miles of road reconstruction and 15 miles of pre-haul maintenance would result in some short-term soil erosion and sedimentation due to soil/roadbed disturbance from heavy equipment. Road maintenance operations such as blading the road surface and pulling the ditches can lead to short-term increases in sediment production, as can reconstruction activities such as curve widening and installation of road drainage features. However, the action would also provide opportunities to correct and/or improve approximately 23 miles of NFSRs, thus reducing or eliminating problems that can lead to chronic soil erosion and increased sedimentation over the long term. NFSR 341 (Conasauga Creek Road) is in especially poor condition, thus Conasauga Creek would benefit from implementation of this proposal. Other stream systems in the analysis area would benefit from implementation of the portion of this proposal that pertains to open roads including the following: NFSR 76 (Lyons Creek / Old Furnace Road), NFSR 384 (Wildcat Road), NFSR 11111 (Alvin Branch Ridge Road), and NFSR 443301 (Payne Ridge Road) The following roads are currently managed as maintenance level 2 roads open to administrative use only: Lyons Creek Spur B (NFSR 76B), Payne Ridge Spur (NFSR 443302), Conasauga Spurs B&C (NFSR 341 B&C), Grindstone Ridge (NFSR 2112), Hatter Branch (NFSR 2002), and North Pine Mountain (NFSR 11092). These roads are generally stable (i.e. not eroding) and are generally located on ridges or sideslopes away from streams. The water resource would not benefit from the disturbance of currently stable soils for the purposes of reconstruction or pre-haul maintenance, however the scale of impacts is small and this activity would not have a measurable effect on water quality in the analysis area. There would be a potential for sediment production from the proposed 2 miles of temporary road construction. Measures designed to stabilize the road surface during construction, such as armoring the soil by adding aggregate surfacing, and the placement of water control measures, such as installing water diversion devices (dips, reverse grades, out slopes, leadoff ditches, and culverts), would greatly reduce any adverse effects. All temporary roads would be closed and stabilized post-harvest. Again, Tennessee BMPs and RLRMP s would be applied during and after temporary road construction to reduce any impacts. The detachment and distance soil particles move would be reduced by limiting water concentration and movement on disturbed surfaces and/or fill materials. All temporary road locations have been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with applicable design criteria. Approximately 0.7 miles NFSR 2104A (Borin Top-Kingdom Spur Road) would be authorized, i.e. added to the Forest’s road system. This road is currently in place and in use, and was considered necessary for resource management and/or public access, per the pertinent Travel Analysis Reports. By adding this road to the system, it would be eligible to receive periodic maintenance to prevent/correct drainage or erosion problems, as needed. Thus, adding it to the system would be of benefit to the water resource. Alternative B proposes to decommission approximately 1.8 miles of authorized roads, per the pertinent Travel Analysis Reports. This action would improve the condition of soil and water resources in the analysis area. It should be noted that a short-term increase in sediment production would likely result from construction work associated with decommissioning, areas of which may require drainage repair, recontouring, removal of culverts, ripping and seeding.

137

Removal of culverts would be followed by sloping back of stream banks and restoration of a more natural geomorphic configuration, which would reduce the potential for scouring and/or headcutting to occur within the channel. Decommissioning would reduce the long-term amount of soil eroded. All reduction in potential sediment would eventually benefit Tellico River and Conasauga Creek. Alternative B also proposes to install a gate on NFSR 40661 (East Fork Lyons Creek Road) where it intersects with NFSR 40781 (Head Lyons Creek Road). This action would reduce use of the road to administrative use only, thereby reducing the localized areas of moderate erosion currently occurring on the road surface reducing potential for sediment delivery, and benefitting the water resource. Trail Improvements Trailhead Construction The construction of a 200-300 sq. ft. parking area would result in some minor hydrologic alteration; however any changes in water resource characteristics would be minimal given the small area involved and proposed locations on level terrain far from stream. Direct effects would include a temporary increase in potential sediment production from the disturbed soil. The exposed mineral soil, however, would be stabilized with aggregate, seed and straw as appropriate. The parking area will likely continue to erode slightly over the long term, but is not anticipated to result in a measurable increase in sediment delivery to streams due to its location (far away from any channels) and small size. Trail Relocation/Decommissioning The construction of an approximately 0.33 mi trail would result in some minor soil disturbance and a corresponding increase in potential sedimentation; however any changes in analysis area water resource characteristics would be minimal given the small area involved and proposed locations on level to gently sloping terrain far from streams. Direct effects would include a temporary increase in potential sediment production from the disturbed soil. There would be some potential for sediment production from the disturbed soil. Installation of appropriate trail drainage structures per the Forest Service National Design Parameters would minimize sediment production. Obliteration of a 0.2 mile section of trail may initially result in sediment production; however the restoration of the land to its approximate original contour would eventually allow the restoration of more natural patterns of overland sheet flow as well as subsurface flow.

Alternative C Timber Harvesting Alternative C proposes 190 acres (9 stands) of commercial timber harvest in the Tellico River Upper watershed, which is approximately 1% of the NFS land in the watershed area and 0.4% of the total watershed area. Alternative C proposes 301 acres (15 stands) of commercial timber harvest in the Conasauga Creek Upper watershed, which is approximately 3% of the NFS land in the watershed area and 1% of the total watershed area.

138

Potential impacts to water resources from timber harvest in Alternative C would be slightly less than those for Alternative B, due to fewer acres receiving commercial treatments (491 acres vs. 653 acres, Alternative C and B respectively). Prescribed Burning, Wildlife Stand Improvements, Daylighting of Linear Wildlife Openings Edge Feathering of Spot Openings, and High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain, Wildlife Opening Maintenance, Wildlife Pond Construction, Native Cane Habitat Improvements, Nest Box Installation, Wildlife Plantings, Stream Improvements, and Trail Impovements Same as Alternative B. Herbicides Under Alternative C, herbicides would be used to control woody vegetation and treat non-native invasive species on a total of 558 acres, as compared to 737 acres under Alternative B. This reduction can be attributed to 179 fewer acres proposed for tree release using triclopyr under Alternative C (461 acres in Alt. C vs. 640 acres in Alt. B). Although herbicide would be applied to a fewer acres in Alternative C than in Alternative B, the effects would be the same as a result of the properties of the selected herbicides and effectiveness of RLRMP standards in protecting water resources. Transportation Improvements Under Alternative B, the entire length (0.6 miles) of NFSR 76B (Lyons Creek Spur B) would be reconstructed to facilitate commercial harvest of stand 66/16. Under Alternative C, no silvicultural treatment are proposed for stand 66/16 and the entire length (0.6 miles) of NFSR 76B (Lyons Creek Spur B) would be decommissioned. Lyons Creek Road Spur B is currently managed as a maintenance level 2 road, is closed to public access, and grown up with small trees. This road is generally stable (i.e. not eroding) and is located on a ridge away from streams. The water resource would not benefit from the disturbance of currently stable soils for the purposes of reconstruction or pre-haul maintenance, however the scale of impacts is small and this activity would not have a measurable effect on water quality in the Tellico River. Nonetheless, the detrimental effects of Alternative C on the water resource would be less than those of Alternative B with respect to this action. Under Alternative B, 1.8 miles of NFSR 384 (Wildcat Creek Road) would receive pre-haul maintenance to facilitate commercial harvest of stand 65/15. Under Alternative C, no silvicultural treatments are proposed for stand 65/15 and no actions are proposed for NFSR 384 (Wildcat Creek Road). Wildcat Creek Road is managed as a maintenance level 3 road suitable for passenger cars. This section of Wildcat Road is in generally good condition. While pre-haul maintenance would result in a short-term increase in sediment production, it would result in a long term decrease in sediment production/delivery to the Tellico River. The effects of Alternative B would be approximately equivalent to those of Alternative C. Under Alternative B, stand 112/30 is proposed for commercial treatment, and the roads proposal includes 0.15 miles of pre-haul maintenance on NFSR 341 (Conasauga Creek Road) past the extent needed to access stands 112/11 and 110/42. Under Alternative C, stand 112/30 is proposed for noncommercial treatment and consequently 0.15 miles less pre-haul maintenance is proposed on NFSR 341 (Conasauga Creek Road). This section of Conasauga Creek road is in poor condition and would continue to serve as a source of accelerated sediment delivery to Conasauga 139

Creek under Alternative C. Thus, Alternative B would have a more beneficial effect on Conasauga Creek than Alternative C. Overall detrimental effects of the Alternative C Transportation Improvements proposal on the water resource would be less than the effects of Alternative B due to the proposed decommissioning of NFSR 76B (Lyons Creek Spur B) under Alternative C. Cumulative Effects Water

Alternative A Unacceptable cumulative effects are defined as cumulative effects that exceed a legal or administrative threshold. Alternative A would have no direct cumulative effects on water resources within the analysis area since no actions would be implemented. Although scheduled NFSR maintenance would continue, the alternative would have an indirect cumulative effect when considered with anticipated reduced NFSR improvements in the future, and current soil erosion/sedimentation problems associated with county and private roads found within the analysis area.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and C Commercial timber harvest in the analysis area over the past ten years has occurred as part of the Big Ridge Sale and the Grindstone Sale. Reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest in the analysis area over the next five years includes 35 acres covered under the Tellico EA. These past and reasonably foreseeable future l timber harvests constitute 201 acres in the Lyons Creek/Wildcat Creek subwatersheds of the Tellico River Upper watershed and 125 acres in the Conasauga Creek Upper Watershed. These acreages would be cumulative with the acres proposed under Alternatives B and C (Table 32).

140

Table 32. Commercial Timber Harvest Acres for Consideration of Cumulative Effects Watershed Tellico River Upper Conasauga Creek Upper

Alternative B C B C

Past and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Commercial Timber 201 125 Harvest (acres)

Proposed Commercial Timber 260 190 393 301 Harvest (acres)

Total for Consideration of 461 391 518 426 Cumulative Effects (acres)

Percent of Watershed Area 1% 1% 1% 1%

The Conacat project would not result in any measurable cumulative effects to water resources (i.e. streams, wetlands or riparian areas), within the cumulative effects analysis area due to the small percentage of the watershed area affected by commercial timber harvest Additionally, when management activities are properly designed and appropriate design criteria (i.e. BMPs and RLRMP standards) are implemented, watersheds typically recover within 2-5 years post-harvest. Although the cumulative effects associated with implementation of Alternative B would be slightly greater than those associated with implementation of Alternative C, implementation of either of the Conacat Project’s proposed timber harvest alternatives should not result in unacceptable cumulative effects to water resources. Noncommercial treatments (i.e. midstory) would have no unacceptable cumulative effects to water resources. Approximately 6,743 acres of prescribed burning, spread across 8 burn blocks (including the Gravelstand wildfire which was collocated with the Gravelstand burn block) has occurred in the Tellico River Upper watershed within the past 10 years in areas not proposed for burning in this EA. Only 11 acres of prescribed burning in one burn block (O-02 Starr Mountain) has occurred in the Conasauga Creek Upper watershed within the past 10 years in areas not proposed for burning in this EA. The most recent prescribed burns in this watershed occurred in 2014 (T-44 Tellico Mountain and T-45 East Cataska which have been burned on a 4 to 6 year interval since 2000) and are proposed for additional burning in this EA. Additionally, approximately 40 wildfires have occurred in the project boundary over the last 10 years (with 90% or greater occurring before 2008 when arsonist was caught). The majority of these wildfires were less than 10 acres. Notable recent exceptions include the Gravelstand Fire (1,056 acres) in the Tellico River Upper Watershed and the Pine Fire (70 ac) in the Conasauga Creek Upper Watershed, both in 2014. Reasonably foreseeable future burns in the Tellico River Upper watershed include the planned implementation of the following prescribed fire in an area not burned within the past 10 years and not proposed for analysis in this EA: T-20 (Miller Mine). In the Conasauga Creek Upper Watershed, no prescribed fire is currently planned in an area not burned within the past 10

141

years and not proposed for analysis in this EA. It should be noted that the Gravelstand Wildfire was collocated with the planned Gravelstand Prescribed Fire. The prescribed burns proposed under Alternatives B and C would be cumulative with the past and planned future burns. Table 33. Prescribed Fire Acres for Consideration of Cumulative Effects Watershed Tellico River Upper Conasauga Creek Upper

Alternative B & C B & C

Past Fire (acres) 6,743 81

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Prescribed Fire In Areas Not Previously 673 0 Burned and Not Proposed in This EA (acres)

Proposed Prescribed Fire (acres) 1,952 3,867

Total for Consideration of Cumulative 9,368 3,948 Effects (acres)

Percent of Watershed Area 23% 10%

Cumulative impacts on water resources relative to compaction, mineral soil exposure and subsequent erosion from past prescribed burning, wildfire fighting, and connected actions are considered minimal. Established prescribed burn dozer line currently present in the analysis area includes 0.2 miles associated with T-17 Big Ridge, and 0.4 miles shared by T-29 Gravelstand and T-30 Basin Lead. An additional 1.4 miles of dozer line was installed to contain the Gravelstand wildfire in March 2014. The effects on water resources of this 2.0 miles of dozer line would be cumulative with the 6.7 miles of dozer line proposed under Alternatives B and C, and any additional dozer line present on the landscape in association with the ~40 wildfires which have occurred in the project boundary over the last 10 years (with 90% or greater occurring before 2008 when arsonist was caught). However, any cumulative effects would be minor since fire line construction has and would continue to employ erosion control measures such as relatively permanent drainage dips, reverse grades, out-sloping and lead-off ditches along with other erosion control measures. Activities proposed for wildlife habitat improvement (including Wildlife Stand Improvements, Daylighting of Linear Wildlife Openings Edge Feathering of Spot Openings, High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain, Wildlife Pond Construction, Native Cane Habitat Improvements, Nest Box Installation, and Wildlife Plantings) and herbicide use would have no cumulative effect to water resources. This is based on the low impact of the planned activities and/or the limited area that may be impacted. The stream restoration project is proposed with the intent of having beneficial direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on Conasauga Creek. The initial increase in sediment delivery associated

142

with the stream restoration project would be cumulative with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable ground disturbing activities. However, the short-term disturbance is small in scale and would not result in unacceptable long term cumulative effects. Effects on sediment delivery are anticipated to last less than 1 year, or until disturbed area is fully vegetated (which generally happens quickly in this region). This project would complement the previous work done to delineate campsites along Conasauga Creek (4 sites, implemented in 2010) and block illegal OHV access. The campsite delineation and blocking of illegal access protected riparian areas from compaction and erosion associated with the spread of camping areas and vehicular access, thereby reducing sediment delivery to Conasauga Creek and restoring a natural regime of water percolation through previously compacted but now recovering riparian soils. Transportation improvements may result in an initial increase in sediment delivery that would be cumulative with all other ground disturbing activities. It should be noted that the intent of the proposals for open roads is to implement structural improvements and improvements to drainage structures which reduce soil erosion and sediment delivery from the road surfaces over the long term. However, implementation of improvements to stable closed roads would interrupt the process of soil recovery that is currently underway and contribute incrementally to cumulative effects on sediment delivery. However, the increment of this contribution is small and would not result in unacceptable cumulative effects to water resources. Construction of a 200-300 sq. ft. parking area would result in the generation of a small amount of sediment which would be cumulative with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. The construction of 0.33 miles of trail would contribute similarly to cumulative effects. The obliteration of 0.2 miles of existing trail would initially generate a small amount of sediment that would be cumulative with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. However it would reduce the cumulative amount of sediment generated in the long term. None of the actions associated with Trail Improvements would result in unacceptable cumulative effects. Activities on private land beyond the forest service boundary would be expected to continue in the future. These activities are typical community activities that involve road construction, structures, pastures, stream crossings, farming (ploughing, applying fertilizer and pesticides, grazing livestock, etc) and timber harvesting. These activities would continue to impact water resources and add, cumulatively, to any impacts from Alternatives B and C. Based on field work, local knowledge, experience, and best available science, implementation of the Conacat project would not result in unacceptable cumulative effects to water resources, provided design criteria are implemented. Compliance with RLRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Clean Water Act Section 313 of the Clean Water Act requires the Forest Service to adhere to state water quality requirements. As stated in the Existing Condition Water Resources section, the streams in the analysis area support all designated uses (TDEC 2014. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 requires the Forest Service to accommodate concerns of States regarding the consistency of federal projects with State nonpoint source pollution control programs. All waters within National Forests are Exceptional Tennessee Waters

143

(TDEC 2013b) and consequently no degradation that threatens the designated uses of these waters is permitted. While Conasauga Creek downstream of the forest boundary is impaired for sediment (TDEC 2014), Alternatives A, B, and C are all fully consistent with Clean Water Act because no adverse water quality impacts are anticipated, beneficial uses would not be adversely affected, and BMPs and other design features including RLRMP standards are included in the proposed project.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (Floodplains & Wetlands) At stated in the order, the objective of EO 11988 is to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. No occupancy is proposed with this action. All alternatives are consistent with the Executive Order. EO 11990 requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Alternative A would have no impact on wetlands and is consistent with the Executive Order. Alternatives B and C include design criteria to protect wetlands in the analysis area, as well as actions to restore a wetland. Alternatives B and C are therefore consistent with the Executive Order.

Permits Permits that may be required for implementation of the stream improvement actions contained within this EA include: Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Tennessee Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit TVA Section 26a Permit The Forest Service will obtain any and all required permits prior to commencement of stream improvement activities proposed under Alternatives B and C.

Climate Change “Climate” is defined by two parameters: average annual temperature and precipitation. “Change” is defined as the increase or decrease of those two parameters. Temperature and precipitation influence the forest through growth and regeneration. Climate changes becomes an influencing factor along with carbon dioxide emissions, growing season length, insect pollinators, and plant demography in shaping the forest environment. The climate of the Southern Region is classified as humid subtropical -- hot, humid summers and mild-to cool winters. This area is influenced from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Consequently, the Southern Region contains a diverse climate and vegetation. In general, forest types are primarily deciduous hardwoods and evergreen conifers. Deciduous forests are dominated mainly by upland hardwoods, primarily oak-hickory (Querus spp. – Carya spp.). The conifer forest types consist almost entirely of southern pines: shortleaf (Pinus echinata), longleaf (Pinus palustris), loblolly (Pinus taeda), and slash (Pinus elliottii).

144

The last decade has brought increased awareness and concern over earths changing climate and variable carbon balance. The passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the U.S. Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture were tasked with completing a national assessment of carbon emissions from U.S. ecosystems. The assessment must identify adaptation and mitigation strategies for carbon management that will lead to reduced emission and enhanced sequestration on terrestrial landscapes. This task is consistent with other global efforts. (Vose et al 2012) This report summarized current conditions and analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed alternatives on climate conditions in the Conacat project area. This report incorporates the concern about the proposed activities influencing climate change and the effect climate change could have on the resources in the project area. The following analysis focuses on climate change on the current landscape and anticipated changes as a result of implementing the alternatives. Scope of Analysis The scope of this analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on climate change includes approximately 17,600 acres of NFS lands in Compartment 64-69, 77-78, 87, 102-103, 107-112, 115-116, 418, and 433. This acreage is all contained within Management Areas 3, 4, and 6 and is allocated into nine MPs. The timeframe of activities considered are those activities that have occurred in the past 10 years, present activities, and those in the foreseeable future (the next 10 years). Existing Condition Climate Change Climate change can affect the resources in the analysis area and the proposed project can affect climate change through altering the carbon cycle. Climate models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate changed conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States 2001). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the U.S. However, the models differ in that one predicts little change in precipitation until 2030 followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years followed by increased precipitation. These changes could affect forest productivity, forest pest activity, vegetation types, major weather disturbances (droughts, hurricanes), and streamflow. These effects would likely be seen in some sensitive areas sooner. Tree species distribution across a geographic scale is primarily limited by temperature and precipitation with integrated influences of relative humidity, evapotranspiration, and moistures deficits. Temperature and availability of water during the growing season are essential to optimum tree growth. Physiological damage can occur when the limits of temperature and precipitation are reached for a given tree species. (McNab et al 2014) Direct and Indirect Effects Climate Change

All Alternatives In general, genetic diversity provides resilience to a variety of environmental stressors (Moritz, 2002, Reed and Frankham, 2003, Reusch et al., 2005). Climate change affects biodiversity directly by altering the physical conditions to which many species are adapted. In some 145

instances, changes in precipitation patterns may disrupt animal movements and influence recruitment and mortality rates (Inouye et al., 2000). Evidence is accumulating to indicate that species interactions and competitive responses under changing climates are complex and unexpected (Suttle, Thompsend, and Power, 2007). Although species with large geographic ranges have a wide range of physiological tolerance, species that are rare, threatened, endangered, narrowly distributed, and endemic, as well as those with limited dispersal ability, would be particularly at risk under climate change (Pounds et al., 2006) because they may not be able to adapt in situ or migrate rapidly enough to keep pace with changes in temperature (Hansen et al., 2001; Wilmking et al., 2004; Neilson et al., 2005b). A key predicted effect of climate change is the expansion of native species’ ranges into biogeographic areas in which they previously could not survive (Simberloff, 2000; Dale et al., 2001). This prediction is supported by the observed northward shift in the ranges of several species, both native and introduced, due to the reduction of cold temperature restrictions (Parmesan, 2006). Vegetation Projected changes in climate (temperature and precipitation), along with increased nitrogen deposition affect all forests throughout the U.S. Effects can be direct (e.g. elevated carbon dioxide on forest growth and water use) and indirect (e.g. altered disturbance regimes) and differ temporally and spatially across the U.S. Past examples include insect outbreaks and large wildfires. The effects of these examples demonstrate a changing climate on the forest ecosystems; thus re-shaping forest landscapes with a change in forest structure, function, and species composition. To definitively conclude observation trends from ecological resources are the result of human-caused climate change or simply natural climatic variability cannot be determined. (Vose et al 2012) Effects of proposed project activities are not the sole contributing factor for climate change. Project activities are minute in scale when compared to regional, continental, or global contributions. Forest ecosystems are inherently resilient to variability in climate with scale ranging from daily to millennial variations. Forest species disturbance and abundance respond individually to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other disturbances regimes. Thus, gradual or moderate changes in climate influence gradual changes in the ecosystem. However, rapid or drastic changes in climate influence rapid changes in composition and forest dynamics. Forests which experience frequent disturbances tend to exhibit characteristics which enhance their survival rate. The complexity of fragmented landscapes combined with multiple stressors influences the threshold response of forest ecosystems. (Vose et al 2012) Climate change, increased carbon dioxide concentrations, and increased nitrogen deposition have already affected the Nation’s forests. Projecting the response of forest ecosystems to global change is not only difficult but complex. Projected changes are based on models. However, the output is subjective because of uncertainty in parameters, such as size of land, ecosystem interactions, time periods, etc. Climatic warming and elevated carbon dioxide may have a positive effect on tree growth and may result in increased maturation rates in some regions of the U.S. Climate change may increase the frequency of epidemics of forest insects and pathogens and subsequently related tree mortality. Examples may include seed production, mortality, regeneration and successional progression among competing species. (Vose et al 2012)

146

“Temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, ecosystem water balance, and nitrogen cycling all interact to alter photosynthesis and growth. The critical issue is the balance among these factors affecting growth… Disturbance is the largest factor changing the balance between production and decomposition but chronic changes in temperature, precipitation, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen deposition over large areas can also alter the U.S. forest carbon balance.” (Vose et al 2012) Experimental results indicate that primary direct effects of elevated carbon dioxide on forest vegetation is an increase in photosynthesis (Norby et al 2005, p. 43) However, individual studies indicate that photosynthetic enhancement, growth, and carbon storage are moderated by the presence of drought or nutrient limitations (Finzi et al 2006, Garten et al 2011, Johnson 2006, Norby et al 2010, p. 43). Recent studies by Norby and Zak (2011) showed the following: (1) elevated carbon dioxide does not increase the leaf area of forested sites, (2) net primary production is enhanced under elevated carbon dioxide only when water and nutrient supplies are abundant, (3) water use is reduced through stomatal closure, and (4) promotion of carbon dioxide increases photosynthesis and net primary productivity does not always increase forest carbon storage. (Vose et al 2012) Older forests can be strong carbon sinks (Stoy et al. 2006), and older trees absorb more carbon dioxide in an elevated carbon dioxide atmosphere, but wood production of these trees show limited or only transient response to carbon dioxide (Korner et al. 2005). Studies of elevated carbon dioxide on trees have been done with young trees (which show a positive growth response), but the one study on mature trees showed no growth response (Korner, et al. 2005). This is consistent with model results found in an independent study (Kirschbaum 2005). The general findings from a number of recent syntheses using data from the three American and European FACE sites (King et al. 2004; Norby et al. 2005; McCarthy et al. 2006a; Palmroth et al. 2006) show that North American forests will absorb more carbon dioxide and might retain more carbon as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. In this study, thinning removed carbon from the stand (in the form of removed logs) and also resulted in substantial, but temporary, reduction in above ground net primary production. The reduction of above ground net primary productivity by thinning lasted only one year, and its recovery was likely due to changes in the foliar mass and leaf traits. Finally, the data portrayed that there is a transient impact of thinning on above ground net primary production, but that there is no long-term effect of thinning on above ground carbon uptake in oak forests. Although this study focused on oak forests, the same principles and effects would apply to the hemlock forests. The alternatives (A, B, and C) would alter the carbon cycle in that it affects the carbon stock in any one of the pools. This would reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated stands. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period of time in wood products. The increase in down, dead wood would temporarily convert stands from a carbon sink that removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits, to a carbon source that emits more carbon through respiration than it absorbs. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. The stands would likely remain a carbon source for several years, and perhaps for more than a decade, depending on the amount of dead biomass left on site, the length of time before new trees become reestablished, and their rate of growth once reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase until peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually decline but remain positive. Similarly,

147

once new trees are established, carbon stocks would accumulate rapidly for several decades. The rate of accumulation would slow as the stands age. Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances. Scientific literature confirms this general pattern of changes in net ecosystem productivity (NEP)1 and carbon stocks over the period of forest stand development. Most mature and old stands remained a net sink of carbon. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) synthesized results from 120 separate studies of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes for boreal, temperate, and tropical biomes. They found that in temperate forests net ecosystem productivity is lowest, and most variable, in young stands (0-30 years), highest in stands 31-70 years, and declines thereafter as stands age. These studies also reveal a general pattern of total carbon stocks declining after disturbance and then increasing, rapidly during intermediate years and then at a declining rate, over time until another disturbance (timber harvest or tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insects, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees and again converts the stands to a carbon source where carbon emissions from decay of dead biomass exceeds that amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the stand. The impacts of the action alternatives on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are miniscule. However, the forests of the U.S. significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuel emissions. The forest and wood products of the U.S. currently sequester approximately 200 teragrams2 of carbon per year (Heath and Smith, 2004). This rate of carbon sequestration offsets approximately 10% of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels (Birdsey et al., 2006). U.S. forests currently contain 66,600 teragrams of carbon. The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage. The currently large carbon sink in U.S. forests is a result of past land use changes, including the re-growth of forests on large areas of the eastern U.S. harvested in the 19th century, and 20th century fire suppression in the western U.S. (Birdsey et al. 2006). The continuation of this large carbon sink is uncertain because some of the processes promoting the current sink are likely to decline and projected increases in disturbance rates such as fire and large-scale insect mortality may release a significant fraction of existing carbon stocks (Pacala et al. 2008; Canadell et al. 2007). Management actions – such as those proposed – that improve the resilience of forest to climate-induced increases in frequency, and utilize harvested trees for long-lived forest products and renewable energy sources may help sustain the current strength of the carbon sink in U.S. forests (Birdsey et al. 2007).

1 Net ecosystem productivity, or NEP, is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER). When NEP is positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with a positive NEP are referred to as a carbon sink. When NEP is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon than they absorb. Ecosystem with a negative NEP are referred to as a carbon source. 2 200 teragrams, or Tg, equals 196,841,306 US tons.

148

Fire Fire (natural, intentional, or accidental) does contribute to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; thus, they are the most widely studied contributors of carbon dioxide and methane. The ecological role of fire is variable from location to location and region to region. Decades of research indicates that fire can play an integral part/role in the ecological ecosystem. Strategically incorporating the knowledge learned about fire into carbon management and climate change concerns is one component in reducing atmospheric carbon levels. Fire-prone ecosystems have evolved to respond to varying levels of fire impacts and are comprised of species and processes that are not only fire adapted but fire dependent. Research suggests that carefully designed and executed treatments with subsequent re-occurring prescribed burning decreased the risk of high-severity wildfires and maintains a developing fire-tolerant forest. The task/goal is to balance carbon storage and loss while maintaining ecosystem diversity and resilience. Forest soils and biota store various amounts of carbon and other nutrients in the soil and in surface debris. Low intensity burns can enhance carbon-sequestering soil ecosystems while charring pieces of the surface debris which in turn delays the decaying process and subsequent fuel loading in the future. Wildlife Climate change is influenced by activities associated with human population activities that increase carbon dioxide emissions. Effects on wildlife from climate change are complicated by land-use changes associated with population and economic expansion which reduces the amount of contiguous habitat, and thus may limit or alter their ability to respond. Strategic planning for wildlife is complicated by uncertainty; such as human population growth, economic growth, how/where/when climatic variable occur (time and magnitude), and how wildlife species respond at various times given the complex habitat requirements and life cycles. Habitat changes in response to associated warming and cooling periods could force distribution of many terrestrial species to shift in latitude or elevation. Historical documentation of these events may have contributed to some species extinction. (Greenberg et al 2014) Similar to plant communities, wildlife communities have reassembled as species are responding to different changes in climate and associated vegetation composition and structure. (Graham and Grimm 1990). Evolutionary adaptive responses (natural selection) of a particular species depends on rates of mutation, rates of gene flow, amount of genetic variation, level and consistency of selective pressure exerted on a particular trait, and generation time and age structure of the population. (Greenberg et al 2014) Species vulnerability to climate change depends on their exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Glick et al 2011; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, tornados, or storms, and extremes changes of temperature and precipitation, may also affect wildlife species by altering their breeding patterns, life cycle, and/or survival rates. (Greenberg et al 2014) Species which are adapted to warmer or drier conditions may expand their current home ranges. Conversely, the direct effects of altered temperature or rainfall may adversely affect animal species that are especially sensitive to air or water temperature, have specific moisture requirements, or rely on specific weather patterns for survival on breeding success. Generalist

149

species may be less sensitive and adapt more easily to changes in climate than specialists. Species which have the capacity to respond behaviorally (such as local movement during microhabitat for thermoregulation) or physiologically (such as becoming dormant during dry periods) (Glick et al 2011) may only be indirectly impacted from climate change. Similarly, wildlife species that occur in multiple ecosystems may be more resilient, as climate-driven alternatives will likely differ among ecosystems. Wildlife may decline in response to higher temperatures and decreased precipitation. Wildlife associated with rare habitats, such as bogs, may also be more susceptible to changes in temperature and precipitation than species which occur in more abundant habitat because they have reduced habitat, and limited mobility. High temperatures along with altered or variable weather patterns may have direct and indirect effect on biological diversity: these effects may differ among animal populations or communities, as well as, species that have different life histories and physiology. Examples include birds and bats which have the ability to move long distances thus reducing their vulnerability to climate change; whereas, reptiles and amphibians have limited mobility and a narrow tolerance limit for temperature and moisture changes. Similarly, mammals with a narrow habitat range and small home-range size may be more susceptible to micro-climate changes. Other stressors (environmentally and physically of each particular species) should be taken into account. Indirect effects/impacts to wildlife are uncertain at this time because of the current scale of information is available. Shifts in vegetation and habitat as a result of gradual changes in climate or altered natural disturbances (frequency, duration, or intensity of drought, wind, fire, or floods) may affect many species for survival, reproduction or possibly extinction. Changes in forest composition, pattern or the amount could impact the animal’s ability to disperse in response to climate change. Other impacts of consideration include food availability and/or predator-prey relationships. Mammals Mammals have the ability to regulate their body temperature. They generally respond directly and indirectly to changes in climate through their interaction with food source, predators, and habitat associations (Berteaux and Senseth 2006). Sustained extreme changes in temperature and precipitation could alter habitats or decrease food resources. Additional effects may include increased disease outbreaks, physiological changes, nutritional state, and survival rate. Studies on the effects of climate change on mammals are limited and/or unknown on many southeastern mammals. Predicting or projecting the magnitude and direction of those changes are difficult and uncertain at this time due to the lack of targeted research in this area. Historical data theorize that mammals associated with low elevation may expand their range, whereas, high-elevation species may contract. Bats Bats play an important role in forest ecosystems by suppressing populations of night-flying insects. Bats species vary considerable in their habitat associations, roosting and foraging habitats, and strategies for coping with harsh winter conditions such as cold temperatures and reduced food supply. Thus, responses to climate change will likely differ among species.(Greenberg et al 2014).

150

Climate change may influence the distribution of bats during the summer and winter. In the Eastern U.S., preferred hibernation temperatures of little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) indicate their winter distribution may show a northward movement (Humphries et al 2002), whereas models suggest that both the little brown bat and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) could expand farther southward in response to global climate change (Kalcounis-Ruepell et al 2010). Currently, little information in known about the timing of bat migration in the southeastern U.S., thus complicating the efforts to disclose effect on migration from climate change. Birds Birds are an appropriate species for studying potential responses to climate change because: (1) long-term data exist for their abundance and distribution, and (2) their ranges are associated with temperature. Climate alterations can indirectly affect birds by changing the amount, distribution, structure, and condition of habitat. Bird responses may include adapting, temporal or phenological changes, spatial distribution changes, or elevation changes. Extremes in climate may impact game birds at all points of their life cycle, including the timing of breeding, selection of nest sites, and availability of food resources. Increased precipitation which may result in unusually wet springs, could flood or wash away nests and drown chicks. In contrast, increased drought frequency could also adversely affect upland birds in the breeding, reproducing, and survival rate of chicks (Greenberg et al 2014). Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) – two southeastern non-migratory game birds with different habitat association and range distributions are predicted to differ in their response to climate change (Matthews et al 2007). Bobwhite is the least abundant in the southern Appalachians (Matthews et al 2007). Optimal bobwhite habitat in forested areas consists of early successional forests that are dominated by pines or hardwoods and that include both herbaceous and woody growth (Wildlife Management Institute 2008). Hot dry summers could potentially reduce bobwhite recruitment. Ruffed grouse use deciduous forest and prefer young forest with abundant ground cover. Increased temperatures during winter time could also potentially reduce survival rates (Greenberg et al 2014) Amphibians Shifts in climate may have negative effects on amphibian populations (Beebee 1995; Gibbs and Breisch 2001, Parmesan and Yohe 2003). Temperature and precipitation does influence amphibian life cycles, especially during breeding activities (Greenberg et al 2014). Because amphibians lay their eggs in water, the timing of precipitation could affect their reproductive activities and survival rate. For adult amphibians the access to available water source is necessary because they are vulnerable to losing water from their skin which ultimately affects their respiratory system (Carey and Alexander 2003). “Emission and pollutants associated with climate change may also cause thinning of the stratosphere ozone, leading to increased atmospheric ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) that has been suggested as a cause of amphibian declines (Blaustein et al 2003).” (Vose and Klepzig 2014). Research by Corn (2005) does not show a link between ultraviolet –B exposure with changes in abundance or distribution of amphibians. Amphibians (wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and bull frogs (Lithobates catesbeiansu)) breeding has been documented to shift earlier during winter and spring in response to increased

151

temperatures. In addition, increased water temperatures may affect the reproductive success by altering their geographic distribution (seeking optimal minimum/maximum water temperature) and developmental rates (increased maturation). (Greenberg et al 2014) “Milanovich et al (2010) predicted that increased temperatures projected in long-term weather models would cause a loss of salamander diversity in the Appalachians. Many mountain-top species may be near their thermal maxima and have limited dispersal ability. Increase in temperature would result in lost habitat for many species, and those with small geographic ranges will be at greatest risk of extinction.”(Greenberg et al 2014) Primarily adult aquatic amphibians may be adversely affected by changes in temperature or precipitation that reduces the availability of permanent ponds, streams, or water sources. Stream dwelling salamanders are dependent upon stable stream flows for larval development, which is variable from several months to several years (Rodenhouse et al 2009). In addition, increased water temperature may be detrimental to stream dwelling salamander survival. Also, changes in precipitation pattern may affect those amphibian species which have distinct breeding season and are dependent on seasonal rainfall patterns. (Greenberg et al 2014) Change in precipitation, primarily drought conditions is considered as a threat to southeastern amphibians. Drier soils and leaf litter may create suboptimal conditions for terrestrial salamanders and the terrestrial stages of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Consequently, terrestrial salamanders (Plethodontidae) may decrease surface foraging in response to dry forest floor conditions. Studies of the two-lined salamander (Eurycea wilderae) in sites with reduced leaf litter depth, soil moisture, and over story cover (Crawford and Semlitsch 2008; Moorman et al 2011) indicates their sensitivity to moisture and temperature.” Reptiles Generally reptiles are less vulnerable to climate change than amphibians because of their scale- covered skin. Reptiles are able to tolerate drier warmer climate conditions. Their eggs are contained within a calcareous shell which also is a protective covering for desiccation. In addition, their life cycle does not involve aquatic egg or larval stages. Reptiles are highly mobile, thereby, capable of avoiding thermal stressors. They can travel long distances and can have large home ranges. Reptiles may be indirectly affected by changes in primary habitat, changes in food availability, and temperature –dependent availability; thus, increased temperature correlated directly with increased growth maturation, and/or increased temperature correlates to decreased energy. (Greenberg et al 2014) Cumulative Effects Climate Change

All Alternatives For all alternatives, there is confidence that temperatures are changing at a global scale, yet it is difficult to predict the effect of climate change at local and regional scales because the relationship between climate change and the proposed project is at a minute scale. Thus the contribution of the proposed actions to the carbon cycle is extremely small. When looked at the implementation collectively, the risk and rate of additional carbon release through regeneration is minimal for the reasonably foreseeable future in comparison to extinction of species and the complete loss of a carbon source.

152

Social Resources ______Economics Scope of Analysis The appropriate level of analysis needed to determine economic effects of the silvicultural activities includes those activities that affect timber harvesting such as the revenues generated by timber harvesting and the costs incurred for reforestation and any road changes/upgrades to support these activities. An analysis of the economic efficiency of the alternatives was conducted in order to provide a reliable means to contrast the relative costs and benefits of the proposed activities. The results of the analysis provide the Responsible Official with the assurance that economic efficiency was considered. It also provides some information about the potential economic impacts of the alternatives. Cost and unit estimations are derived from field data, maps, and actual prices from similar projects. While best efforts are made to present reliable cost estimates at the time of project planning, it is expected that costs as well as timber prices could change rather drastically. A more appropriate method of using these cost estimates is by means of comparison. In other words, instead of using the given estimated Net Present Value (NPV) and determining which Alternative ‘supports’ itself financially the NPV of each alternative should be compared in terms of the highest NPV by the decision maker. The southern yellow pine and white pine base prices are unusually low at the development of this analysis. Therefore, the base prices used are average prices for those two species from the last 8 projects on the south zone of the CNF. This economic analysis looks at stumpage related benefits and the costs involved in preparing and implementing a timber sale through to reforestation. Also included are some intermediate treatments in other units in the project area related to timber stand improvement. Timber harvesting activities may result in changes, both positive and negative, to other resources such as wildlife or recreation. These changes can have an associated economic value, but they are often difficult to measure, and are therefore not able to be quantified in this analysis. However, these items would be considered in the decision making process, along with the economics of the sale. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Economics

Alternative A No action does not produce revenues or incur financial costs. There would be no benefits to the local economy with the No Action Alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would have a present net value of $27,254. Alternative B would produce 4,718 CCF (2,359MBF) of forest products. ( CCF is the notation for “hundred cubic feet” and MBF is the notation for “thousand board feet”.) Alternative B would provide an economically efficient timber harvest, which benefits the local economy, provides local jobs, and provides payments to local and federal governments. This timber sale would provide a positive impact on the local economy by providing high quality sawtimber and pulpwood. This action alternative contributes

153

to RLRMP objectives for providing sawtimber (Objective 19.01) and pulpwood (Objective 19.02).

Alternative C Alternative C would have a present net value of $-11,983. Alternative C would produce 3,749 CCF (1,874MBF) of forest products. CCF is the notation for “hundred cubic feet” and MBF is the notation for “thousand board feet”. While Alternative C does not provide an economically efficient timber harvest, there would be some benefits to the local economy, albeit less benefits than Alternative B, such as providing local jobs, and payments to local and federal governments. The main reason for the negative present net value is the value of the timber, at current stumpage prices, does not provide sufficient funds to cover the costs of the proposed post-harvest work and reforestation. Some of the post-harvest work proposed would not be required and, if not completed, could help reduce the cost of this project and narrow the margin of difference between Alternative B and Alternative C. Some risks of not performing some of the proposed work could be the reduction in survival rates of some tree plantings if not all acres have a release of seedlings or there could be fewer acres receiving mid-story control which would decrease the number of acres receiving preference to advanced oak regeneration affecting future species composition of those acres. This timber sale would provide a positive impact on the local economy by providing high quality sawtimber and pulpwood. This action alternative contributes to RLRMP objectives for providing sawtimber (Objective 19.01) and pulpwood (Objective 19.02). Economic effects are presented in Table 34. This table follows direction given in Forest Service Handbook 2409.18,30 (USDA 1995). Some calculations that were used to arrive at the values in the table were derived using a computer spreadsheet (Project File).

154

Table 34. Benefit Cost Ratio

ALT B ALT C REVENUES Timber $656,903 $510,355 Recreation 0

Wildlife 0 Other 0 Total Present Value Revenues $656,903 $510,355 FINANCIAL COSTS Harvest Administration $70,770 56,235 Sale Preparation $217,028 $172,454 Analysis and Documentation $23,590 $18,745 Other Resource Support $23,590 $18,745 Brush Disposal (FS Component) 0 0 Road Design & Construction $56,272 $51,700 Reforestation $145,216 $122,832 KV Other 0 Silvicultural Exams $8,934 $7,853 Stand Improvement $83,748 $73,274 Timber & Transportation $500 $500 Planning Other 0 Total Present Value Financial $629,649 $522,338 Costs Present Net Value $27,254 $-11,983 NOTES: - Discount rate used - 4%. - Timber Revenue calculated by appraisal groups (see worksheet). - Economic Analysis only relates to monetary benefits and costs associated with timber aspects of this project. - Not much difference between activity costs and discounted costs due to closeness of time between the two. Therefore, in addition to being financially feasible (based on economic analysis), Alternative B is feasible for the purpose of helping meet several RLRMP objectives involving recreation, wildlife, and timber. Alternative C is also feasible for the purpose of helping meet several RLRMP objectives involving recreation, wildlife, and timber.

Heritage Resources Cultural resources are the non-renewable, physical remains of prehistoric and historical human activities. They are subject to damage or destruction from ground disturbing activities, including those associated with vegetation manipulation and road construction. Ground disturbance can damage or destroy the historical, cultural, and scientific integrity of historical or prehistoric cultural resources. Disturbance of historical sites, such as old cabins and associated structures, can reduce our understanding, reconstruction and interpretation of the recent history of settlement and land use in the local area. Disturbance or destruction of archaeological sites, such

155

as sites of American Indian and/or burial, can reduce or destroy the scientific significance and interpretive potential of these sites and the cultural and/or religious significance they hold for federally recognized Tribes; which designated tribes for the CNF include all the federally recognized Cherokee and Muscogee (Creek) Tribes, as these tribes are historically and archaeologically documented as having occupied the lands inclusive of the present CNF. The current direction on the CNF is to identify and protect cultural resources from adverse impacts that may occur as the result of land disturbing activities, and to inventory NFS lands in order to locate and evaluate all cultural resources pursuant to and in compliance with all Federal laws and regulations. Pursuant to and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Section 106 and 110 processes stipulated in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the documentation, evaluation, preservation, enhancement and interpretation of cultural resources is closely coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. (Council) and consulting parties, which include, where pertinent, all federally recognized Cherokee and Muscogee (Creek) Tribes. Accordingly, in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and Executive Order 11593, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Forest Service Manual 2360, a cultural resource inventory was performed to determine if potential t cultural resources would be affected by the proposed project. Existing Condition Heritage Resources

Archaeological Sites All of the timber stands in these compartments in which ground disturbing activities are proposed for the Conacat project have been previously surveyed for cultural resources (Cultural Resource Atlas, Tellico Ranger District and Heritage Resource Records, CNF). Previous cultural resource surveys of all proposed timber harvest stands did not result in the documentation of any cultural resource sites in the areas subject to the present project. Additionally, application of the 10-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to the entire project area illustrates all proposed timber stands exhibit 15% slope and therefore have a low probability for retaining cultural resources.

Historic Trails and Roads Both the Wildcat and Conasauga drainages contain the remains of important historic roads. For the Wildcat Creek drainage, this includes the historic Furnace Road, a road that served to access the early-mid 19th Century Carroll/Bradley Iron Furnace (1824-1864); the remains of which furnace are located on the Tellico River near the juncture of the Lyons Creek Road (aka Furnace Road/NFSR 76) with Highway 165. The Furnace Road (present NFSR 76) is located on the crest of the ridge that separates the Lyons Creek and Wildcat Creek drainages and extends east and north from its juncture with Highway 68 at Sandy Lane to its terminus at Highway 165 on the Tellico River. The Conasauga Creek drainage contains segments of the historic Unicoi Turnpike, 40Mr408, (also termed at different times throughout the 18th and 19th centuries the Unaka Trail, the Charleston Road, the Unaka Road, the Unicoi Road, and the Unaka Turnpike Road). This road was a route of national historic significance; being employed from prehistoric times throughout the early/mid-19th Century as the principal route or trail by which the southern Appalachian

156

Mountains were traversed, when traveling from the Southern Atlantic Coast to the interior Southeast. Consequently, this route was employed for the purposes of travel, earliest exploration by Euro-Americans, for trade with the Cherokee Indians since at least the 18th Century, as a road for commerce (commercial turnpike, including its principal use as a stock road from 1816 to 1860), for conflict (from the French and Indian War through the American Civil War), and, tragically, as a main artery for the Cherokee Removal of 1838, the “Trail of Tears” (Bass 2005, Riggs 2014). Given these varied uses, and the extended period of use, the path of the Unicoi Turnpike has changed over time. The portions of the Unicoi Turnpike located in the Conasauga Creek drainage in the Conacat analysis area include both a primary route of the Unicoi Turnpike, now principally supplanted by Highway 68 and the route that is now designated as the Witt Road (NFSR 341/Old Highway 68). The Witt Road today occupies essentially the former route/footprint of this segment of the Unicoi Turnpike and the original route has been extensively altered by subsequent road building with heavy equipment performed during the 20th Century. In 2005, in recognition of the significance of the Unicoi Turnpike and pursuant to and in compliance with Section 106 and 110 processes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the Forest Service, in coordination with the SHPO, developed and signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) for the restoration, maintenance and preservation of the preserved portion of the Unicoi Turnpike extending from Unicoi Gap to the vicinity of the Fort Armistead site and the use of this segment of this historic route as a hiking and biking trail. Subsequently, in 2007, the Forest Service acquired a portion of the Unicoi Turnpike that putatively contained the 1832-1838 Fort Armistead site (40Mr708). Although this acquisition was primarily for the protection and preservation of the Unicoi Turnpike (and then-undesignated portion of the Trail of Tears), the original roadbed of which is clearly visible still, this tract was also acquired to investigate and preserve the Fort Armistead site (40Mr708), a Federal military installation and Cherokee Removal (“Trail of Tears”) era fort, some remains of which it was hoped were still present. Archaeological investigations performed by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill under the direction of Dr. Brett Riggs and in partnership with the Forest Service from 2008 to 2012 have demonstrated that the Fort Armistead site is an almost a completely preserved archaeological site. Given its remarkable state of preservation and its significance for the history of this nation, the Fort Armistead site is now in the process of being nominated by the Forest Service, in conjunction with the National Park Service and in consultation with other consulting parties, as a National Historic Landmark. In 2009, Congress designated the addition of the route of the Trail of Tears extending from Charleston, Tennessee, to Hayesville, North Carolina, to the existing Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (NHT). However, the exact location of this portion of the Trail of Tears NHT in Tennessee, specifically, that portion extending from Fort Cass (Charleston, Tennessee) to Fort Armistead (Coker Creek, Tennessee) was not documented or designated at that time, but was to be defined by later research. Recently, the 80 miles of the Trail of Tears NHT extending from the Fort Cass/Cherokee Indian Agency (present-day Charleston, Tennessee) to Fort Armistead ( located at Coker Creek, Tennessee), has been confidently identified, through extensive exhaustive research by Dr. Brett Riggs of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. This portion of the Trail of Tears NHT

157

located on or adjacent to NFS lands in the Conacat analysis area is, essentially, the route of the present Highway 68 that extends north from the Fort Armistead site to Sandy Lane. From this point, the Trail of Tears NHT follows the route of the present-day Furnace Road (NFSR 76/Lyons Creek Road) to its juncture with Highway 165. From this point it proceeds a short distance west on Highway 165 to the site of the Carroll Iron Works, and from this point west through the present town of Tellico Plains, Tennessee, where it converges with the earlier Unicoi Turnpike route. Although continually modified through the 20th Century through a program of road grading with heavy equipment (particularly during the Great Depression under the auspices of the Works Project Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Furnace Road today follows, almost precisely, the footprint of the original route of the 1838 Furnace Road/Trail of Tears. This is because the location of this road on the crest of the narrow ridge and the steep slopes generally manifested on either side by the Lyons Creek and Wildcat Creek drainages restricts this road to little variation of route. However, preserved segments of original portions of the Furnace Road/Trail of Tears were recorded in the course of archaeological field survey for the Conacat project. These include segments of the original Furnace Road located on the ridge crest immediately west of and parallel to the present Furnace Road extending from Stand 66/5 south to, but not inclusive of, Stand 77/29. The Furnace Road segment of the Trail of Tears and the Witt Road segment of the Unicoi Turnpike are today still situated in a forest setting, albeit not the original forest ecosystem that generated prior to extensive Euro-American alteration.

Warrior’s Passage National Recreation Trail The 6.2 mile in length Warrior’s Passage National Recreation Trail, located in the Wildcat Creek drainage is not a historic trail or route associated prehistorically or historically with any use by any American Indian tribe nor any historical event or period. Rather, this trail was initially constructed by a troop of the Boy Scouts of America from Knoxville, Tennessee, in the 1960’s. It was later maintained and designated a National Recreation Trail (The Warrior’s Passage National Historic Trail) by the Forest Service in 1979. Therefore, any actions proposed for the present Conacat project that would affect the Warrior’s Passage National Recreation Trail would not affect an historic property and fall beyond the scope of the National Historic Preservation Act and the terms and conditions of the Section 106 process stipulated in this Act. Direct and Indirect Effects Heritage Resources

Alternative A This alternative would have no effect on cultural resources. There is limited potential for discovery of archaeological sites.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Implementation of these alternatives would not affect cultural resource sites in the areas of proposed ground disturbance. Implementation of these alternatives would have no adverse effect on the segments of the historic Unicoi Turnpike or the Furnace Road (Trail of Tears) located in the analysis area. The existing original segments of the Furnace Road/Trail of Tears documented

158

in the analysis area would not be adversely affected by ground disturbing activities proposed for the Conacat project. Cumulative Effects Heritage Resources

All Alternatives There are no known cumulative effects.

Recreation Scope of Analysis The analysis area is the Coker Creek Recreation Zone of the Cherokee National Forest. Existing Condition Recreation There are fifteen recreation zones delineated across the CNF. Each zone is defined by its unique waterways, land forms, travel routes, surrounding communities and land uses. The emphasis in the Coker Creek Recreation Zone is sightseeing and hiking. The Coker Creek Recreation Zone offers a backcountry setting with heritage resources located throughout the area. The Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail is located in this recreation zone and is approximately 8.1 miles. The Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail is a linear trail layout which consists of several point-to-point trails that intersect NFSR 76, NFSR 384, NFSR 126, NFSR 126A, and NFSR 126C. There are no developed trailheads at these intersections that allow for safe parking NFSRs. Trail users must park on the road to access the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail. No developed recreation sites are in the Coker Creek Zone but dispersed recreation opportunities such as camping, hunting, fishing, sightseeing, and bird viewing is available. Dispersed camping occurs in the vicinity of Conasauga Creek. Primary access to dispersed camping opportunities is by NFSR 341. Direct and Indirect Effects Recreation

Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, no proposed silvicultural treatments, wildlife habitat improvements, fuel reduction burns, stream improvements, transportation system improvement or recreation trails improvements would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Warriors Passage NRT – Trail users would continue to park on NFSR 76, NFSR 384, NFSR 126, NFSR 126A, and NFSR 126C to access the trail. Dispersed Recreation Opportunities – Opportunities for dispersed recreation would remain unchanged.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Proposed silvicultural treatments, wildlife habitat improvements, fuel reduction burns, stream improvements, transportation system improvement or recreation trails improvements would be implemented to accomplish project goals.

159

Warriors Passage NRT –The proposed trailhead would provide trail users with a safe area to park their vehicles to access the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail. The trailhead would be accessed directly off NFSR 76 so that visitors would not be required to park on the road. The new parking area would be designed to accommodate 3-4 cars. Approximately a 1/3 mile segment of Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail would be rerouted to provide access to the newly constructed trailhead parking area. After construction of the trail reroute, the abandoned section (0.2 mile) would be decommissioned and obliterated. Dispersed Recreation Opportunities – Access to dispersed recreation opportunities may be temporarily restricted as silvicultural treatments, wildlife habitat improvements, stream improvements, and fuel reduction burn projects are implemented. As a result, displacement of dispersed recreationists may occur and displacement would be temporary, not permanent. Cumulative Effects Recreation

Alternative A Use on the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail would likely remain at current levels. No other trail opportunities in the Coker Creek Recreation Zone are planned for development or improvement. Demand for dispersed recreation opportunities would continue to increase.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C Cumulative effects are similar to those described for Alternative A. The new trailhead parking area and trail reroute would improve the quality of the hiking experience.

Scenery The USDA Scenery Management System (USDA 1995a) is used to inventory, evaluate and disclose effects to the scenery resources in the CNF. During the planning process for the RLRMP, existing scenery resource inventories were updated. Forest landscapes were evaluated on scenic attractiveness, concern levels, and viewing distances from identified travelways and viewing platforms, i.e. roads, trails and recreation sites. Based on this information, the inventoried landscapes were spatially delineated and assigned a Scenic Class ranging from 1 to 5. The Conacat analysis area includes landscapes inventoried as Scenic Classes 1, 2, 3 and 5. In general, Scenic Classes 1 and 2 represent areas of the national forest that are naturally aesthetic and appealing for outdoor recreation. Scenic Class 5 represents areas of the national forest that are seldom viewed by visitors and of less concern in terms of scenic integrity. Each Scenic Class is assigned a Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) within the MPS of the RLRMP. The Conacat analysis area includes landscapes assigned SIOs of LOW, MODERATE and HIGH. As noted in the RLRMP, management activities are designed to meet SIOs which vary by inventoried Scenic Class. The effects to scenery resources are described in terms of being consistent or inconsistent with the SIOs as specified in the RLRMP. “Scenic Integrity” is measured by “the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be ‘complete.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal.” (USDA 1995, p. 2-1)

160

SIOs set the thresholds or limitations for creating alterations to the existing natural appearing landscapes. Alterations are typically a direct result of implementing actions such as silvicultural treatments, wildlife habitat improvements, road construction, prescribed fire, etc. Proposed actions would be considered consistent with SIOs if they could meet the following descriptions within one to five growing seasons after implementation: HIGH – Deviations created by humans (such as proposed silvicultural treatments, road construction, prescribed fire, etc.) may be present but repeat the form, line, color, texture and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident and the landscape appears unaltered. MODERATE - Noticeable deviations created by human alterations remain visually subordinate to the natural appearing landscape being viewed and create only a slightly altered appearance. LOW – Noticeable deviations created by human alterations begin to dominate the landscape being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and patterns of natural openings and vegetative type changes. Alterations create only a moderately altered appearance. (USDA 1995 p. 2-4) Scope of Analysis The scope of this analysis includes inventoried scenery resources that are visible within the foreground or middleground from noted travelways and viewing platforms. “Foreground” is defined as areas viewed within a ½-mile from a travelway or viewing platform. “Immediate foreground” references the first 300-feet within the foreground. “Middleground” includes the areas viewed ½-mile to 4-miles away from noted travelways. The affected travelways and viewing platforms include Highway 68 between Coker Creek and Tellico Plains, the Wildcat Road (NFSR 384), Old Furnace Road (NFSR 76 or Lyons Creek Road), Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail (FS Trail #164), and the road leading to Conasauga Falls trailhead and Conasauga Creek (NFSR 341) and Waucheesi Mountain. The resiliency of vegetation in the southern Appalachian Mountains has been taken into consideration when disclosing the temporal nature of effects to scenery resources and the consistency with assigned SIOs. For example, a silvicultural activity may result in the lopping and scattering of slash to a height of four feet or less from the ground if viewed within the immediate forground from a noted travelway. Due to rapid decomposition and growth of surrounding seedlings and saplings, the visual effect of scattered down woody debris at this height would noticeably diminish within the first year. The affected areas would most likely meet a MODERATE or higher SIO during the second or third growing season after implementation. Most alterations to forest vegetation would not be noticeable to the casual forest visitor 10 to 20 years after implementation. Smaller scale alterations would become less noticeable before alterations made at a larger scale, i.e. thinning trees versus clearing trees.

161

Above: Example of a created opening the in CNF that has become less noticeable over time and offers views to surrounding mountains.

Existing Condition Scenery The majority of the affected scenery resources in the Conacat analysis area have been allocated to the RLRMP Prescription 8.B – Early Successional Habitat Emphasis. These landscapes within the national forest emphasize providing early successional forest habitat conditions dispersed throughout a forested landscape. The desired landscape character includes visible openings within the forest canopy in a variety of sizes.

Above: Enclosed and open forest canopies viewed along Old Furnace road. Presently, openings within the forested canopy can be viewed from affected travelways within the Conacat analysis area. Travelways and viewing platforms include Wildcat Creek Road (NFSR 384), Old Furnace Road (NFSR 76 or Lyons Creek Road), Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail (FS Trail #164), the road leading to Conasauga Falls trailhead and Conasauga Creek (NFSR 341), Highway 68 between Coker Creek and Tellico Plains, TN, and Waucheesi Mountain. Two travelways through the Conacat analysis area include possible remnants of the historic Trail of Tears and Unicoi Turnpike. The general alignment of NFSR 76 through the analysis area (also known as Lyons Creek Road or the Old Furnace Road) has been recently documented as part of the historic Trail of Tears. NFRS 341, which follows the alignment of the historic Unicoi

162

Turnpike, is also thought to be an alternate route for the Trail of Tears. The Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail is located directly off the Old Furnace Road, and presently does not include sections of these historic routes. However, the footpath does offer a trail experience within the same landscape.

Above: Warriors Passage Trail sign and a typical remnant of a constructed route along the Old Furnace Road.

Direct and Indirect Effects Scenery

Alternative A The natural-appearing landscapes viewed within the Conacat analysis area would not change due to implementation of proposed management activities. However, scenery resources would continue to change overtime due to natural processes. Succession of vegetation would diminish the appearance of existing openings in the forest canopy unless actively managed to maintain their open conditions. Overtime, the existing openings would be enclosed with mature trees. Potential disturbances to vegetation caused by fire, insects, disease, and storms could alter the appearance of the affected scenery resources. Noticeable openings in the forest canopy could be created at scales that reflect the nature of any such events. Under Alternative A, inventoried scenery resources would remain natural appearing and consistent or exceed assigned SIOs.

Above: Created openings and open views along affected travelways would appear enclosed over time by the natural succession of vegetation, especially during leaf-on seasons.

163

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Silvicultural Treatments Highway 68 No proposed actions would be noticeable by casual forest visitors traveling Highway 68. Wildcat Creek Road (NFSR 384) The Wildcat Creek Road is accessed a short distance up the Tellico River Road (NFSR 210) at an intersection near the Tellico Ranger Station. This narrow, graveled road offers scenic views that are typically limited to the foreground and immediate foreground on the upslope side of the road. The recommended retention of vegetative buffers along the road would achieve the assigned SIOs. Forest visitors that view the areas affected by proposed silvicultural treatments could notice decreased canopy cover, cleared openings, and increased sunlight and landscape visibility. Immediately after timber harvest activities, viewers could notice logging debris, stumps, slash, damaged living vegetation and exposed soil due to skidding and landing logs. These direct effects would be buffered from view and diminish year after year, growing season after season, as new saplings emerge and leaf litter accumulates within the stands. Effects would not be noticeable to the casual forest visitor 15 to 20 years after implementation. Old Furnace Road (NFSR 76 or Lyons Creek Road) As described above for the Wildcat Creek Road, Forest visitors may notice a decreased canopy cover, cleared openings, and increased sunlight and landscape visibility in a few areas along the Old Furnace Road. Design features recommended to conserve potential remnants of the historic alignment of the Old Furnace Road (Trail of Tears) may increase the vegetative buffers between the existing road and openings created in the forest canopy. Immediately after timber harvest activities, viewers could notice logging debris, stumps, slash, damaged living vegetation and exposed soil due to skidding and landing logs. These direct effects would be buffered from view and diminish year after year, growing season after season, as new saplings emerge and leaf litter accumulates within the stands. Treatment of stands 66/16 and 78/22 would not include actions within the immediate foreground and should not be noticeable. The effects from the other four treated stands would not be noticeable to the casual forest visitor 15 to 20 years after implementation. Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail (FS Trail #164) The treatments near the proposed and existing FS Trail #164 would be noticeable to hikers due to the closer proximity and longer duration of view to treatment areas. The effects as described above for the Old Furnace Road would be similar to those encountered by hikers of FS Trail #164 near the Old Furnace Road. Design features would be applied to maintain and develop a suitable trail setting and a desirable trail experience. The existing vegetation along the trail would be improved overtime as a result of proposed treatments. Effects would be consistent with assigned SIOs and would not be noticeable to the casual forest visitor 15 to 20 years after implementation. The proposed new trailhead and trail alignment would improve the overall recreation setting and experience by creating a sense of arrival at the beginning of the trail.

164

Road to Conasauga Falls Trailhead & Conasauga Creek (NFSR 341) The scenery viewed along the road to Conasauga Falls Trailhead off Highway 68 is primarily dominated by regenerated pine stands mixed with areas of desirable hardwood forest. Design features would recommend that vegetative buffers be retained along the road to partially screen visual impacts created by the regeneration treatment in compartment/stand 110/10. However, created openings along the road would be acceptable during this transition or rehabilitation from pine to hardwood trees. The proposed thinning in compartment/stand 110/9 would retain an overall forested appearance. Visitors would have a longer duration and closer view to affected stands near the Conasauga Falls Trailhead. Design features would minimize the amount of visible slash and down woody debris visible with in the immediate foreground. But, visitors would still notice logging debris, stumps, slash, damaged living vegetation and exposed soil due to skidding and landing logs. In areas assigned a Low SIOs, alterations to the natural appearing landscapes from silvicultural treatments would be allowed to dominate the landscapes being viewed. Alterations would borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and patterns of natural openings and vegetative type changes. These contrasts would be expected to diminish after each growing season as the desired hardwood trees occupy the openings. Riparian buffers and design features recommended to conserve potential remnants of the historic alignment of the Unicoi Turnpike (Trail of Tears) may increase the vegetative buffers within the stands and along the road to Conasauga Creek. Proposed actions would be consistent with the assigned SIOs including a short-term goal of rehabilitation of pine stands to the hardwood forest landscape character. General Forest Areas Silvicultural treatments proposed in compartments/stands 103/5, 108/23, 108/26, 433/6, and 433/11would occur in areas seldom seen by casual forest visitors. These treatments and alterations to the landscape would go unnoticed by most forest visitors. Proposed actions would be consistent with achieving the assigned LOW SIOs. Mid-story Treatments The proposed silvicultural mid-story treatments would likely go unnoticed by the majority of national forest visitors along all of the affected travelways. These treatments would retain the appearance of a continuously forested landscape. The intent of the treatments would be consistent with enhancing scenery resources over time. Desirable trees would be cultivated to reach larger diameters by removing competing trees less than 7-inches in diameter. Design features would be employed to reduce potential visual impacts within the immediate foreground of affected travelways. Proposed actions would be consistent with assigned SIOs relative to the noted travelways and viewing platforms. Wildlife Habitat Improvements Similar to the proposed mid-story treatments, the proposed wildlife habitat improvements (WSI) would likely go unnoticed by the majority of national forest visitors. WSI treatments would retain the appearance of a continuously forested landscape. The purpose of the treatments would be consistent with enhancing scenery resources over time. Desirable trees would be cultivated to reach larger diameters by removing competing trees less than 9-inches in diameter. Design

165

features would be employed to reduce potential visual impacts within the immediate foreground of affected travelways. Proposed actions would be consistent with assigned SIOs. Other proposed wildlife habitat improvements would be consistent with SIOs. The maintenance of spot and linear wildlife openings would appear more natural due to the proposed feathering of edges. Cane restoration and plantings would also be consistent with a natural appearing landscape. Nest box installation would introduce a constructed element within the natural setting, but would benefit wildlife viewing opportunities. These structures would remain subordinate to the surrounding landscape. The proposed creation of ephemeral pools would not likely be visible to visitors since the majority of log landings and temporary roads would be screened or out of view from visitors. As noted in the Design Features, log landings located along noted travelways may or may not be suitable for constructing wildlife ponds. The rehabilitation of these log landings may need to appear more natural or serve as a roadside pull-out. High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain – 27 acres The creation of high elevation early successional habitat would increase the bald-like appearance atop Waucheesi Mountain. Visitors to this backcountry bald would notice some additional cleared areas, but the majority of the clearing would be downslope and difficult to perceive the increased size of the opening, especially since large over story trees would be retained. To the extent possible, vegetation would be retained to screen the existing communications building, fence and towers from plain view. This includes views from atop Waucheesi Mountain and distant views of the mountain from as far away as the Cherohala Skyway. Slash visible within the immediate foreground of the mountaintop would be lopped and scattered to reduce negative visual impacts. Proposed actions would be consistent with the desired open landscape and assigned SIO. Stream Improvements The use of native materials to improve stream crossings on Conasauga Creek would be consistent with assigned SIOs. The appearance of the stream crossings would improve over time as vegetation reclaims areas disturbed during construction and previously impacted by vehicle access. Fire Management Prescribed burns would occur throughout the Conacat analysis area at various times. Visitors to affected areas might notice linear fire lines, scorched earth, dead or dying vegetation, or blackened vegetation in the burned area. Prescribed fires implemented during the growing season would create the most noticeable impacts due to the color contrast between green and scorched vegetation. The effects of the prescribed burning would be temporary and diminish after the following spring re-growth. Longer lasting effects may include blackened trunks of trees and standing dead vegetation. Noticeable changes in forest texture and color due to the open character of the stand and the exposed soil from fire line construction would be evident, particularly if viewed during the leaf- on seasons. The proposed actions including the implementation of scenery design features would be consistent with achieving assigned SIOs. The affected areas would look natural appearing to the casual forest visitor after one to five growing seasons and most likely go unnoticed after 10 years. 166

Transportation Improvements Proposed road construction for temporary or permanent motorized access would be most noticeable immediately after construction. Required clearing would open views to the necessary ground disturbances. Roads would be oriented to minimize visual impacts and the duration of view. These impacts including color contrasts would diminish each season as leaf litter accumulates and ground vegetation grows. Impacts would be less noticeable after 3 to 5 years. Road maintenance and other transportation system related actions such as gate installation would perpetuate the appearance of existing roadways. The proposed actions including the implementation of recommended design features would be consistent with achieving assigned SIOs. This includes additional features designed to protect the appearance of potential remnants of the Old Furnace Road and Unicoi Turnpike.

Above: Present impacts of transportation improvements to access treatment area off Old Furnace Road. Above Right: Remaining impacts from previous transportation improvements that may have served as part of the Trail of Tears.

Alternative C The effects analysis for Alternative C is the same as disclosed for Alternative B with only a few notable exceptions. Silvicultural Treatments Stand 65/15 located within the foreground of Wildcat Creek Road would receive a mid-story treatment instead of the regeneration treatment proposed in Alternative B. The mid-story treatment would likely go unnoticed by the majority of visitors traveling the Wildcat Creek Road. This treatment would retain the appearance of a continuously forested landscape, whereas the regeneration harvest proposed in Alternative B would not. Design features would be employed to reduce potential visual impacts within the immediate foreground such as large quantities of slash. Proposed actions would be consistent with assigned SIOs. Stand 78/22 would not be treated in Alternative C. It is located near the Old Furnace Road, but not within its immediate foreground. Stand 110/9 near the Conasauga Falls Trailhead would not be treated in Alternative C and would appear the same. This stand is proposed to be thinned in Alternative B adjacent to a proposed clear cut treatment.

167

Cumulative Effects Scenery

All Alternatives The affected scenery resources in the Conacat analysis area have been allocated to the RLRMP Prescription 8.B – Early Successional Habitat Emphasis. These landscapes within the national forest emphasize providing early successional forest habitat conditions dispersed throughout a forested landscape. The desired landscape character includes visible openings in the forest canopy in a variety of sizes. Previous stands that have been treated along the Wildcat Creek Road, Old Furnace Road and the road to Conasauga Falls Trailhead & Conasauga Creek (NFSR 341) within the 8.B prescription would remain evident to visitors in various stages of natural succession. Past alterations would diminish as natural succession continues to enclose the openings with mature trees. With the proposed actions in Alternatives B and C, visitors would expect to see a wide range of areas in different stages of succession. In areas assigned a Low SIOs, alterations to the natural appearing landscapes from silvicultural treatments would be allowed to dominate the landscapes being viewed. However, alterations would borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and patterns of natural openings and vegetative type changes. Forest visitors could notice a decreased canopy cover, cleared openings, and increased sunlight and landscape visibility. These direct effects would diminish year after year, growing season after season, as new saplings emerge and leaf litter accumulates within the stands. Design features would be implemented to achieve assigned MODERATE and HIGH SIOs as needed. In addition to management activities and natural succession, scenery resources would continue to change overtime due to potential natural disturbances caused by fire, insects, disease, and storms. These impacts would affect the appearance of landscapes within the analysis area at various scales. Presently, the most noticeable impact from natural disturbances would be the loss of hemlock trees within the Conacat analysis area due to the HWA. The appearance of dead, dying and fallen hemlock trees would continue to lower the scenic integrity of affected areas, especially within riparian areas. However, these impacts are considered part of the natural landscape and consistent with SIOs. Other noticeable impacts include openings and standing dead and fallen trees due to previous wildfires. These effects reflect natural patterns within the landscape and diminish with each growing season. Considering the naturally occurring disturbance events and past, present and planned management activities, the scenery resources would remain consistent with assigned SIOs.

Travel Management All National Forests have received the following direction from the Washington Office concerning the implementation of the Travel Analysis Process (TAP), and the CNF is complying with this direction. The Agency expects to maintain an appropriately sized and environmentally sustainable road system that is responsive to ecological, economic, and social concerns. The national forest road system of the future must continue to provide needed access for recreation and resource

168

management, as well as support watershed restoration and resource protection to sustain healthy ecosystems. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) require the Forest Service to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. Travel analysis requires a process that is dynamic, interdisciplinary, and integrated with all resource areas. The travel analysis process is a science-based process that will inform future travel management decisions. Travel analysis serves as the basis for developing proposed actions, but does not result in decisions. Therefore, travel analysis does not trigger the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The completion of the TAP is an important first step towards the development of the future minimum road system (MRS). The next step in identification of the MRS is to use the travel analysis report to develop proposed actions to identify the MRS. Proposed actions and alternatives are subject to environmental analysis under NEPA. Travel analysis should be used to inform the environmental analysis. A forest must complete the necessary analysis, produce a report summarizing this analysis (TAR) a list of roads likely not needed for future use, and synthesize these results in a map that displays roads that are likely needed and likely not needed in the future. Approximately nine years ago, the CNFstarted implementation of the RLRMP by conducting ecosystem assessments on a watershed scale with the goal of assessing the entire Forest by 2016. The Road Analysis Process (RAP), later changed to the TAP, was included as part of these assessments. To conduct the TAP for the Forest’s transportation system, dividing the Forest into watersheds seemed logical given that such a large area needed to be analyzed. This is consistent with what other Forests have done. Some have divided their Forests into watersheds or other “geographical areas” and some have analyzed their road system quad map by quad map. The point being that to analyze such a large area, the area needs to be divided into smaller, more manageable areas. How a Forest is divided into these areas as the method to conduct the TAP is a matter of professional judgment. For the CNF, dividing the Forest by watersheds seemed appropriate. Late in 2010, all Forests were instructed to implement the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF). The CNF has completed the following steps of the WCF process: Classify the condition of all its 6th order hydrologic unit classification watersheds using existing data layers, local knowledge, and professional judgment. Prioritize watersheds for restoration based on ecological, economic, social considerations, partnership opportunities, and potential benefits. Develop watershed action plans for the priority watersheds that identify the suite of essential projects needed to change the condition class of the watershed and estimate their costs. The next step in the WCF process is to implement watershed action plans. The Forest’s decision, before 2010, to analyze the transportation system watershed by watershed provided a strong and logical connection between the TAP and the WCF. Also, Forest Service publication Watershed Condition Framework, FS-977 (May 2011) states that “Watersheds are universal, well-defined areas that provide a common basis for discussion of

169

waterrelated resources and landscapes.” This would seem to validate the Forest’s decision to conduct the Forest TAP by analyzing the transportation system in a watershed by watershed method as a logical approach. Once the road system for an entire Forest has been analyzed (watershed by watershed, or geographic area by geographic area, or quad by quad, etc.), a summary report is written. That’s what will be done for the CNF in the near future (prior to the end of FY15). As stated above, “Travel analysis requires a process that is dynamic,….”, so completion of the Forest-wide TAP in 2015 does not mean that the TAP is finished. Changes in ecological, economic, and social concerns, or regulations, which occur during the current TAP and before any environmental analysis is completed, could necessitate an additional TAP, perhaps on smaller scale. Regarding public input, during the ecosystem assessment process comments are requested from several user groups and the information provided (if any) is used during interdisciplinary discussions. The “final”TAPs from each watershed are then used to inform a proposed action that is analyzed in an environmental analysis to inform a decision. During the public involvement phase of the site specific analyses the TAPs are made available to the public. Once the Forest-wide draft TAP summary report is written, the Forest anticipates having a meeting with the public. This will likely take place in early 2015. In regard to specific concerns about maintenance costs, the costs in the TAP report are averages for each of the various maintenance levels. The interdisciplinary team considers the ecological impacts of the needed maintenance. For the vast majority of the maintenance level 1 and 2 roads and some of the other roads, the maintenance needs are types of work that if not performed, there will not be any ecological damage. This work includes repairing or replacing gates, roadside brushing, removal of fallen trees, removal of minor sloughing of cut slopes, minor surface blading, & aggregate replacement. The team thoroughly considers the impact of the maintenance needs for all roads, or segments of roads, where there could be ecological damage. Segments of roads within 100’ of a stream are specifically identified. The analysis gives these areas the highest priority for maintenance funds and/or potential changes to how the roads are managed. There are other funding sources available to offset the decline in the road maintenance budget, and these funds are often used to perform deferred maintenance. These funding sources include, but are not limited to: • Programs funded by through the Federal Highway Administration: • Aquatic organism passage program • Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) • Legacy Roads & Trails program • Process improvement program • Prehaul maintenance work included in timber sale contracts

170

Over the past few years, the funding for road maintenance has decreased, but recently, there has been a slight increase. Due to social concerns about the transportation infrastructure, there could be a continued increase in road maintenance funds. Once the decision to remove a road from the system is made, the necessary funds are needed to implement that decision. If road maintenance funds are used to decommission a road, those funds would not be available to perform routine maintenance on the roads that remain on the system. Professional judgment is used set priorities for those funds as well as seeking other funding for the decommissioning. The process is science based. This includes the specialists making professional judgments and predictions on funding sources, funding amounts, and likely resource management activities. As previously stated the road system is analyzed considering ecological, economic, and social concerns. These concerns are given equal consideration (one concern is not more important than the others) in the analysis process, so economic concerns are considered, but they are not more important than the ecological and social concerns.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) The Proposed Action and alternatives would be compliant with Executive Order 12898 (1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Low-Income Populations. Though low-income and minority populations exist in the analysis area, it is difficult to assess the degree of impact each alternative presents to these groups due to other variables. The best information suggests that the alternatives are not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority and low-income groups, especially when compared to other groups. The activities were proposed for their ecological or recreational importance and not based on proximity to low-income and minority populations.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Robert Lewis/Eric Taylor, Silviculturists Doug Byerly, Landscape Architect Mary Miller/Laura Morris, Wildlife Biologists Janan Hay, Planning Team Leader Mark Pistrang, Botanist/Ecologist Jim Herrig, Aquatic Biologist Gary Hubbard, Engineer Quentin Bass/Chris Bassett, Archeologists

171

Trent Girard/Steve Carlson, Fire Management Officers Leslie Morgan/Brandon Burke/Matt Henry, Natural Resources Team Leader Allison Reddington, Forest Hydrologist FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: McCoy, Roger, Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Tennessee Historical Commission Urban, Richard, Division of Water Pollution Control Monroe County Mayor Whitehead, David, TWRA TRIBES: Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Muscogee (Creek) Nation Kialegge Tribal Town Poarch Band of Creek Indians Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Thlopthlocco Tribal Town OTHERS: Austin, Shari C/O Shari Edwards Hall, Wade & Frances Benton MacKaye Trail Association Hamilton, Larry & Kenneth Buff, Johnnie Lee, Jr. Harold, Kenneth & Linda Fay Cain Burn, Betty Blair C/O Sandra Boyd Hatley, Mona B Callaway, Mike Henderson Family Trust, C/O Henderson Susan Campbell, Sheryl - Sierra Club Hitson, Marvin C/O James Hitson Carper, Laura Reed C/O David Reed Hodge, Bill - The Wilderness Society (TWS) Carter, Daniel & Marilyn Holder, Braudis Carton, Anne Godsey Horton, Jim Champion, Joan Reed Hunt, Nellie Ruth & Dora Ann Debety Chapman, Charles Irwin, Hugh - TWS Chin, Lee Yan Ives, Ken - Ruffed Grouse Society Coleman, Beecher & Helen Johnson, Kirk Dalton, Douglas Johnston, Vicki Dalton, Douglas R Jones, Ken Dalton, Jerry M Kelly, Josh - Western North Carolina Alliance Dalton, Matthew Kilby, Jerald J & Margaret Davis, Winston H Killian, Sheila C/O Billy R Hamby Dunn, Larry Lupardus, Jason - National Wild Turkey Federation Emmick, Jeffery & Tasha Medlock, Katherine - The Nature Conservancy Evans, Sam - Southern Environmental Law Center Mitchell, JoAnn & Bobby -Southern Appalachian (SELC) Backcountry Horsemen Falls, Claude Moore, Katherine Fantozzi, Virginia Jackson Mounger, Davis - Heartwood Fine, Charles H, Jr. Murray, Catherine - CFV Francisco, Sarah - SELC Norwood, Alan Frerichs, Terry Ploetz, Bob Goddard, Frances T Prater, Ben - Wild South Guthie, Julie - Cherokee Forest Voices (CFV) Reid, Tazz Hall Family LMT Partnership Shadden, George

172

Skelton, William- Sierra Club & Tennessee Wild Watson, Bruce A & Carol J Iddins Smith, Clyde Webb, Jim Smith, Frank C, III C/O Kathy Cooper West, Anthony Smith, Timothy & Donna West, Mary Heather Strange, Clark D Jr. & Pamela H White, Yvonne Switzer, Harry Wilson, Arlie Joe, Jr. Tellico Telephone CO Witt, Albert R C/O Mitchell Witt Trotter Ray & Leona Zeringue, John & Rachel

LITERATURE CITED Cherokee National Forest. 2010. Conasuaga and Wildcat Creeks Ecosystem Assessment. Tellico Plains, TN. 132 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 463 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 535 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Appendices for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 380 pp.

USDI National Park Service. 2003. Fire Monitoring Handbook. Fire Management Program Center, National Interagency Fire Center. Boise, ID, 274p.)

Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”. 59 Federal Register 32. 11 February 1994

Wildlife

3-D International, Inc. 1998. Survey for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the Nolichucky, Unaka, and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

Alba, S. and L.E DeWald. 2014. Multi-Severity Fire Effects and Predicting Burn Severity in Xeric Oak-Pine Communities in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (not published). Presented at the 2014 Great Smoky Mountain National Park Science Colloquium (March 20, 2014).

3-D International, Inc. 1998. Survey for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the Nolichucky, Unaka, and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Caldwell, Ronald S. and Daniel Dourson. 2008. Rare Land Snails of the Cherokee National Forest. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1 of Cumberland, Mountain Research Center, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN.

173

Cochran, S. M., G. W. Libby, H. D. Bryan, and J. E. Spencer. 1999. A survey for the Federally Endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest Tennessee.

Cochran, S. M., G. W. Libby, H. D. Bryan, Macgregor, J. R., and J. E. Spencer. 2000. A survey for the Federally Endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky-Unaka and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest Tennessee.

Copperhead Consulting. 2009. Terrestrial Snail, Botanical, and Indiana Bat Surveys of the Middle Upper Tellico Project Area, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG- 4756-C-09-0008 Order Number: AG-4756-D-09-0031.

Copperhead Consulting. 2010. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys of the Conasauga Wildcat Project Area, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-10-0009Order Number: AG-4756-D-10-0032.

Copperhead Consulting. 2013. Terrestrial Snail, and Botanical Surveys for the South Zone Cherokee Prescribed Fire Dozer Lines, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-13-0014 Order Number: AG-4756-D-13-0029.

Dickinson, M. B, M.J. Lacki, and D.R. Cox. 2009. Fire and the Endangered Indiana Bat. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-46.

Dickinson, M. 2010. Burning and Bats: Fire’s Effect on the Endangered Indiana Bat. Fire Science Brief, Issue 109. Available: www.firescience.gov.

Douglas, Daniel, D. Dourson, and C. Leftwich. 2011. Terrestrial Gastropod Survey of the US64-Corridor K Project, Ocoee River Gorge Section, Polk County, Tennessee. Prepared by Copperhead Environmental Consulting (Paint Lick, KY); submitted 21 December 2011 to TDOT, Nashville, TN.

Dourson, D. C. 2010. Kentucky Land Snails and Their Ecological Communities. Goatslug Publications, Bakersville, NC.

Dourson, D. C. 2013. Land Snails of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Southern Appalachians. Goatslug Publications, Bakersville, NC.

Falcon Engineering, Inc. 2011. Biological Surveys, Cherokee National Forest: Bulldozer Lines and Conasauga/Wildcat. Contract AG-4756-C-11-0007. Task Order AG-4756-D-11-0022.

Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The East. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Eastern North America.

Harvey, M.J., C.S. Chaney, and M.D. McGimsey. 1991. Distribution, status, and ecology of small mammals of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee (Southern Districts). Report to the U.S. Forest Service Cherokee National Forest. Tenn. Tech. Univ. 65 pp.

174

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 2011. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Johnson, J.B., J.W. Edwards, W.M. Ford, and J.E. Gates. 2009. Roost selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian Mountains hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 258 (2009) 233-242.

Johnson, J.B., W.M. Ford, J.L. Rodrigue, J.W. Edwards, C.M. Johnson. 2010. Roost Selection by Male Indiana Myotis Following Forest Fires in Central Appalachian Hardwood Forests. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 042010-JFWM-007R1.

Keith, R. 2012. Personal communication regarding 2012 South Zone Cherokee National Forest bird point counts.

Kiser, J.D. and R.R. Kiser. 1999. A survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Hiwassee, Nolichucky, Tellico, and Watauga Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Eco-Tech, Inc.

Lacki, M.J, D.R. Cox, L.E. Dodd, and M.B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of Northern Bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to Prescribed Fires in Eastern Kentucky Forests. Journal of Mammology, 90(5):1166-1175.

La Sorte, F.A, F.R. Thompson, M.K. Trani, T.J. Mersmann. 2007. Population Trends and Habitat Occurrence of Forest Birds on Southern National Forests, 1992-2004. USDA Forest Service, Newton Square, PA. pp. 39, 47, 93, 106, 110, 126, 138, 150.

Leftwich, C, D. Dourson, and P. Roby. 2008. Terrestrial land snail and Indiana bat surveys of Hurricane Branch, Middle Citico, and Spring Creek, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Libby, G. W., J. E. Spencer, H. D. Bryan, P. L. Droppelman. 2004. 2003 survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and other rare bat species on the Nolichucky/Unaka, Ocoee-Hiwassee, Tellico, and Watauga Ranger Districts Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Eco-tech, Inc.

Libby, G. W., J. E. Spencer, H. D. Bryan, P. L. Droppelman, W. K. Campbell. 2005. 2004 surveys for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky-Unaka and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest. Eco-tech, Inc.

Keith, R. 2012. Personal communication regarding 2012 South Zone Cherokee National Forest bird point counts.

Miller, Mary. 2013. Tennessee Bat Working Group Meeting Notes, November 21, 2013.

Morris, L.E. 2012. Bird observations at Pace Gap.

Morris, L.E. 2013. Bird observations at Waucheesi Mountain.

175

Natureserve: An online encyclopeida of life [web application]. 2014. http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Association for Biodiversity Information.

O’Keefe, J. 2011-2012. Indiana Bat Research. Indiana State University.

O’Keefe, J. 2011. Personal communication on Indiana bats and the use of ephemeral roost trees.

O’Keefe, J. 2012. Personal communication on new Indiana bat maternity colonies on the Cherokee National Forest.

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, J.T. Edwards and P.B. Wood. 2003. Home-range Size and Habitat used by the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist, 150(2):352-359.

Perry, R and R.Thill. 2005. Small Mammal Responses to Pine Regeneration Treatments in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA. Forest and Ecology Management. 219 (2005) 81-94.

Perry, R. 2012. A Review of Fire Effects on Bats and Bat Habitat in the Eastern Oak Region. Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-102.

Shaw, Joey and L. Dwayne Estes. 2011. Botanical Survey of the Ocoee River Gorge, Polk County, TN. Report prepared for TDOT for the Corridor K EIS; submitted 13 December 2011 to TDOT, Nashville, TN.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2012. Version 02.19.2014. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Sewell, P, M Gumbert, P. Roby, and D. Foster. 2007. Mist net bat survey and rare species telemetry for the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee, 2006.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2014. Eastern Woodrat. Available: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/easternwoodrat.pdf

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Imazypyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

176

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Triclopyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Taylor, D. 2006. Forest Management and Bats. Bat Conservation International.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2014. Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Program Records.

TN.GOV. 2012. 2012 Black Bear Harvest Establishes Record. Available: https://news.tn.gov/node/10200

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. R.E.D. FACTS-Glyphosate. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. R.E.D. FACTS-Triclopyr. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/2710fact.pdfEP.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. R.E.D. Imazypyr. Available: www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/imazapyr_red.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Eastern Small-footed Bat and the Northern Long- eared Bat as Endangered or Threatened Species; Listing the Northern Long-Eared Bat as an Endangered Species. Federal Register 78: 61046- 61080.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance. Available: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html

Aquatic

Herrig, Jim. 2004. A model for assessing the integrity of fish communities in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Falls Creek Falls State Park, Tn. March 2-3, 2004.

Herrig, Jim. 2014. Aquatic Analysis for the Conacat Environmental Analysis. Cherokee National Forest. Cleveland, TN. 10 pp.

Reddington, A. 2014. Conacat Project, Soil and Water Resources Report. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. pp 50.

177

Swift, L.W. 1985. Forest Road Design to Minimize Erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In: Proceeding of Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-south Symposium. Little Rock, Arkansas. May 8-9, 1985. pp. 140-151.

Botanical

Call, G. 2012. Personal communication.

Carey, Jennifer H. 1994. Thermopsis mollis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Center for Plant Conservation, Species Profile. 2010. Buckleya distichophylla. Online data hosted by the Missouri Botanical Garden.

Coladonato, M. 1993. Tsuga caroliniana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Cherokee National Forest. 2008. Environmental Assessment Non-Native Invasive Plant Control. Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2010a. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys of the Conasauga Wildcat Project Area, Cherokee National Forest, Monroe and Polk Counties, TN. Contract AG-4756-C-10-0009. Work Order AG-4756-D-10-0032.

Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2010b. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys of Conasauga Wildcat, Middle Upper Tellico, and Towee Falls Baptist Church Project Areas, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee, 2010. Contract AG-4756-C-10-0009. Work Order AG- 4756-D-10-0065.

Crum, H.A. and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America, Vols I & II. Columbia University Press. New York, NY.

Dahl , T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States1780's to 1980’s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Washingto n. D.C. 13pp.

Darke, R. 2008. Fothergilla in Cultivation. The Plantsman. Online at: http://www.rickdarke.com/Fothergilla.pdf

Davis, E.C., McRae, B., Estep, B., Barden. L., and J. Mathews. 2002. Vascular Flora of Piedmont Prairies: Evidence From Several Prairie Remnants. Castanea 67(1):1-12.

Davis, M.A., Villiniski, J., McAndrew, S., Scholtz, H., and E. Young. 1991. Survivorship of Penstemon grandiflorus in an Oak Woodland: Combined Effects of Fire and Pocket Gophers. Oecologia 86:113-118.

178

Davison, Paul. 2012. Personal communication.

Echols, L.S. and W.B. Zomlefer. 2010. Vascular Plant Flora of the Remnant Blackland Prairies in Oaky Woods Wildlife Management Area, Houston County, GA. Castanea 75(1):78-100.

Ernst, J.P. and V. Brown. 1988. Conserving Endangered Species on Southern Forested Wetlands. Pages 135-145 in D. Hook and R. Lea, eds. Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-50. Asheville, NC. 168pp.

Falcon Engineering, Inc. 2011. Biological Surveys. Cherokee National Forest. Conasauga/Wildcat Botanical & Terrestrial Mollusks. Contract AG-4756-C-11-0007. Task Order AG-4756-D-11-0022.

Gray, J.L. 2006. Habitat Characterization and Inventory of Collinsonia verticillata in Shawnee State Forest and State Park, Scioto County Ohio. A thesis submitted to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University.

Heikens, A.L. 2003. Conservation Assessment for Fraser’s Loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri Duby) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. Franklin College, Indiana.

Hessl, A. and S. Spackman. 1995. Effects of Fire on Threatened and Endangered Plants: An Annotated Bibliography. Information and Technology Report 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service. Washington D.C.

Hicks, M.L. 1992. Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press. Durham, NC.

Hill, S.R. 2003. Conservation Assessment for American Barberry (Berberis canadensis). Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 2003(9). Illinois Natural History Survey, Champagne, Illinois.

Knopf, F.L., Johnson, R.R., Rich, T., Samson, F.B, and R.C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of Riparian Ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 100(2):272-284.

Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular Plants of the South. 2 Volumes. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

Lay, D.W. 1967. Browse Palatability and the Effects of Prescribed Burning in Southern Pine Forests. Journal of Forestry 65(11):826-828.

Munger, Gregory T. 2005. Lygodium spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

179

NatureServe. 2002. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrail Vegegtation of the United States, Cherokee National Forest Final Report. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Region 8 Fisheries, Wildlife, Range, Botany, and Ecology. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Newell, C.L. and R.K. Peet. 1998. Vegetation of Linville Gorge Wilderness, North Carolina. Castanea 63(3):275-322.

North Carolina Heritage & USFWS. 1997. “Bryophyte Status Survey Abstracts.” Compiled by J.L. Amoroso.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.

Noss, Reed F., Edward Terhune LaRoe, and J. Michael Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Vol. 28. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service.

Owen, W. 2004. The Effects of Fire on Rare Plants. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service. Washington D.C.

Owen, W. 2005. Personal Communication, phone conversation regarding Isotria and fire.

Pistrang, M.J. 2013. An Analysis of the Effects of Prescribed Fire During Dormant and Growing Seasons on Plant Species of Viability Concern Within Selected Habitats on the Cherokee National Forest. Unpublished White Paper, Cherokee National Forest Supervisors Office, Cleveland, TN.

Pistrang, M.J. Miscellaneous botanical surveys included in the Conacat project record.

SAMAB. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. Available online at: http://www.samab.org/site/publications/

Sullivan, Janet. 1993. Diervilla lonicera. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

180

Tennessee Department of Agriculture. 1994. Guide to Rare Plants: Tennessee Division of Forestry Districts 1, 2, & 3. 3 Volumes. TN Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. Nashville, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region: Report of the Region 8 Old-Growth Team. Forestry Report R8-FR 62.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. “Stemming the Invasive Tide: Forest Service Strategy for Noxious and Nonnative Invasive Plant Management.”

USDA Forest Service. 2004d. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. FS-805.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. The Southern Forest Futures Project. General Technical Report SRS-178. Asheville, NC. Chapter 15 pages 397-456.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan: First Revision. New England Field Office, Concord, NH.

VonOettingen, S. 2012. Personal communication.

Waldrop, T.A.; Brose, P.H.; and N.T. Welch. 2007. Fire and the Ecology of Table Mountain Pine. Chapter for internet-based fire encyclopedia. http://fire.forestencyclopedia.net/

Weakley, A.S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Working Draft of 28 September, 2012. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Welch, N.T. and T.A. Waldrop. 2001. Restoring Table Mountain Pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.) Communities with Prescribed Fire: An Overview of Current Research. Castanea 66(1-2):42-49.

Vegetation

Lafon, Charles W., Grissino-Mayer, Henri D., Horn, Sally P., Klein, Jr., Robert N. 2005. Fire Regimes of the Southern Appalachian Mountains: Temporal and Spatial Variability over Multiple Scales and Implications for Ecosystem Management, Final Report to Joint Fire Science Program, Project Number 06-3-1-05.

Stanturf, John A., Wade, Dale D., Waldrop, Thomas A., Kennant, Deborah K., Achtemeter, Gary L. 2002. Chapter 25: Background Paper: Fire in Southern Forest Landscapes. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Pages 607-631.

SAMAB. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Chapter 6. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. 103-122.

181

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Restoration of Pine Oak Communities, Tellico Ranger District, Tellico Plains, TN.

Pearson, S.M. Xeric Oak-Pine. http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p1591/view.

Brose, Patrick H.; Schuler, Thomas M.; Ward, Jeffrey S. 2005. Responses of Oak and Other Hardwood Regeneration to Prescribed Fire: What We Know As Of 2005. Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a Conference Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 123-135.

Shelton, Michael G.; Cain, Michael D. 1999. Regenerating uneven-aged stands of loblolly and shortleaf pines: the current state of knowledge. Forest Ecology and Management 129: 177-193.

Arthur, Mary A.; Alexander, Heather D.; Dey, Daniel C.; Schweitzer, Callie J.; Loftis, David L. 2012. Refining the Oak-Fire Hypothesis for Management of Oak-Dominated Forests of the Eastern United States. Journal of Forestry. 257-266.

Brose, Patrick. 2004. Fitting Fire into Oak Management, p. 263 in Spetich, Martin A., editors. 2004. Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 311pp.

McGee, C.E. 1978. Size and Age of Tree Affect White Oak Stump Sprouting. Research Note, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

Schweitzer, Callie Jo. 2010. Hickory Regeneration Under Five Silvicultural Prescriptions In An Oak-Hickory Forest In Northern Alabama. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 465-470.

Sands, Benjamin A.; Abrams, Marc D.; 2009. Effects of Stump Diameter on Sprout Number and Size for Three Oak Species in a Pennsylvania Clearcut. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 122-125. Waldrop, Thomas A.; Brose, Patrick H.; Welch, Nicole Turrill. 2007. Fire and the Ecology of Table Mountain Pine. Chapter for internet-based fire encyclopedia. http://fire.forestencyclopedia.net

Recreation/Scenery

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, December 1995, Page 2-4

182

Climate Change

Beebee, T.J.C. 1995. Amphibians breeding and climate. Nature 374:219-220.

Berteaux, D. And N.C. Stenseth. 2006. Measuring understanding and projecting the effects of large-scale climatic variability on mammals. Climate Research 32:95-97.

Birdsey , R.; Pregitzer, K.; Lucier, A. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-2100. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 1461-1469.

Birdsey, R.; Jenkins, J.; Johnston, M.; Huber-Sannwald, E.; 2007. North American Forests. In King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, d.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J.; eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle, a report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC; National Climatic Data Center: 117-126.

Carey, C. and M.A. Alexander. 2003. Climate change and amphibian declines: Is there a link? Diversity and Distribution 9:111-121.

Canadell, J.G., D.E. Pataki, R. Gifford, R.A. Houghton, Y. Luo, M.R. Raupach, P. Smith, W. Steffen. 2007. Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink. In Candadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L (eds) Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World. The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 59-78.

Crawford, J. A. and R.D. Semlitsch. 2007. Estimation of core terrestrial habitat for stream- breeding salamanders in southern Appalachian forests. Animal Conservation doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00191.x

Dale, Virginia H.; Joyce, Linda A.; McNulty, Steve; Neilson, Ronald P; Ayres, Matthew P.; Flannigan, Micahel; Hanson, Paul J; Irland, Lloyd C.; Lugo, Aniel E; Peterson, Chris J.; Simberloff, Daniel; Swanson, Fredrick J.; Stocks, Brian J.; Wooton, B. Michael. 2001. Climate Change and Forest Disturbances. Bioscience 51(9):723-734.

Finzi, A.C., D.J.P. Moore, E.H. DeLucia. 2006. Progressive nitrogen limitation of ecosystem processes under elevated CO2 in a warm-temperate forest. Ecology 87:15-25.

Garten, C.T., C.M. Iversen, R.J. Norby. 2011. Litterfall N abundance indicate declining soil nitrogen availability in a free-air CO2 enrichment experiment. Ecology 92:133-139.

Gibbs, J.P. and A.R. Breisch. 2001. Climate warming and calling phenology of frogs near Ithaca, New York, 1990-1999. Conservation Biology 15:1175-1178.

Graham, R.W and E.C. Grimm. 1990. Effects of global climate change on the patterns of terrestrial biological communities. Tree 5:289-292.

183

Glick, P.; B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson (eds). 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C.

Greenberg, C.H., R.W. Perry, K.E. Franzreb, S.C. Loeb, D. Saenze, D.C. Rudolph, E. Winters, E.M. Fucik, M.A. Kwiatkowski, B.R. Panesol, J.D. Austin, and G.W. Tanner. 2014. Climate Change and Wildlife in the Southern United States Potential Effects and Management Options. In Vose, James M. and Kier D. Klepzig (eds) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Management Options – A guide for National Resource Managers in Southern Forest Ecosystems. CRC Press. pp. 379-420. Boca Raton, FL. 476 pp.

Hansen, J.E; R. Ruedy, M. Sato; M. Imhoff; W. Lawrence; D. Easterling; T. Peterson; and T. Karl. 2001. A closer look at the United States and global surface temperature change. Journal of Geophysical Resources 106:23947-23963.

Heath, L.S. and J.E. Smith, 2004: Criterion 5, indicator 26: total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate, by forest type, age class and successional change. In: Data Report: A Supplement to the National Report on Sustainable Forests— 2003 [Darr, D.R. (coord.)]. FS-766A, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 14 pp. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/contents.htm

Humphries, M.M.; D.W. Thomas, and J.R. Speakman. 2002. Climate-mediated energetic constraints on the distribution of hibernating mammals. Natural 418:313-316.

Inouye, David W.; Billy Barr; Keith B. Armitage; Brian D. Inouye. 2000. Climate change is affecting altitudinal migrants and hibernating species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(4):1630-1633.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. 52 pp.

Johnson, D.W. 2006. Progressive N limitation in forests: review and implications for long-term responses to elevated CO2. Ecology 87:64-75.

Kalcounis-Ruepell, M.C.; M.J. Vonhof, and L.J. Rissler. 2010. Modeling current and future potential for peripheral populations of southeastern bats to mitigate effects of white-nose syndrome in core populations. Bat Research News 51:167.

King, D. 2004. Climate change science: Adapt, migrate, or ignore? Science 303:176-177.

Kirschbaum M.U.F. 2005 A modeling response of the interaction between forest age and forest responsiveness to increasing CO2 concentration. Tree Physiology 25:953-963.

Korner, C. R.; Asshoff, O.; Bignuedo, S.; Hattenschwiler, S. G.; Keel, S.; Pelaez-Riedl, S.; Pepin, R. R.; Siegwolf, T. W; and Zotz, G. 2005. Carbon flux and growth in mature deciduous forest trees exposed to elevated CO2. Science 309:1360-1362.

184

McCarthy, H. R.; Oren, R.; Finzi, A.C.; Johnson, K. H.; 2006a. Canopy leaf area constrains [CO2]-induced enhancement of productivity and partitioning among aboveground carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:19356-19361.

McNab, W.H., M.A. Spetich, R.W. Perry, J.D. Haywood, S.G. Laird, S.L. Clark, J.L. Hart, S.J. Torreano, and M.L. Buchanan. 2014. Climate-induced Migration of Native Tree Populations and Consequences for Forest Composition. In Vose, James M. and Kier D. Klepzig (eds) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Management Options – A guide for National Resource Managers in Southern Forest Ecosystems. CRC Press. pp. 307-378, Boca Raton, FL. 476 pp.

Milanovich, J.R., W.E. Peterman, N.P. Nibbelink et al. 2010. Projected loss of a salamander diversity hotspot as a consequence of project global climate change. PLoS ONE 5:1-10.

Moormann, C.E., K.R. Russell, and C.H. Greenberg. 2011. Reptiles and amphibian response to hardwood forest management and early successional habitats. In. Greenberg, C.H. B.S. Collins, and F.R. Thompson III (eds). Sustaining Young Forest Communities: Ecology and Management of Early Successional Habitats in the Central Hardwood Region, pp. 191-208. Springer, New York. 310 pp.

Moritz, Craig. 2002. Strategies to protect biological diversity & the evolutionary process that sustain it. Systematic Biology 51:238-254.

Neilson, Ronald P; Louis F. Pitelka; Allen M. Solomon; Ran Nathan; Guy F. Midgley, Jose M. V. Fragoso; Heike Lischke; and Ken Thomspon. 2005b. Forecasting Regional to Global Plant Migration in Response to Climate Change. Bioscience 55(9):749-759.

Norby, R.J. and D.R. Zak. 2011. Ecological lessons learned from free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 42:181-203.

Norby, R. J.; DeLucia, E. H.; Gielen, B.; Calfapietra, C.; Giardina, C. P.; King, S.J.; Leford, J.; McCarthy, H. R.; Moore, D. J. P.; Ceulemans, R.; DeAngelis, P.; Finzi, A. C.; Karnosky, D. F.; Kubiske, M. E.; Lukac, M.; Pregitzer, K. S.; Scarasci-Mugnozza, G. E.; Schlesinger, W. H.; and Oren, R. 2005. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(50):10852-10856.

Norby, R.J.; J.M. Warren, C.M. Iversen. 2010. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:19368-19373.

185

Pacala, R.; Birdsey, R.A.; Bridgham, S.D.; Conant, R.T.; Davis, K.; Hales, B.; Houghton, R.A.; Jenkins, J.C.; Johnston, M.; Marland, G.; Paustian, K. 2007. The North American carbon budget past and present. In King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, D.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J.; eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle, a report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC; national Climatic Data Center: 117-126.

Palmroth, S.; Oren, R.; McCarthy, H. R.; Johnsen, K. H.; Finzi, A. C.; Butnor, J. R.; Ryan, M. G.; Schlesinger, W. H. 2006. Aboveground sink strength in forests controls the allocation of carbon below ground and its (CO2) induced enhancement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:19362-19367.

Parmesan, Camille. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637-669.

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 42:37-42.

Pounds, J. Alan; Martin R. Bustamante; Luis A. Coloma; Jamie A. Consuegra; Michael P. Fogden; Pru N. Foster; Ennque LaMarca; Karen L. Masters; Andres Menno-Viteri; Robert Puschendorf; Santiago R. Ron; G. Arturo Sanches-Azofiefa; Christoper J. Still; & Bruce E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439:161-167.

Pregitzer, K.S. and Euskirchen, E.S. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077.

Reed, D.H. and Frankham R. 2003. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 17:230-237.

Reusch, Thorsten B.H.; Anneli Ehlers; August Hammerli, and Borris Worm. 2005. Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 102(8):2826-2831.

Rodenhouse, N.L., L.M. Christenson, D. Parry et al. 2009. Climate change effects on native fauna of northeastern forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 39:249-263.

Stoy, P.; Katul, G.; Siqueira, M.; Juang, J.; Novick, K.; McCarthy, H.R.; Oishi, A.C.; Umbellher, J.; Kim, H.; and Oren R. 2006. Separating the effects of climate and vegetation on evaportranspiration along a successional chronosequence in the southeastern U.S. Global Change Biology 12:1-21.

Suttle, K.B.; M.A. Thomsen; & M.C. Pwer. 2007. Species interactions reverse grassland responses to changing climate. Science 315:640-642.

186

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory Of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990 – 2007, March 2008 Public Review Draft

Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, T. Patel-Weynand, eds. 2012. Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 265 pp.

Wilmking, M.; Juday, G.P.; Barber, V. A.; and Zald, H. S. J. 2004. Recent climate warming faces contrasting growth responses of white spruce at treeline in Alaska through temperature thresholds. Global Change Biology 10:1724-1736.

Soil and Water

Anderson, C. J. and Lockaby, B. G. 2011. The Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices for Sediment Control in the Southeastern United States: A Literature Review. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 35 (4): 170-177(8).

Boerner REJ, Huang J, Hart SC. 2009. Impacts of fire and fire surrogate treatments on forest soil properties: A meta-analytical approach. Ecological Applications 19: 338–358.

Clinton, B.D., Vose, J.M. and Swank, W.T. 1996. Shifts in aboveground and forest floor carbon and nitrogen pools after felling and burning in the southern Appalachians. For. Sci. 42:431-441.

Dissmeyer, G. E.; Stump, R. F. 1978. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management Activities in the Southeast. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. State and Private Forestry, Southeastern Area. Atlanta GA. 39 pages.

Douglas, James, and Swank, Wayne. 1972. Streamflow Modification Through Management of Eastern Forests. Southeast Forest Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-94, 15 pages.

Elliott, K.J., and J.M. Vose. 2005. Effects of understory prescribed burning on shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.)/mixed hardwood forests. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 132: 236–251.

Elliott, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2006. Fire effects on water quality: A synthesis of response regulating factors among contrasting ecosystems. 77–87. In Fowler [compl.], D.L. Proceedings of the 2nd Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, 16–18 May 2006. U.S.D.A. Forest Service SRS-Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory. Otto, NC.

Elliott, K.J., J.M. Vose, J.D. Knoepp, B.D. Clinton. 2012. Restoring shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata)-hardwood ecosystems severely impacted by the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman). Forest Ecology and Management 274:181-200.

187

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Managenent. http://www.archives.gov/federal- register/codification/executive-order/11988.html

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands. http://www.archives.gov/federal- register/codification/executive-order/11990.html

Hardeman, W.D., and others, 1966, Geologic map of Tennessee: Division of Geology, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, scale 1:250,000 (Geology available at Tennesse Spatial Data Server which can be found at http://www.tngis.org/geology.html) Hubbard, R.T., B.D. Clinton, J.M. Vose, J.D. Knoepp, and K.J. Elliott. 2004. Stand restoration burning in oak-pine forests in the southern Appalachians: Effects on aboveground biomass and carbon and nitrogen cycling. Forest Ecology and Management 190: 311-321.

Kodama, H.E.; Van Lear, D.H. 1980. Prescribed burning and nutrient cycling relationships in young loblolly pine plantations. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4: 838-841.

Knoepp, J.D., J.M. Vose, and W.T. Swank. 2004. Long-term soil responses to site preparation burning in the southern Appalachians. Forest Science. 50(4): 540-550.

Knoepp, J.D., Elliott, K.J., Clinton, B.D., Vose, J.M. 2009. Effects of prescribed fire in mixed oak forests of the southern Appalachians: forest floor, soil, and soil solution nitrogen responses. Journal oj the Torrey Botanical Society, 136(3): 380-391

Kodama, H.E.; Van Lear, D.H. 1980. Prescribed burning and nutrient cycling relationships in young loblolly pine plantations. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4: 838-841.

Lafayette, Russell; Brooks, Maureen T.; Potyondy, John P.; Audin, Lisa; Krieger, Suzanne L.; Trettin, Carl C. Eds. 2012. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-161. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, p.202.

Maxwell, J.R.; Neary, D.G. 1991. Vegetation management effects on sediment yields. pp. 12-55 to 12-63, IN: T. Shou-Shou and K. Yung-Huang (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Vol. 2. March 18-21, 1991, Las Vegas, NV, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Miller, E.L., Beasley R. S., and Lawson, E.R., 1986a. Stormflow, Sedimentation, and Water Quality Responses Following Silvicultural Treatments in the Ouachita Mountains. In:Blackmon, B.G., ed. Forestry and water quality: a mid-South symposium. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service: 117-129.

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html. Accessed July 12, 2012. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2013. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. Accessed August 13, 2012.

188

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014a. Temperature and Precipitation Summary (TAPS) for Monroe County, Tennessee. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/47123/mtot. [Accessed 4/3/2014]

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014b. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2). Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. [Accessed 4/3/2013]

Nave, L.E., Vance, E.D., Swanston, C.W., and Curtis, P.S. 2011. Fire effects on temperate forest soil C and N storage. Ecological Applications, 21(4), 2011, pp. 1189–1201.

Neary, D.G.; Michael, J.L. 1996. Herbicides - protecting long-term sustainability and water quality in forest ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 26:241-264. Patric, James. 1994. Water, Woods, and People: A Primer.

Reid. L.M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20; 1753-1761.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology: Second Edition. Wildland Hydrology. pp. 4-9, 5-5, and 5-6.

Rosgen, D.L. 2012. Course Book: Short Course on Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Asheville, North Carolina, February 6-12, 2012, p. Applications 1.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Inc. 2003a. Glyphosate–Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 9. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Inc. 2003b. Triclopyr–Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 13. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Inc. 2004. Imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper, and Stalker Formulations) Final Report. Task No. 14. SERA TR 98-21-14-01b.

Swank, W.T., L.F. DeBano, and D. Nelson. 1989. Effects of timber management practices on soil and water, pp. 79-106. In Burns, R.L. (technical compiler), The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the national forest system. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-55. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Swank, W.T., Vose, J.M., and Elliot, K.J. Long-Term Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses Following Commercial Clearcutting of Mixed Hardwoods on a Southern Appalachian Catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143, pages 163-178, 2001.

Swift, L.W.; Elliott, K.J.; Ottmar, R.D. & Vihnanek, R.E. 1993. Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: fire characteristics and soil erosion,moisture, and temperature. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:2242-2254 Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry (TDF). 2003. Guide to Forestry Best Management Practices.

189

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Water Pollution Control. 2000. Tennessee Ecoregion Project. December 2000. p.88.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2006. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) For Siltation and Habitat Alteration In The Hiwassee River Watershed (HUC 06020002) Bradley, Hamilton, McMinn, Meigs, Monroe, and Polk Counties, Tennessee. January 31, 2006. 76p. (http://www.tn.gov/environment/water/docs/tmdl-epa- approved/HiwasseeSed.pdf).

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2013a. Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control, Chapter 1200-4-4, Use Classifications for Surface Waters. Effective Date July 2, 2013. 38p. (http://www.tn.gov/sos/rules/1200/1200-04/1200-04-04.20130702.pdf, pp. 21 & 26)

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2013b. Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee Water Quality Control Board, Chapter 1200-04-03, General Water Quality Criteria. Effective Date: July 2, 2013. 45p. (http://www.tn.gov/sos/rules/1200/1200-04/1200-04-03.20130702.pdf. p.32)

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2014. TDEC Assessment Interactive Mapper. http://tnmap.tn.gov/wpc/. [Accessed 4/3/2014]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. 2010 Waterbody Assessment Report for Conasauga Creek. http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=TN06020002081_1000 &p_cycle=2010. [Accessed 4/22/2014]

Vose, J.M., and W.T. Swank. 1993. Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: aboveground biomass, forest floor mass, and nitrogen and carbon pools. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 2255-2262.

Vose, J.M., W.T. Swank, B.D. Clinton, J.D. Knoepp, and L.W. Swift, Jr. 1999. Using stand replacement fires to restore southern Appalachian pine-hardwood ecosystems: effects on mass, carbon, and nutrient pools. Forest Ecology and Management 114(2-3):215-226.

Vose, J.M., S.H. Laseter, G.Sun, and S.G. McNulty. 2005. Stream nitrogen response to fire in the southeastern U.S. pp. 577-584 in S. Zhu, K. Minami, and G. Xing (eds.), 3rd International Nitrogen Conference, Oct. 12-16, 2004, Nanjing China, Science Press USA, Inc.

190