DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range United States Department of Agriculture Forest Environmental Service September 2013 Assessment Clay County Shooting Range Project Tusquitee Ranger District Nantahala National Forest Clay County, North Carolina Responsible Official Lauren Stull District Ranger Tusquitee Ranger District For Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, NC 28906 (828) 837-5152 1 Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range Contents Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Introduction and Document Structure ............................................................................................. 2 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Project Location ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.6 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................. 6 1.7 Key Issues Considered ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.7.1 Key Issues ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.7.2 Other Concerns ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................. 11 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................11 2.1.2 Alternative B – Perry Creek Site, Modified ..................................................................11 2.1.3 Alternative C – Chestnut Branch Site ..........................................................................13 2.1.4 Further Design Measures to Manage Potential Impacts from Noise and Lead ..................................................................................................................................................13 2.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ......................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Alternative 1 – Birch Cove Site .......................................................................................15 2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Bob Branch Site .....................................................................................15 2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Tuni Gap Site ..........................................................................................15 2.3 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON ........................................................................................................... 16 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................. 16 3.1 NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.1.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................................16 3.1.2 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................18 3.1.3 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................19 3.1.4 Cultural/Historical Resources .......................................................................................20 3.1.5 Inventoried Roadless Areas ............................................................................................22 3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Bounds of Analysis .............................................................................................................22 3.2.2 Existing Condition of Biological Resources ................................................................23 3.2.3 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES)............................................26 3.2.4 Biological Communities, Special Habitats, and MIS ................................................34 3.2.5 Forest Concern Species .....................................................................................................43 3.2.6 Impacts of Noise on Wildlife ...........................................................................................61 3.3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 62 3.3.1 Noise .......................................................................................................................................62 i Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range 3.3.2 Recreational Resources ....................................................................................................69 3.3.3 Scenery Effects ....................................................................................................................72 3.3.4 Vehicular Traffic................................................................................................................73 3.3.5 Human Health and Safety ...............................................................................................77 4.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ........................................................................ 81 5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 81 6.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 83 Appendix A: Lead Management .............................................................................................................. 84 Appendix B: Supplemental Biological Evaluation for the Clay County Shooting Range Project................................................................................................................................................................ 94 Appendix C: 2010 Sound Test Report ................................................................................................. 134 Appendix D: Airborne Dust Analysis ................................................................................................... 154 ii Environmental Assessment Clay County Shooting Range Summary Proposed Action: The Nantahala National Forest is evaluating a proposal to provide a safe and environmentally sound and secure public shooting facility to serve the local community of Clay County, North Carolina. The proposed action addresses the lack of a facility that is designed to minimize the impacts to physical, biological and social resources from dispersed shooting on National Forest System lands in Clay County. Shooting ranges are consistent with Forest Service policy (FSM 2335.4) which allows for the authorization of target ranges on the National Forest when the use is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines and when the authorization would enhance forest management (by improving public safety, providing recreational opportunities or consolidating dispersed target shooting). Policy also directs the forest to enter into agreements with state governments, local governments or private organizations to provide for cost-sharing for target range design, construction, operation and maintenance, with title to the target range improvements remaining with the government. Location of Proposed Action: Near the end point of Passmore Spur Road in the Perry Creek watershed off Nelson Ridge Road, Clay County, North Carolina (Alternative B (Modified)) and off Barnett Creek Road north of Highway 64 East near the Clay
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Evaluation
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2018 Biological Evaluation Prospect Hamby Project Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Cherokee County, North Carolina For Additional Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, North Carolina 28906 (828) 837-5152 2-1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Species Considered ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ................................................... 3 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Wildlife Resources ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ........................... 14 3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Aquatic
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Angiosperm Phylogeny
    Outline of angiosperm phylogeny: orders, families, and representative genera with emphasis on Oregon native plants Priscilla Spears December 2013 The following listing gives an introduction to the phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants that has emerged in recent decades, and which is based on nucleic acid sequences as well as morphological and developmental data. This listing emphasizes temperate families of the Northern Hemisphere and is meant as an overview with examples of Oregon native plants. It includes many exotic genera that are grown in Oregon as ornamentals plus other plants of interest worldwide. The genera that are Oregon natives are printed in a blue font. Genera that are exotics are shown in black, however genera in blue may also contain non-native species. Names separated by a slash are alternatives or else the nomenclature is in flux. When several genera have the same common name, the names are separated by commas. The order of the family names is from the linear listing of families in the APG III report. For further information, see the references on the last page. Basal Angiosperms (ANITA grade) Amborellales Amborellaceae, sole family, the earliest branch of flowering plants, a shrub native to New Caledonia – Amborella Nymphaeales Hydatellaceae – aquatics from Australasia, previously classified as a grass Cabombaceae (water shield – Brasenia, fanwort – Cabomba) Nymphaeaceae (water lilies – Nymphaea; pond lilies – Nuphar) Austrobaileyales Schisandraceae (wild sarsaparilla, star vine – Schisandra; Japanese
    [Show full text]
  • Diapensia Family, by Stephen Doonan 101
    Bulletin of the American Rock Garden Society Volume 51 Number 2 Spring 1993 Cover: Gentiana sino-ornata by Jill S. Buck of Westminster, Colorado All Material Copyright © 1993 American Rock Garden Society \ Bulletin of the American Rock Garden Society Volume 51 Number 2 Spring 1993 Features Asarums, by Barry R. Yinger 83 Ancient Rocks and Emerald Carpets, by Jeanie Vesall 93 The Diapensia Family, by Stephen Doonan 101 The Southeast Asia-America Connection, by Richard Weaver, Jr. 107 Early Editors of the Bulletin, by Marnie Flook 125 From China with Concern, by Don Jacobs 136 Departments Plant Portraits 132 Propagation 145 Books 147 u to UH 82 Bulletin of the American Rock Garden Society Vol. 51(2) Asarums by Barry R. Yinger Until very recently, few American of old Japanese prints, my interest went gardeners displayed interest in the from slow simmer to rapid boil. I subse• species and cultivars of Asarum. When quently spent a semester in Japan, my own interest in this group began to where my interest became obsession. I develop 20 years ago, there was little have since learned a great deal about evidence of cultivation, even among these plants, particularly during my avid rock gardeners. Some American research in the Japanese literature for species were grown by wildflower my thesis in the Longwood Program, a enthusiasts, and pioneers of American graduate course in public garden admin• rock gardening such as Line Foster and istration. As I make more visits to Harold Epstein were sampling a few of Japan, I continue to assemble an ever- the Japanese species.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomová Práce
    UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE FARMACEUTICKÁ FAKULTA V HRADCI KRÁLOVÉ KATEDRA FARMACEUTICKÉ BOTANIKY A EKOLOGIE DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV Phytochemical study of Helianthus annuus L. IV Hradec Králové 2008 Jana Podlipná Ráda bych touto cestou podkovala PharmDr. Jan Karlíkové, Ph.D. za odborné vedení, poskytnutí cenných rad a za všestrannou pomoc pi vypracování této diplomové práce. Dkuji PharmDr. Zuzan ehákové, Ing. Katein Macákové a Mgr. Jitce Vytlailové za pomoc pi testování extrakt a jednotlivých frakcí a také všem ostatním pracovníkm katedry farmaceutické botaniky a ekologie za vytvoení dobrých podmínek pro práci. Také bych chtla podkovat RNDr. Alen Tiché, Ph.D. z Geronto-metabolické kliniky Fakultní nemocnice v Hradci Králové za provedení GC/MS analýzy. 2 Tato práce vznikla za finanní podpory grantové agentury Univerzity Karlovy GA UK 118/2006/ B BIO. Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci na téma „Fytochemický výzkum Helianthus annuus L. IV“ vypracovala samostatn a použila jsem jen pramen, které uvádím v piloženém seznamu literatury. 3 OBSAH: I. ÚVOD............................................................................................................................ 8 II. CÍL PRÁCE.................................................................................................................. 11 III. TEORETICKÁ ÁST.................................................................................................... 13 1. Botanická charakteristika ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018 Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) photo by Clifton Avery Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published periodically, generally every two years.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Plants for Piedmont Rock Gardens by Margo Macintyre
    V OLUME 26, I SSUE 2 F EBRUARY 2016 Piedmont Chapter North American Rock Garden Society The Trillium Chapel Hill, Durham, Raleigh, NC Native Plants for Piedmont Rock Gardens by Margo MacIntyre When Marian called to ask me to write an article about native plants for rock gardens for the Tril- lium, a wave of nostalgia hit me. During my college years and later, my Mom enthusiastically reported on the goings-on in the Piedmont Chapter of NARGS. Many times when I was home visiting from my gardening work at the Mt. Cuba Center in Delaware or Hurley Park in Salisbury, I attended Rock Gar- den Society meetings in Chapel Hill. Mom created what I call a rough draft of a rock garden on a bank filled with rocks she brought in and placed. The bank is perhaps two feet high and it tapers into the woods. It was created with rocks from Chatham County and was home to many small bulbs, low and creeping shrubbery, ferns and small perennials. The shady ends contained choice spring wildflowers, some of which remain today, still nes- tled among moss-covered rocks. Since the garden has not been tended in over a decade, it’s safe to say that these gems stand the test of time. Erythronium americanum, troutlily, Claytonia virginica, spring beauty, Silene virginica, firepink and Mitchella repens, partridgeberry, grace the small hillside. The Erythronium and Claytonia seeded into the lawn with reckless abandon. All of these residents of our local woodlands are available from local and mail order native plant sources and they are easy to grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2014 Environmental Assessment Post-Harvest Vine Control Project Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Macon and Jackson Counties, North Carolina For Information Contact: Joan Brown 90 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734 (828) 524-6441 ext 426 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 – Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Inventory and Ecological Community Classification for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
    VASCULAR PLANT INVENTORY AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION FOR CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK Report for the Vertebrate and Vascular Plant Inventories: Appalachian Highlands and Cumberland/Piedmont Networks Prepared by NatureServe for the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office March 2006 NatureServe is a non-profit organization providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. Citation: Rickie D. White, Jr. 2006. Vascular Plant Inventory and Ecological Community Classification for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Durham, North Carolina: NatureServe. © 2006 NatureServe NatureServe 6114 Fayetteville Road, Suite 109 Durham, NC 27713 919-484-7857 International Headquarters 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, Virginia 22209 www.natureserve.org National Park Service Southeast Regional Office Atlanta Federal Center 1924 Building 100 Alabama Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 The view and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. This report consists of the main report along with a series of appendices with information about the plants and plant (ecological) communities found at the site. Electronic files have been provided to the National Park Service in addition to hard copies. Current information on all communities described here can be found on NatureServe Explorer at www.natureserveexplorer.org. Cover photo: Red cedar snag above White Rocks at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. Photo by Rickie White. ii Acknowledgments I wish to thank all park employees, co-workers, volunteers, and academics who helped with aspects of the preparation, field work, specimen identification, and report writing for this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service December 2012 Environmental Assessment Laurel Creek Property Owners Association Access Across National Forest System Lands Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Clay County, North Carolina For Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, NC 2828906 (828) 837-5152 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Laurel Creek Property Owners Association Access Project Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 – Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Asa Gray and His Quest for Shortia Galacifolia
    Asa Gray and His Quest for Shortia galacifolia Charles F Jenkins C. E Jenkins of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was both an excellent writer and an active horticulturist. He served as editor of The Farm journal for many years, and wrote several books on American history. In 1931, he founded the "Hemlock Arboretum" and published the well-known Hemlock Arboretum Bulletin until his death in 1951. In the Arnoldia article reprinted here, Jenkins, who was an important supporter of the Arnold Arboretum, tells the intriguing story of Asa Gray and C. S. Sargent searching for the botanical equivalent of the Holy Grail. The word bewitched has antipodal meanings. Arbor. As the buildings were not ready, he was The first, sinister, fearsome, savoring of Salem granted a year’s leave of absence, a salary of trials and clouded minds; the second, $1500, and $5000 was placed at his disposal charmed, enchanted, captivated. In this to purchase books for the new University second sense Asa Gray was bewitched. For library. The main object of his trip, however, forty years, the greater part of his productive was to examine the original sources of Ameri- life, the memory of a fragmentary, dried, can flora as they existed in the principal her- incomplete specimen in a neglected herbar- baria of Europe. After a twenty-one-day voyage ium cabinet in France haunted him. The he landed in Liverpool and then began a year assurance of its existence as a living plant and crowded with rich cultural and educational the hope of its rediscovery were with him experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci
    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR
    [Show full text]
  • RECOVERY PLAN Schweinitz S Sunflower (Helianthus Schweinitzii)
    RECOVERY PLAN Schweinitz s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service outheast Region Atlanta, Georgia RECOVERY PLAN for Schweinitz’s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) Prepared by Alan S. Weakley North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Division of Parks and Recreation Raleigh, North Carolina and Richard D. Houk Winthrop University Rock Hill, South Carolina for Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta, Georgia D~Th W. Puiliam, Jr.1/ Approved: ~AaIi~L&¾ ~ialDirector, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: ~~1 ~ ~94 ) Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings. changes in species status, and completion of the recovery tasks. Literature citations should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitzs Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492-6403 or 1 -800/582-3421 Fees for recovery plans vary depending upon the number of pages.
    [Show full text]