NEPA--Environmental Assessment

Revised Environmental United States Department of Agriculture Assessment

Forest Service Continued Maintenance of Open Lands September 21, 2007 Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area Trigg and Lyon Counties, Kentucky Stewart County, Tennessee

For Information Contact: Steve Bloemer 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211 270-924-2069 [email protected] www.lbl.org

Responsible Official: William Lisowsky

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 individuals 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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Table of Contents

Summary ...... 2 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.3 Proposed Action ...... 5 1.4 Decision Framework ...... 5 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 5 1.6 Issues and Concerns ...... 6 2.0 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 9 2.1 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 9 2.2 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 12 2.3 Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 15 2.4 Alternatives Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 16 3.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 20 3.1 Vegetation Resources ...... 20 3.2 Soil and Water Resources ...... 36 3.3 Air Resources ...... 54 3.4 Wildlife Resources ...... 62 3.5 Recreation and Environmental Education Resources ...... 110 3.6 Heritage Resources ...... 118 3.7 Economic and Social Resources ...... 123 4.0 Consultation and Coordination ...... 137 5.0 References, Acronyms, and Glossary ...... 140 5.1 References ...... 140 5.2 Acronyms ...... 174 5.3 Glossary ...... 176 6.0 Appendices ...... 186 6.1 Vegetation Resources Appendix ...... 186 6.2 Soil and Water Resources ...... 222 6.3 Air Resources ...... 229 6.4 Wildlife Resources ...... 232 6.5 Recreation and Environmental Education Resources ...... 233 6.6 Heritage Resources ...... 233 6.7 Social and Economic Resources ...... 237 6.8 Prescribed Fire Resources ...... 244 6.9 Pesticides Risk Analysis ...... 251 6.10 Maps ...... 276

Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

SUMMARY

The Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Continued Maintenance of Open Lands was originally signed on April 30, 2007. However, on July 20, 2007 the project decision was voluntarily withdrawn for further analysis. This Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) is now the EA of record for the Continued Maintenance of Open Lands at Land Between The Lakes. Open lands have been a feature on the landscape of Land Between The Lakes (LBL) since before LBL’s establishment in 1963. Since LBL’s establishment, open lands have been managed to provide for the orderly growth and development of desirable stages of early plant succession, to meet wildlife habitat needs, and to provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and environmental education (EE). Three alternatives are evaluated in this revised environmental assessment (EA) for the continued maintenance of approximately 6,610 acres of open lands in the General Forest prescription areas of LBL: Alternative 1, the No Action - Open lands in the General Forest prescription areas would no longer be maintained. Alternative 2, the Proposed Action - Open lands would continue to be maintained, and adjustments made to meet the goals, objectives, standards, and desired conditions as described in the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (Area Plan) for LBL. Alternative 3, Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decreased Use of Pesticides - Open lands would continue to be maintained, but croplands would be converted to grasslands and wildlife plantings, and pesticides would not be used to manage invasive species in riparian corridors.

The Forest Service proposes to continue maintaining LBL’s open lands using a variety of management tools to achieve the desired conditions described in the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (Area Plan, pp. 28-29); “Open lands, which include cultivated fields, wildlife plantings, maintained grasslands, and hay fields, are dispersed across the landscape. In open lands, visitors may observe a diversity of wildlife such as white-tailed deer, bobcat, and coyote; many migrant and resident bird species such as red-tailed hawk, bald eagle, Eastern bluebird, Northern bobwhite, and neotropical songbirds. Open lands consist of traditional row crops, hay fields, wildlife plantings, old fields, and ecological restoration areas. The ecological restoration areas have a dominance of native short warm season grasses, such as little bluestem and broomsedge; native tall warm season grasses, such as big bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass; or, a mosaic of short and tall grasses with a native forb and legume composition. Visitors may observe portions of traditional row crops remaining in fields after harvest for wildlife. Access to these areas consists of public roads, administrative roads, hiking trails, horse trails, and bike trails. Visitors enjoy a diverse pastoral

landscape, set against the backdrop of naturally appearing forested landscapes. These openings vary in size and shape, generally resulting from traditional cultural land use patterns; some exhibiting geometric straight-edged shapes, and others following natural landforms and watercourses.”

Under Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, 6,610 acres of open lands would continue to be maintained in the General Forest prescription area, including 2,980 acres of cultivated land and 3,630 acres of grasslands. Approximately 430 acres of presently cultivated lands and grasslands would become expanded riparian corridors to further protect LBL’s streams and water quality (Area Plan Standard 35), and an additional 750 acres of presently cultivated land would be converted to grassland. This action is needed because: • Open lands are an important contributor to biological diversity on LBL, are part of the cultural history of the area, provide outdoor recreation and EE opportunities, and provide economic benefits to local communities. • Habitats provided by these open lands are short-lived and require periodic maintenance. • Control of invasive species is essential for managing desirable plant communities in open land habitats. • The present allocation of open lands does not meet some of the Area Plan goals and objectives. • Riparian corridors must be established to meet Area Plan standards. • Use of pesticides must be brought into compliance with Area Plan standards. 1.1 Background ______The LBL Protection Act transferred management of LBL to the Forest Service from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in October 1999. LBL’s mission is clearly and carefully stated in the LBL Protection Act: “To protect and manage the resources of the Recreation Area for optimum yield of outdoor recreation and EE through multiple use management; to authorize, research, test, and demonstrate innovative programs and cost-effective management of the Recreation Area; to help stimulate the development of the surrounding region; and to extend the beneficial results as widely as possible.” The mission supports the multiple use objectives of the Forest Service as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), and implementing regulations. The LBL Protection Act further states, “The emphasis in the management of the Recreation Area shall be – (A) to provide public recreational opportunities; (B) to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat; and (C) to provide for diversity of native and desirable nonnative plants, animals, opportunities for hunting and fishing, and environmental education.”

3 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

The LBL Protection Act called for the Forest Service to develop a land and resource management plan for LBL that complies with the basic laws applicable to all National Forest units. The Area Plan was completed in December 2004. The Area Plan is available on the Internet at the following website: http://www.lbl.org/041203FinalEISPlanIndex.html. Included within both the Protection Act and the Area Plan is the legislated mission and vision for LBL to serve as a national demonstration area, which provides opportunities and expectations that innovative programs would be developed, tested, and exported to regional and national applications as they are refined and improved. These demonstration projects can include vegetation and wildlife management programs, recreation and EE programs, and projects. The development of this project level decision has already employed a number of new procedures and techniques, and others are envisioned as the final decision is made and implemented on the ground. LBL is a 170,000 acre peninsula located between Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley in western Kentucky and Tennessee. When TVA assumed overall management of LBL in 1964, most of the present open lands on LBL were already in existence. Since that time, many of the former openings have reverted to forest, and the forested area of LBL increased from 82 to 92 %. Maps of the north and south halves of LBL showing the locations of existing open lands are in Figs 1 & 2 (Appendix 6.10). These maps can be explored in greater detail on LBL’s website at http://www.lbl.org/LRMPProjects.html.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action______The Area Plan directs maintenance of open lands to support viability of associated plants, fish, and wildlife; and support public demand for wildlife related recreation. The most popular wildlife-related recreation activities are wildlife viewing and hunting. Specifically, the Area Plan provides direction to maintain approximately 10,600 acres in open lands – cultivated and grassland cover types in all prescription areas throughout LBL. The 10 - and 50 - year objectives for these open lands are described in Area Plan Goal 5 and in the accompanying FEIS. This EA addresses continued maintenance of approximately 6,610 acres within the General Forest prescription area and approximately 430 acres of newly designated riparian corridors, and does not include approximately 3,560 acres in right-of-ways (ROW), facilities, and developed recreation sites. The purpose and need of this project is: • Provide early successional habitats, in the form of open lands, for wildlife, recreation, and Environmental Education (EE). • Modify the distribution and abundance of open land community types to more closely implement Area Plan goals, objectives, and desired conditions. The Area Plan requires increases in the widths of riparian corridors, and additional acres of native warm season grasses and wetlands.

• Reduce invasive and undesirable species in open lands using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. Plantings without the use of IPM have failed due to undesirable species competition. 1.3 Proposed Action ______In June 2006, the Forest Service proposed: • To convert approximately 760 acres of cultivated land to grassland and wetland types. • To increase native warm season grasses and forbs to approximately 840 acres in the General Forest prescription area (Approximately 290 acres will be converted to native warm season grasses and added to the existing 550 acres to total approximately 840 acres). • To reclassify approximately 430 acres of open lands to riparian corridors. Approximately 360 of these acres would be converted from cultivated land. • To control invasive and undesirable species in open lands using IPM practices such as mowing, conservation tillage, crop rotation, prescribed fire, and application of approved pesticides. • To manage approximately 6,610 acres of open lands (approximately 3,000 acres in cultivated types and approximately 3,600 acres in grassland types) by mowing, disking, plowing, burning, seeding, and application of lime, fertilizer, and approved pesticides. 1.4 Decision Framework______

The Responsible Official, the Area Supervisor, will decide whether or not to proceed with the proposed action or an alternative.

The actions in the decision may be implemented using administrative tools such as cooperative agreements, contracts, stewardship agreements, special use permits, force accounts, etc.

1.5 Public Involvement ______

The proposal was listed in LBL’s Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning January 2005. This list is distributed to numerous individuals. Project information was available on the Internet at the following website: http://www.lbl.org/LRMPProjects.html or http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110860 beginning June 2005.

The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping in June 2006. A total of 51 letters were received. The letters were from 6 organizations, 2 government agencies, 1 tribe, and 42 individuals. After reviewing the comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) used applicable National

5 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA) regulations and Forest Service policy (FSH 1909.15) to refine the proposed action and draft preliminary alternatives.

In compliance with 36 CFR 215, a description of the proposed action, comment summaries, and preliminary alternatives were made available for a 30-day Notice and Comment period via a legal notice published in The Paducah Sun, November 7, 2006. Comments were received from 2 organizations and 116 individuals. Of the 118 letters received, 111 were form letters. Comments received were discussed with the IDT and considered in the EA. The comment summary, including Forest Service responses, is located in the project record.

A Call-in-Session was held November 16, 2006 from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. CST. This session was similar to an informational meeting and provided interested parties the opportunity to discuss the Continued Maintenance of Open Lands project with resource specialists. Two calls were received.

The April 2007 decision on the environmental assessment was voluntarily withdrawn in July 2007 by Mr. William P. Lisowsky because several members of the public identified parts of the analysis that needed additional information to be deemed complete.

A second 30-day Notice and Comment period in compliance with 36 CFR 215 took place, beginning with the publication of the legal notice in The Paducah Sun, July 25, 2007. The draft EA was available for review during this comment period. Comments were received from 2 organization and 3 individuals. Comments received were discussed with the IDT and considered in the revised EA. The comment summary, including Forest Service responses, is located in the project record.

1.6 Issues and Concerns ______

No significant issues were identified during scoping or the two 30-day notice and comment periods. A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the scoping and notice and comment summaries in the project record at the LBL Administrative Office, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211. The following presents a brief summary.

A wide range of comments and discussions concerning the impacts of open lands management on resources are analyzed in this EA, including impacts to wildlife (birds, deer and turkey, reptiles and amphibians, and endangered bats). Other concerns included disclosure of the effects of fertilizers, and these have been added to the revised EA throughout Chapter 3. Cumulative effects and gaps in available data were addressed in further detail based on commenters’ concerns. Also, the sections discussing riparian corridors have been expanded.

A few commenters raised specific concerns about the adequacy of the riparian corridor widths in the Area Plan standard for reptiles and amphibians, and provided scientific references to be considered. A literature review was conducted to determine if the riparian corridor width/amphibian reptile concern was a significant issue for this proposed action (Richardson and Bloemer 2007). The percentage of riparian corridors adjacent to open lands (less than 7% of total LBL streams) is a mere fraction of those that exceed plan standards. The Area Plan FEIS, the literature review, and discussions with the IDT and researchers indicate the concern is not significant because open lands management on LBL is unlikely to have a major effect on populations of reptiles and amphibians. Most of the cited studies assume the area beyond a buffer zone would be completely incapable of supplying any habitat requirements. This is not the case at LBL, as most of the open lands are surrounded by forested habitat. Populations of reptile and amphibian species are supported by diverse habitat conditions, including open lands and riparian corridors. Additionally, many open lands on LBL are providing necessary habitat for herpetofauna, particularly basking, foraging, and nesting areas for snakes and lizards. Open lands management would therefore have some beneficial effect on some species of reptiles and amphibians, but it is unlikely this will result in a major change in species diversity or populations sizes. Further discussion of the effects of this action as related to these concerns can be found in Chapter 3.

There were comments that the minimum riparian corridor width in the plan standard is ineffective for filtering chemicals from run-off of bordering cultivated lands. Appendix B11 in the 2004 Area Plan FEIS explains the basis for the setting of riparian corridor widths in the plan standard. Further site specific discussion about the adequacy of the riparian corridors to prevent water quality degradation from chemicals used on the open lands can be found in Chapter 3. Less than 2% of LBL’s land base is being proposed as croplands, further minimizing any potential impact from chemicals to the aquatic habitat.

Concerns regarding non-native invasive species (NNIS) have been addressed by disclosing the open land inventory results, revising the vegetation effects section to clarify the effects of the action on NNIS in open lands, and adding design criteria for equipment cleaning. The open lands inventories discussed in the vegetation section of this EA disclose the occurrence of NNIS in open lands, including the riparian corridors. The inventories do not indicate the riparian corridors are being choked out by NNIS.

Some commenters contend there are uncertainties regarding the use of pesticides on human health and wildlife that would require the preparation of an EIS. The analysis demonstrated in this EA, similar to analysis that would be produced for an EIS, disclosed the potential effects of pesticides to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, water quality, and humans. As an example, the amphibian population as a whole is not expected to be significantly impacted by the use of approved pesticides in open lands. Risk management measures and spill prevention plans would be implemented to minimize risk of pesticide use to humans and wildlife alike. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 and Appendix 6.9.

7 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

A concern was raised whether this action is in compliance with the 1982 NFMA regulations, specifically 36 CFR 219.27. The commenter states corn and soybean farming replaces the natural forest ecosystem, and the pesticides used prevent the natural reestablishment of the forest ecosystem.

Over the past forty years, the government has maintained open lands as croplands in consideration of the desired conditions and land allocation distribution needed to support the multiple use objectives of the area. This experience, along with environmental analyses, has lead to a determination that the effects are ecologically acceptable. The compatibility of the various ecosystems and the associated management tools to maintain them were considered in the Area Plan EIS.

The Plan provides broad, strategic direction for managing LBL and its resources, and complies with NFMA, the 1982 implementing regulations, and other pertinent guidance. This project is consistent with the Plan. This environmental assessment includes consideration of the pest management tools used to maintain croplands and achieve LBL’s multiple use objectives.

LBL is legislatively directed by the Protection Act to demonstrate innovative and efficient programs that emphasize wildlife viewing, hunting and overall wildlife management. Coordination and consideration of USFWS practices and activities are encouraged specifically. Further, existing activities permitted at the time of transfer to the Forest Service may be reauthorized.

In the proposals for scoping and notice and comment, Alternatives 1 and 2 were the two alternatives to be carried into the effects analysis. A concern raised during IDT meetings and from public comments was whether these two alternatives were adequate. Some felt there needed to be a broader range of vegetation cover type analyzed, others wanted to eliminate traditional row crops (croplands in this EA) or all open lands, and some wanted substantially less pesticide use addressed. After consideration of all of the IDT discussions and public input, the Responsible Official decided to develop another alternative to carry forward into the effects analysis. This alternative is titled “Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use.” This alternative was later available for public comment during the second 30-day notice and comment period.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ______Maps of the existing conditions, proposed action alternative, and the alternative to eliminate traditional row crops and substantially decrease pesticide use are available in Appendix 6.10. Maps can be viewed in greater detail on the Internet at http://www.lbl.org/LRMPProjects.html.

2.1.1 Alternative 1 No Action Under Alternative 1, managed open lands in the General Forest prescription areas on LBL would not be maintained (Table AL-1).

2.1.2 Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Alternative 2 adjusts current open lands management to meet Area Plan goals, objectives and standards. (Table AL-1) Activities included are:

• Adjustments to open lands acreages and allocations resulting in 6,610 acres of open lands. This would consist of approximately 3,630 acres in grasslands, and 2,980 acres in cultivation. Approximately 430 acres would become expanded riparian corridors (Appendix 6.1.4). • Continued cultivation of approximately 2,100 acres of row crops under special use permits or other administrative authorization. A schedule of cropland cultivation practices and pesticide applications, typically 1-2 per season, is available in Appendix 6.1.2. • Cultivation of approximately 880 acres of spring and fall wildlife plantings, including mowing, disking, fertilizer application, and occasional (once every 3-5 years) lime application. Wildlife plantings may also include an approved pesticide application, generally one application at the time of establishment for spring plantings. • Approximately 1,330 acres of cool and warm season hay fields would be mowed and fertilized annually. Replanting, lime and and approved pesticide application to control invasive species may occur approximately every 4-6 years as needed. • Approximately 190 acres of old fields would be maintained as open lands, primarily by mowing, disking, or burning on a 2-3 year cycle.

9 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

• Establishment of approximately 290 acres of warm season grasses would occur over the next 5 years by mowing, disking or burning, and drilling. These acres will increase native warm season grasses from approximately 550 acres to 840 acres. Approved pesticides may be applied once each year during the first and second years, once after 3-5 years, and once 5-10 years after establishment, as needed. • Maintenance of approximately 550 acres of established native warm season grasses by mowing or burning on a 2-3 year cycle, and occasional pesticide application approximately once every five years as needed to control invasive species. Portions of fields may also be disked to maintain an important component of exposed soil in these grasslands. • Maintenance of approximately 1,270 acres of other grassland types in maintained open lands primarily by mowing, disking, or burning on a 2-3 year cycle. • Reclassification of approximately 430 acres, 360 of which are currently in cultivation, to riparian corridors as described in Area Plan Standard 35. Establishment and maintenance of grassy filter strips and control or removal of exotic invasive species are the only management activities routinely performed in the riparian corridors. Approved pesticides may be used as needed to establish grassy filter strips and treat exotic invasive and other pest species in the riparian corridors. • Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs, Appendix 6.1.3) would be used in all open lands management activities to protect soils and water. • IPM practices (Section 6.9.2) including application of approved pesticides would be applied where needed to reduce threats of invasive and weed species, and other pests. Where not otherwise indicated above, approved pesticides may be applied, typically not more than one application every 5 years, for control of exotic invasive species. A description of the IPM program is located in EA Section 3.1.3 and approved pesticides are in Appendix 6.9. • Develop and monitor an organic farming demonstration site of at least two to five acres for a minimum of five years.

2.1.3 Alternative 3 Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Alternative 3 eliminates all cropland on LBL and substantially decreases pesticide use for open lands management. The acres for this alternative are listed in Table AL-1. Activities included in this alternative are:

• Adjustments to open lands acreages and locations, and removing all acres from traditional row crops, resulting in approximately 6,610 acres open lands. There would be approximately 4,960 acres in grasslands, approximately 1,650

acres in wildlife plantings, and approximately 430 acres in expanded riparian corridors. (Appendix 6.1.4) • Cultivation of approximately 1,650 acres of spring and fall wildlife plantings, including mowing, disking, fertilizer application, and occasional (once every 3-5 years) lime application. Wildlife plantings may also include an approved pesticide application. • Annual mowing and fertilization of approximately 1,330 acres of cool and warm season hay fields. Replanting, lime and and approved pesticide application to control invasive species may occur approximately every 4-6 years as needed. • Approximately 190 acres of old fields would be maintained as open lands by mowing, disking, or burning on a 2-3 year cycle. • Establishment of approximately 1,620 acres of warm season grasses by mowing or burning and no-till drilling, or mowing, disking, and drilling. Approved pesticides may be applied once each during the first and second years, once after 3-5 years, and once 5-10 years after establishment as needed. Croplands converted to other types would continue to be managed as cropland until they are converted. It is anticipated that about one-third of the cropland would be converted during the first 5 years of implementation, and the remaining two-thirds would be converted in the next 5 years. • Maintenance of approximately 550 acres of established native warm season grasses by mowing or burning on a 2-3 year cycle, and occasional pesticide application approximately once every five years as needed to control invasive species. Portions of fields may also be disked to maintain an important component of exposed soil in these grasslands. • Maintenance of approximately 1,270 acres of other grassland types in maintained open land by mowing, disking, or burning on a 2-3 year cycle. • No management would occur in most of the 430 acres of riparian corridors described in Area Plan Standard 35, except for maintenance of grassy filter strips. No pesticides would be used in riparian corridors and native warm season grasses would not be established in grassy filter strips. • Agricultural BMPs (Appendix 6.1.3) would be used in all open lands management activities to protect soils and water. • IPM practices (Section 6.9.2) including application of approved pesticides would be applied where needed to reduce threats of invasive and weed species, and other pests. Where not otherwise indicated above, approved pesticides may be applied, typically not more than one application every 5 years, for control of exotic invasive species. A description of the IPM program is located in EA Section 3.1.3 and approved pesticides are in Appendix 6.9.

11 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

2.2 Comparison of Alternatives ______

Table AL-1 Open Land Acres Maintained in General Forest Areas Currently and by Alternative.

Acres* Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Grand Total 6930 0 6610 6610

Cultivated Types 4100 0 2980 1650

Row Crops 2640 0 2100 0 Wildlife Plantings 1460 0 880 1650

Grassland Types 2830 0 3630 4960 Cool and Warm Season Hay Fields 1390 0 1330 1330

Old Fields 190 190 190 Native Warm Season Grasses 550 0 840 2170 Other Grasslands (Maintained Open Lands) 700 0 1270 1270

*Acreage figures are estimates from Geographical Information prepared by USDA Forest Service. Actual acres may vary slightly upon implementation.

Table AL-2 Comparison of Alternatives to Current Condition – Effects Over a 10-Year Period (See Chapter 3 for details)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Wildlife Habitat for Listed Medium Decrease Small Increase Small Increase and Sensitive No open lands Increased riparian corridors Increased riparian corridors Species (e.g. bats) Habitat for Large Decrease Small Increase Medium Increase Management No open lands Increased warm season Increased warm season Indicator Species grasses, row crops grasses and wildlife planting (e.g. bluebird, chat) Habitat for Demand Large Decrease Small Increase Small Increase Species No open lands Increased warm season Increased warm season (e.g. deer, quail) grasses, row crops grasses and wildlife planting Vegetation Native Warm 100% Decrease Small Increase Large Increase Season Grasses No open lands 290 added acres 1620 added acres Invasive Species Medium Increase Medium Decrease Medium Decrease No treatment of invasive IPM practices will manage IPM practices will manage species invasives invasives Pesticide Use Large Decrease Small Decrease Medium Decrease (acres x 100% 17% 56% applications) Recreation Opportunities Wildlife Viewing Large Decrease No Change Medium Decrease Large Animals No open lands Small changes in cover types No acres croplands, visibility (e.g. deer) and food sources limited in tall grasses Wildlife Viewing Large Decrease No Change Small Decrease All Species No open lands Small changes in cover types No croplands, visibility limited and food sources in tall grasses while birding opportunities increase Hunting Large Decrease No Change Small Decrease Participation No open lands Perceptions not affected by Changes in deer and raccoon small changes opportunities from no croplands EE Opportunities Programs Available Medium Decrease No Change No Change No open lands to interpret Open lands available to Open lands and interpret establishment of NWSG available to interpret Soil & Water Effects Soil Loss Medium Decrease Small Decrease Medium Decrease Increased ground cover Increased riparian corridors Increased riparian corridors and grasses and more grasses Water Quality Medium Increase Small Increase Medium Increase No ground disturbance Increased riparian corridors, Increased riparian corridors, grasses grasses, no croplands

13 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Heritage Heritage Small Decrease No Change Small Increase Resources Lose historic fields and No new damage, same More sites protected from possible root damage visibility less tillage in grassland Socio- Economic FS Cost to Maintain Large Decrease Small Increase Large Increase To $0 To $240,211 To $397, 696 Local Large Decrease Small Decrease Medium Decrease Economic Stimulus To $0 To $574,160 To $120,783 from Croplands

Table AL-3. Comparison of Alternatives to Current Condition – Ranking of Effects Over a 10-Year Period (1-Best Rank to 3-Worst Rank)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wildlife Habitat for Listed and 3 1 1 Sensitive Species Habitat for MIS 3 2 1 Habitat for Demand 3 1 1 Species Vegetation Native Warm Season 3 2 1 Grasses Invasive Species 3 1 1 Pesticide Use 1 3 2 Recreation Opportunities Wildlife Viewing 3 1 2 Large Animals Wildlife Viewing 3 1 2 All Species Hunting Participation 3 1 2 EE Opportunities Programs Available 3 1 1 Soil & Water Effects Soil Loss 1 2 1 Water Quality 1 2 1 Heritage Heritage Resources 3 2 1 Socio-Economic FS Cost to Maintain 1 2 3 Local Economic 3 1 2 Stimulus

2.3 Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives _ Design criteria, many of which pertain to potential impacts of open land maintenance, are to be employed in the implementation of the alternatives. These criteria govern implementation of this project. Some are legal requirements while others are policies and procedures that will be followed during implementation. This is not intended to be an all inclusive list.

15 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

LBL will comply with applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and policies. The Area Plan design criteria, including standards, are incorporated by reference. • Design criteria outlined in Area Plan • Region 8 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Guide • Agricultural BMPs (Appendix 6.1.3) • IPM Practices (Appendix 6.9.2) • Pesticide Use Risk Management Measures (Appendix 6.9.1) • Open lands Heritage Survey Plan (Appendix 6.6.2) • If cultural resources are found at any time, operations will cease in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until the Area Archaeologist can assess the resources • All equipment that will be used off-road in the maintenance of open lands shall be cleaned and free of vegetation and seeds before entering LBL

2.4 Alternatives Not Analyzed in Detail ______

2.4.1 No Change to Current Open Lands Management

Open lands have been managed as directed by the 1994 TVA Plan through calendar year 2006. The 1994 TVA Plan was replaced by the Area Plan. A no-change alternative was not developed because it would not comply with the new Area Plan goals, objectives, and standards.

2.4.2 Immediately and Completely Eliminate the Use of Pesticides

An alternative to immediately and completely eliminate the use of pesticides for open lands management was considered. However, field observations over the past 5 years have shown that without pesticides, nonnative invasive species out-competed native grasses in many of the grasslands. Additionally, yields in cultivated lands were reduced by such a major extent the desired objectives were not achieved, and the benefits to wildlife and recreation were not realized (project record). The Area Plan allows for the use of pesticides as part of the IPM program after site specific assessments and meeting Area Plan standards. The no pesticides alternative would not meet the purpose and need for continued maintenance of open lands. Another approach to controlling undesirable, nonnative species in fields is to use mechanical disturbance instead of pesticides. Workhorses, hand tools, or more frequent tilling could potentially be used. Given the large number and distribution of openings, total number of acres, and pervasive spread of nonnative invasive species in open lands, the use of mechanical disturbance alone would not be practical or effective in meeting the

purpose and need. An alternative to immediately and completely eliminate the use of pesticides for open lands management was dropped from detailed analysis.

2.4.3 Conversion of All Cultivated Lands to Grasslands or Old Fields Immediately and Completely, and Elimination of Small Fields within Large Blocks of Forest

Cultivated lands include lands farmed under special use permits for row crops and lands designated for wildlife plantings. Converting all of these lands to grasslands or old fields immediately was discussed by the IDT. Row crops and wildlife plantings diversify and supplement food sources for wildlife throughout the forest, and are especially important for a winter food source during years of poor mast production. A large portion of these lands are maintained under cost-share special use permits, which allows them to be maintained within current budget constraints. If these fields were immediately withdrawn from cultivation, it is unlikely they would continue to be maintained as grasslands or old fields under cost-share agreements.

Elimination of small fields within large blocks of forest would eliminate many fields that provide a diversity of open habitat for those species requiring openings within the forest. Large, contiguous blocks of forest are present in the core areas, which cover about 25% of LBL. Openings were eliminated from these core areas through implementation of the 1994 TVA Plan.

This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the Area Plan and was dropped from detailed analysis.

2.4.4 Conversion of Cultivated Lands to Bottomland Forest (includes riparian corridors)

The majority of “bottomlands” in the immediate vicinity of LBL were inundated by the impounding of the Kentucky and Tennessee Rivers to form Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. Approximately 14,636 acres of bottomlands exist on LBL, 75% of which is currently forested, 17% which is in cultivation, and 8% in grasslands. A portion of the bottomlands currently in cultivation and in grasslands would revert to forest with implementation of riparian corridors as described in Area Plan Standard 35, further reducing those percentages. The additional habitat created by the conversion of the remaining cultivated lands on these soil types to bottomland forest would be small compared to the amount already forested and going to forest in expanded riparian corridors. Given the Area Plan direction for no net loss in open lands, appropriate land suitability for cultivated lands in the existing locations, and the majority of LBL bottomlands already in forest cover, this alternative was dropped from detailed analysis.

17 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

602.4.5 Use of Partnerships or Volunteers to Immediately Maintain All LBL Open Lands

A goal of the Area Plan is to develop partnerships for managing LBL. The Forest Service is currently working with partners and volunteers, including the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimited, and others, to maintain LBL open lands. Because LBL has a large open lands program, and due to the rising costs of open lands management (especially fuel, fertilizer, etc.), partnerships have contributed to management of 10 percent or less of total open lands acres on LBL. Volunteer efforts have been minimal and sporadic, largely due to the need for large equipment. The Forest Service will work to expand open lands management partnership opportunities, and agreements. However, it would take time to establish and build partnerships, and the sole use of partnerships and volunteers to maintain all of LBL’s open lands was dropped from detailed analysis.

2.4.6 Organic Farming on All Cultivated Lands

Cultivated lands on LBL include row crops and wildlife plantings. Converting cultivated lands to certified organic farming practices was considered as part of this analysis. Discussions were held with representatives of the Kentucky Department of Agriculture Organic Farming Certification Program (Holleran 2007 and Stone 2007, pers. comm). Requirements for certified organic farming fall under regulations required by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (Title XXI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624). Requirements include creation of a detailed record of all activities and an organic system plan each year for each field. System plans would include a list of input substances and monitoring techniques to verify organic status. Organic farming requires the use of organic seed and fertilizer, and labor intensive pest management techniques as many pesticides are prohibited. Processing facilities must also be certified.

Vinson 2006 states the following in a research proposal on weed management strategies for sustainable cropping systems: 1) Surveys of organic growers and studies of organic farms indicate that weeds are a major production problem; 2) Existing methods for controlling weeds on organic farms depend on excessive soil disturbance resulting in potential losses in soil quality; 3) Growers have indicated their fear of uncontrolled weeds is frequently a factor inhibiting adoption of organic practices; 4) More than in conventional agriculture, the problems of organic farmers and approaches to their solution vary greatly in response to local and climatic conditions and 5) A comparative approach that examines similar management methods across the U.S.A. and beyond will help identify common principles, and indicate how they have to be modified to fit local conditions.

Presently in Kentucky, organic produce farms are typically small in acres (10 acres or less) with a large labor force. Conversely, cultivated fields in LBL vary in size and are scattered across a 270 square mile landscape. Due to the number of individual fields, number of acres, distribution of open lands on LBL, the stringent and extensive

requirements of organic farming, intensive labor and logistical resources required, and three growing seasons transition time from conventional inputs to organic certification, it was determined organic farming was not feasible for large scale implementation on LBL’s cultivated lands at the present time, and this alternative was dropped from detailed analysis.

2.4.7 Other Techniques Considered for Maintenance of Open Lands

Three other techniques were previously considered for open lands maintenance on LBL. Using manual labor to control weeds and woody plants in open lands was not considered in detail due to the high cost and unavailability of workers to perform the labor. Given the size and number of open lands, hand weed removal was not considered to be a reasonable technique for maintenance of open lands.

Spraying super heated water to control weeds and woody plants was not considered in detail due to the experimental nature of this treatment. We have not found sufficient documentation on the effects of this practice. Development and/or purchase of equipment for large scale applications would also make the process prohibitive.

Consideration was given to the feasibility of using sheep grazing as an alternative to herbicides to establish and maintain desired plant communities on LBL. However, the number of herds, logistics of moving them, impacts on desirable vegetation, and other factors were prohibitive. It was determined that it is logistically unfeasible to use sheep grazing to meet the purpose and need of the open lands management program on LBL.

2.4.8 Increasing Riparian Corridor Width

Consideration was given to an alternative with all riparian corridor widths increased beyond 100 feet for perennial streams and 75 feet for intermittent streams. Increasing riparian corridor widths to encompass entire home ranges of some amphibian species would provide more habitat for species that require damp, forested areas. However, increasing riparian corridor widths to accomplish this would eliminate many open lands all together, and cause others to decrease to a size that would make them too small to achieve the goals of open lands management. The potential and effects of increasing corridor width are considered in Alternative 1. Given the Area Plan direction for no net loss of open lands, appropriate land suitability for cultivated lands in the existing locations, and the vast majority of LBL bottomlands already in forest cover, this alternative was considered unable to meet the purpose and need and was dropped from detailed analysis.

19 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of alternatives. This summary is based on best available science including but not limited to literature reviews, consideration of the references listed in Chapter 6, specialist reports, public comments, seminars, professional experiences, and peer discussions and consultations documented in the project record. Best available science is also captured in identification of methods used, discussion of opposing views, and disclosure of incomplete or unavailable information.

This section also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Section 2.2, Tables AL-2 and AL-3. A more detailed discussion of the general effects of open lands management can be found in the Area Plan FEIS. Areas not considered as part of the scope of this analysis, except for the cumulative effects, include road and utility ROWs, open land types associated with facilities (campgrounds, boat ramps, etc.), and rock quarries. The expansion of Highway 68/80 would be considered in the cumulative effects section. The effects of the 68/80 project were addressed under a separate NEPA process led by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and US Federal Highway Administration.

3.1 Vegetation Resources ______

3.1.1 Scope of Analysis

The scope of analysis for the open lands vegetation would include all open land structure types, their spatial arrangement, and abundance on the landscape.

3.1.2 Historic Context and Landscape Pattern

In terms of open land plant communities, there is no question forested lands on LBL today do not reflect the pattern, composition, or densities of forests that existed prior to extensive agricultural practices of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. A description of those conditions can be found in the Area Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2004), (Martin and Taylor 2002), (O’Neill and Doyle 2002), and (Close, et al. 2002).

What remains today are the heavily forested mid and upper slopes, ridges, and drains that exist above Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley. These forests have developed in the absence of fire, and open woodlands with grass/forb dominated understories maintained by frequent fire are mostly nonexistent on LBL.

Agriculture has existed on LBL’s landscape for over a century. Most of LBL’s open lands are remnants of the agricultural era prior to establishment of LBL as a national

recreation area (Lowe 2002). These open lands function as important habitat components currently in short supply. Total amount of land area in open land habitats has decreased. Open grassland, savanna, or woodland habitats have all but disappeared (Area Plan FEIS Table 3.2.3B and FEIS Appendix E, Table E2).

3.1.3 Affected Environment

Managed open lands are not randomly distributed across the landscape and occur in areas where they were established during and after settlement. Many of the existing managed open lands are remnant fields that form loose clusters of similar habitats along stream course or ridgelines on a landscape of oak hickory forest. These habitats are essential for maintaining diversity.

Grasslands and cultivated open lands are represented on all ecological site types defined in Chapter 3 of the Area Plan FEIS (USDA FS 2004). Grassland structure types are primarily located on upland dry and dry-mesic sites, whereas cultivated open land structure types are located primarily on lowland alluvial sites to mid-slope mesic and dry- mesic sites. The lowland alluvial sites are where most of the cropland fields are located and wildlife plantings are found primarily on the mid-slope and upland sites in clusters and scattered across LBL (Appendix 6.1.1 Table A1). Small open lands, less than one acre, are most often located adjacent to and were once part of adjoining fields, but became separated by a fence row, road, or when a stream corridor grew up.

Vegetation around the perimeter of existing open lands is comprised primarily of mature forest habitat. This mature forest habitat also borders the majority of LBL’s intermittent and perennial streams and provides shade and woody debris for riparian functioning. While existing streamside management zones met the minimum requirement of the 1994 NRMP of 10 feet, many are in fact 20-30 feet or wider, and are mostly forested. Establishment of riparian corridors to 2004 Area Plan standards of 50 feet with a grassy filter strip, or 75 and 100 feet will increase these widths and promote future forest habitat in these areas.

The edge of most open lands in LBL is sharp, versus a gentle soft edge that is more desirable for wildlife species habitat. Many of the former soft edges that were established under TVA management reverted to trees and shrubs, and eventually mature forest, reducing not only the amount of soft edges, but also the amount of open lands.

Open Land Management Practices Land management practices described below have been and would continue to be used in the management of LBL’s open lands.

Mowing/Haying - Mowing is used in open lands to set back succession, control woody vegetation and undesirable invasive species growth, provide vegetation canopy cover breaks for wildlife in large acres of grasslands (e.g. mowed strips in warm season grass fields), and maintain green forage plantings. Haying, (mowing, and removal of grasses

21 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

for hay) is a way to keep open lands mowed at little or no cost, and provides other benefits.

Disking/Plowing - Disking or plowing breaks up sod, exposes mineral soil, sets back succession, and prepares open lands for planting. Additionally, exposed mineral soil and tender young shoots are characteristics sought after by some species of wildlife.

Liming - LBL’s soils tend to be very acidic. Application of lime helps to reduce acidity and prepare soil for establishment of desirable open land plant species, including wildlife plantings, row crops, and cool season grasses and legumes.

Application of fertilizer – Proper timing and amounts of fertilizer increases nitrogen and other nutrients which promote forage quality and quantity, aids in the development and maturation of plants, lengthens stand life, and helps reduce weed problems.

No-till planting - A practice in which seed is drilled into the soil with minimal soil disturbance and keeping existing surface root systems essentially intact. This practice is most often used in combination with herbicide treatments to control competing vegetation.

Prescribed burning - Periodic burning removes buildup of fine fuels in open lands, oxidizes standing vegetation, and releases phosphorus and potassium back into the soil through ash. For native warm season grasses and forbs, spring burning can stimulate growth and reduce competition from less desirable species. Timing of prescribed burns is important. Early spring burns before primary nesting season have essentially the same effect as early spring mowing except nearly all residual vegetation is consumed by fire. Blackened surfaces heat up faster and sprouting proliferates as temperatures rise in the spring. Fall burning has much the same effect in regards to plant materials; however, standing vegetation is consumed by fire which greatly reduces thermal and escape cover for animals through the winter months. On the other hand, it exposes the humus layer and soil surfaces to seed drop from fall mast crops and is an aid to germination.

Agricultural BMPs - Agricultural Best Management Practices are used to protect soil and water resources. BMPs include such practices as conservation tillage, following contours, leaving crop residues on the soil surface, timing and height of mowing, etc. BMPs are listed in Appendix 6.1.3.

IPM - Integrated Pest Management strategies are applied where needed to meet objectives of the open lands program (Area Plan, USDA FS 2004). Combinations of cultural practices (crop rotation, conservation tillage, prescribed burning), mechanical controls (bush-hogging, disking, tilling) biological controls (those that would be widely accepted and approved), and chemical controls (approved pesticides) are used on a case by case basis. Pesticides for open lands management can include herbicides (for controlling undesirable plants), insecticides (for insect pests), and fungicides (for controlling fungal growth). Herbicide used in open lands focus on removing or controlling competing undesirable plant species such as fescue, Johnson grass, Sericea

lespedeza, and other aggressive invasive species. Neither insecticides nor fungicides have been used in recent years, but may be needed in the future to control undesirable insect or fungal pests which can damage or kill desirable plant species. IPM practices are listed in Appendix 6.9.2.

Open Lands Access Roads - Managing open lands includes maintaining access roads to those open lands. Access roads into grasslands and cultivated fields were in existence prior to LBL’s inception. Some are comprised primarily of a natural surface (e.g. grass/soil) and some have a gravel surface. Approximately 70 miles of open lands access roads have been identified as part of the administrative roads in LBL. Through field survey and GIS technology, 32.3 miles were surveyed with GPS (project record), and less than 5% had rutting, ponding, or overhanging vegetation, indicating open lands access roads overall are in fairly good shape. Typical maintenance includes removal of trees and limbs that fall across the roads and occasional grading.

Description of Community Types

The following contains a description of each of the open land community types both LBL-wide and specifically for the project area. More detailed descriptions can be found in Appendix 6.1 and the Area Plan. Maps illustrating the distribution of grassland can be found in the appendix, and can be viewed in more detail on LBL’s website.

Grassland Cover Community Types

Grassland cover types include structure types classified as maintained open lands, old fields, hay fields, road and utility ROWs.

Maintained Open Lands Open lands classified as “Maintained open lands” are maintained in early successional grasses and forbs. Maintained open lands do not receive frequent soil disturbance and therefore are classified as grasslands. They are located primarily along roadsides; within facility boundaries, and generally in areas where landscape, soil conditions, or other management considerations limit cultivation frequency. These open lands are established and maintained through occasional disking, mowing, burning, seeding, and/or herbicide application. They provide for species viability, wildlife viewing, conservation education, hunting, and scenic diversity. There are approximately 1,750 acres of grasslands LBL- wide categorized as maintained open lands, and can include native warm season grasses.

There are approximately 700 acres of maintained open lands in the General Forest prescription area (project area) scattered across LBL, that range in size from less than one acre to 22 acres, with an average size of one acre. Some of the maintained open lands along roadsides are primarily comprised of fescue due to ROW establishment. Fescue was historically planted in most of these areas because of its ability to form a dense sod and stabilize soils and its value as a forage grass. Others contain a variety of desirable species, as well as invasive species.

23 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Included in the group of maintained open land acreage in the Area Plan FEIS are those open lands that have been restored to native warm season grasses and forbs. There are currently about 550 acres classified in this category and most are located in contiguous blocks on the landscape.

Warm season grass fields are maintained primarily with the use of prescribed fire or periodic mowing prior to August 31. Strips may be mowed or disked on rotation in warm season grass open lands to provide open areas for wildlife species to forage on young vegetation and create diverse habitat conditions.

Cool and Warm Season Grass Hay Fields Hay fields are grasslands dominated by grasses and forbs that are annually mowed for hay. Hay fields are established and maintained by mowing, burning, disking, seeding, fertilizing, and liming by local farmers, presently under special use permits. The majority of hay fields are in cool season grasses; however, some have been converted to native warm season grasses and forbs. The green forage growing in these hay fields is available for wildlife consumption year-round. Hay fields provide food and cover for wildlife, hay for LBL’s bison and elk herds, scenic diversity, wildlife viewing, and hunting, and have been maintained at a minimal cost to the Forest Service (cost of administering permits). Native grasses and forbs also provide for species viability and conservation education. There are approximately 1,530 acres of grasslands categorized as cool and warm season grass hay fields LBL-wide.

There are total of 1,390 acres in cool and warm season grass hayfields. This includes about 227 cool season grass hay fields (1,140 acres) that range in size from 0.2 to 38 acres with an average size of 5 acres, and there are about 42 fields (250 acres) in warm season grass hay fields that range in size from 0.5 to 55 acres with an average size of 5.8 acres. Entire portions of all fields are mechanically disturbed (e.g. mowed) at least once every 2 years.

Cool season grass hay fields are primarily comprised of fescue, orchard grass, timothy, and clover species (including alfalfa). Fescue has not been planted in hay fields for many years, but because of its aggressive nature, it continues to dominate in many areas. The cool season grass hay fields are generally limed about every 4 years and fertilized each year or every other year.

Mowing and prescribed fire are used to manage warm season grass hay fields. There are increasing amounts of Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza and other exotic species in many hay fields due to non-use of herbicides in the fields over the past 7 years.

species. This field type includes a variety of grass and forb species and is quickly invaded by woody species such as sumac, persimmon, sycamore, sassafras, and cedar on poor land capability sites as described in Section 3.2. Invasive species also become prevalent on these sites when the canopy is fairly open. A list of invasive species found to occur within old fields and around their perimeters in 2006 are in the project record. Old fields provide for species viability, wildlife viewing, conservation education, hunting, and scenic diversity. The total number of old field acres for the project area is the same as LBL-wide acres. There are about 93 old fields (190 acres) that range in size from 0.2 acres to 12 acres with an average size of 2 acres. These acres differ considerably from the Area Plan as recent inventories have shown a number of old fields reverted to forest through lack of maintenance, and other acres were designated as core areas and no longer receive maintenance.

Road ROWs Management of the road ROW is not part of this decision as no changes are planned, but road ROW’s are included in the Area Plan as part of the total grassland acres, and will be addressed in the cumulative effects analysis of this EA. The road ROWs are a grassland type that includes all open land within 16 feet of each roadside shoulder along major paved roads. ROWs are generally less than 16 feet to nearly non-existent on the narrower gravel or dirt surface roads. The road ROWs are maintained by mowing, primarily for visibility and safety. The frequency of mowing varies, with the main roads being mowed more frequently than roads which receive less use. The road ROWs along the major paved roads are mowed 2-4 times per year at a minimum height of 3 inches. There are approximately 1,500 acres of open lands classified as road ROWs on LBL.

Utility ROWs Management of the utility ROWs is not part of this decision as no changes are planned, but is included in the Area Plan as part of the total grassland acres, and will be addressed in cumulative effects analysis in this EA. There are approximately 750 acres of utility ROWs easements on LBL. Utility ROWs easements are held and managed by utility companies for maintenance of electric utilities and underground gas pipelines on LBL. The utility ROWs easements are maintained primarily by mowing on a 1-5 year cycle. The gas utility ROWs are mowed annually, whereas the powerline ROWs are mowed less frequently. These open lands have a wide variety of vegetation species that include grasses and forbs, and an abundance of sapling trees and shrubs depending on frequency of mowing.

Cultivated Cover Community Types

Cultivated community types include wildlife plantings and croplands. Cultivated open lands provide an especially important food source for wildlife in years of poor mast crops, such as 2007 in which both soft and hard mast (especially acorns) are scarce.

Wildlife Plantings Wildlife plantings are open lands planted annually or on a longer rotation to provide supplemental food and cover for wildlife, and wildlife viewing opportunities. These are

25 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

generally small fields planted and maintained through contracts. There are approximately 1,460 acres in 513 fields classified as wildlife plantings across LBL, all of which are in the General Forest Prescription Area and considered as part of this project. The openings range in size from 0.2 to 22 acres. The average size opening is 3 acres.

Wildlife plantings are established using conventional tillage. Spring wildlife plantings are established annually between April 1 and May 1, and are usually annual forages. Fall wildlife plantings are established between August 15 and September 30 and are generally perennials that would persist for about 3 years with maintenance, such as periodic mowing. Spring wildlife plantings provide wildlife food sources from spring through winter, and fall wildlife plantings provide a wildlife forage source throughout the year. Spring and fall plantings are often rotated among fields designated for wildlife plantings.

Spring wildlife plantings may be planted in single species or various mixtures that may contain plants such as milo, millet, iron-clay cowpeas, Korean lespedeza, corn, forage soybeans, sunflowers, clovers, or other desirable forage species. In recent years, many spring wildlife plantings have failed to produce the desired grains and forage as no herbicides have been used to help control invasive or other weed species. Many spring wildlife plantings have been 90% out-competed by invasive species, primarily Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza, and foxtail species.

Fall wildlife plantings are managed to provide green forage for wildlife habitat diversity and distribution. Most tracts are currently located where no cooperative farming occurs or in highly visible areas within the General Forest Prescription. Many of these areas are not economical for cooperative farming and are thus done by contract. These openings are disked, seeded, and fertilized in early fall with a combination of winter wheat, cool season grasses, clovers, and other legumes. The fall plantings can be mowed in subsequent years to maintain grass/legume forage for several years.

Approximately every 3-5 years lime is applied to fields designated for wildlife plantings, generally at a rate of 2 tons per acre to increase the pH of the soil. To be successful, a single herbicide application needs to be made at the time of planting or shortly thereafter to spring wildlife plantings. Fall wildlife plantings can be successfully established without herbicides unless there is an abundance of exotic invasive species which need treatment.

The combination of spring and fall wildlife plantings provide wildlife food and cover year-round, but especially during fall and winter months. Wildlife plantings also provide scenic diversity, enhance wildlife viewing, conservation education, and hunting opportunities.

Croplands Croplands are open lands cultivated for traditional row crops. Croplands on LBL are managed on a share-crop basis in a similar manner to croplands on National Wildlife Refuges. The Forest Service presently administers croplands by authorization of two

special use permits, with a 20% share of the crop allocated for wildlife consumption. In years of poor mast crop production, the Forest Service may barter or purchase additional crops above the 20% share to be left standing in the field for wildlife. Croplands provide a supplemental food source for wildlife, increased recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, environmental education, and hunting, and maintain open land at a minimal cost to the Forest Service (cost of administering special use permits). Similar to the practices at National Wildlife Refuges, croplands are among the most heavily visited watchable wildlife locations at LBL.

According to the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2700 (FSM 2722 Agriculture) it is appropriate to have agricultural permits for croplands on National Recreation Areas. Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 10, section 12.32A directives and 36 CFR 251.54 has been followed and permits are consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and policies governing National Forest System lands, Federal law and with applicable State and local health and sanitation laws. Further, agricultural practices support the LBL Mission, have demonstrated efficiencies and effectiveness, and a number of state and federal agencies, local businesses, partner organizations, media, and educational facilities have long endorsed these practices on LBL (project record).

There are approximately 2,640 acres on 335 cultivated fields classified as row crops on LBL. The fields range in size from 0.5 to 68 acres. The average size for a row crop field is 8 acres.

Conventional tillage and no-till planting are used in croplands, along with application of lime, fertilizer, and approved pesticides. A generalized schedule of field preparation, planting, and maintenance is provided for croplands in Appendix 6.1.2. Croplands have been in a corn/soybean rotation for many years. Several corn and soybean varieties have been used, including genetically modified varieties such as Round-up Ready® corn and soybeans. Genetically modified crops (GMCs) have become a prominent feature of American agriculture and are used to reduce amounts and types of herbicides applied to croplands. The Forest Service monitors and approves the varieties to be planted on an annual basis.

The cropland acres under permit have been managed to maintain or improve productivity of the soil for desired crops by applying fertilizer and lime. Soils tests are required to determine fertilizer and lime needs and have been done annually. The application of approved pesticides on croplands is kept to the minimum required, and implemented according to standards in the Area Plan and as specified in the permit for each cooperative farmer.

Nonnative Invasive Species Nonnative noxious invasive species (NNIS or “invasive species”) are considered one of the Forest Service “Four Threats” to our Nation’s ecosystems. Through internal and external collaboration, the Forest Service is currently in the process of developing a National Strategy to guide efforts to more aggressively address the invasive species threat. Essentially, a species is considered invasive if:

27 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

• It is not native (i.e. alien) to the ecosystem under consideration; and • Its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Invasive species threaten the sustainability of our forest ecosystems regionally, nationally, and globally. They threaten natural diversity; habitat for fish, wildlife, native plants, soil stability, and ecosystem processes. The financial impact from invasive species infestation in the U.S. alone has been estimated at $138 billion per year in total economic damages and associated control costs. The goal of the USDA Forest Service invasive species program is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species across all landscapes and ownerships. It is our intent to control invasive species where possible or necessary on LBL and to prevent introduction of new invasive species.

Invasive plant species may be dispersed by natural agents such as wind, water, and wildlife, and intentionally or unintentionally by humans. Invasive species have been present on LBL since before LBL became a national recreation area. Open land habitat diversity on LBL has been adversely affected by invasive species and productivity and recreational benefits of open lands have been degraded with invasion of undesirable vegetation.

Appendix 6.1.1, Table A2 lists invasive species known to occur at LBL. Table A3 provides habitat and LBL priority for invasive species associated with open lands. The predominantly occurring invasive species in open lands on LBL include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), bristlegrass species (Setaria spp.), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and fescue (Schedonorus phoenix). Known occurrences of invasive species are discussed under grassland and cultivated open land types and have been recorded during field inspections and 2006 field inventories of open lands and their perimeters (project record).

Invasive species can be enhanced by cultivation practices. However, cultivation practices can also be used to help to reduce invasive species. Application of integrated pest management (IPM) practices, including mowing, disking, burning, proper timing of planting, application of approved pesticides, and other methods would help to reduce invasive species on LBL.

Reduction of invasive species in open lands (primarily fescue, Johnson grass, and Sericea lespedeza) increases the likelihood that desirable plant communities would dominate open land sites and successfully complete their life cycles. Removing invasive species reduces competition for nutrients, space, and water, increasing the likelihood that desirable plants would be successful in producing normal amounts of foliage and seed.

The 2006 LBL field inventories documented non-native invasive species along field borders, including riparian corridors. Sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle and Napalese browntop were noted along agriculture field edges that border riparian

corridors. Removal of NNIS from open lands would reduce source material to the riparian corridors. Increasing widths of riparian corridors will promote forest habitat. Shade emanating from forest stands may reduce the occurrence of several NNIS, particularly those with high light requirements such as honeysuckle (Nyboer 1990). Sericea lespedeza and Napalese browntop are shade tolerant and would continue to thrive under forest canopy in riparian corridors (Ohlenbusch and Bidwell 2001, Tu 2000). These studies recommend integrated pest management practices including pesticides as control measures. Also see discussion of NNIS in the Water Resources section.

Vegetation Monitoring

Monitoring of Row Crops and Hayfields

Past monitoring of open lands management practices on approximately 2,640 cropland acres and 1,390 hayfield acres at LBL has included regular meetings with the permittees, periodic field visits during implementation, and review of pesticide application records. Overall there has been good compliance with the terms of permits.

The project record includes documentation on communications between Cooperative Permittees and Forest Service personnel, and documentation for field inspection/inventories, and permit compliance monitoring. Past monitoring activities for cooperative farming are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Mandatory meetings have been held by the Forest Service each year to update permittees on annual operating plan requirements and to obtain from permittees their management plans for each field for the year (i.e crop types to be planted, plans for fertilizer, lime, and pesticide applications, etc.). Additionally, regular communications are held with permittees throughout the growing season (project record).

Deer damage to crops has been monitored and field assessments are made annually by the Forest Service to determine the amount of leave crop shares to be left in the fields at harvest time. This information is used in combination with mast crop survey results and weather conditions/events during the growing season when determining leave crop shares (project record). Mast crop survey results since 1980 indicate approximately one-third of the years result in poor mast crop ratings (Appendix 6.4.1, Table A1).

Hay permittees are required to provide the Forest Service a specified number of hay bales annually for feeding elk and bison at the Elk and Bison Prairie (EBP) and South Bison Range (SBR). No hay cutting is permitted prior to June 1 to protect nesting wildlife. Synthetic twine and synthetic hay wrap are very persistent in the environment and have been prohibited from use due to risk of wildlife entanglement. The hay permittees have complied with the permit requirements except there has been noncompliance with the removal of hay bales from LBL in a timely manner. Hay bales left for extended periods of time begin to rot and fall apart, sometimes resulting in bales not being able to be removed. Ultimately this can lead to a loss of open land acreage when woody vegetation

29 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

begins to grow up around the bales. This problem has been addressed with permittees and corrected (project record).

The Forest Service has limited records of TVA field inspections under the 1994 NRMP. The available records, personal communication (M.Cope personal comm.), and staff observations indicate the permittees have been in compliance with the terms of their permits. Records of pesticides used on cooperatively managed open lands from 1999 to 2006 are in the project record and discussed as part of the analysis of pesticide use. The Forest Service documented, during compliance field checks in 2007, implementation of the 2004 Area Plan standards for use of pesticides on croplands. The results are in the project record, and show that there was good compliance by permittees.

Prior to the 2007 planting season, maps of riparian corridors to be implemented for cropland and hayfields were provided to permittees and discussed with them by Forest Service personnel. Implementation of riparian corridors has been monitored and documented. Overall, the corridors have been implemented according to plan standards. Under a lawsuit settlement agreement, portions of riparian corridors that would be in grassy filter strips with implementation of the proposed action were planted in row crops but no pesticides were applied. These strips of row crops developed poorly due to weed species competition, and did not meet plan objectives in producing grain for wildlife (project record).

Monitoring of Wildlife Plantings and Grasslands Other Than Hayfields

Approximately 1,250 acres in wildlife plantings and grasslands other than hayfields and old fields have been managed by the Forest Service through contract actions. Past monitoring of open lands management practices at LBL has included periodic meetings and field checks of contractors during implementation of project actions, and follow-up field visits to monitor whether or not project objectives were met. Overall there has been good compliance with the terms of the contracts by contractors. The most significant area of non-compliance with contracts has been not completing plantings in the specified time periods, often due to weather. Contract compliance and inspections are documented in the project record.

Open lands inventories in 2006 included vegetation composition, woody growth, nonnative noxious invasive species within open lands and around their perimeters, checks for threatened and endangered species, pond and waterhole location and condition, and presence of reptiles and amphibians and other wildlife. Botany surveys have been done to determine species composition and presence of threatened and endangered species within open lands and their margins (Campbell 2003 and 2002). In 2003, open lands were inventoried prior to their renovation, and the presence of native and exotic species and the size of the tree species present were documented (project record).

Wildlife plantings have been monitored for invasive species and planting success. As mentioned earlier in this section, wildlife plantings have failed without the use of

pesticides to control NNIS. Photos in the project record document the increase in NNIS and poor establishment of desired species.

Future Monitoring Plans

Monitoring will be carried out according to guidelines in the Area Plan. Monitoring will include periodic field inspections of permittees and contractors during project implementation. Compliance with design criteria, such as riparian corridor standards, integrated pest management practices, and agricultural best management practices will be noted. Follow-up field inspections will be made to determine whether project objectives were met. Monitoring records will be available at the Forest Service Administrative Office at LBL.

3.1.4 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for vegetation resources includes all of LBL and the adjoining reservoirs. Past actions since implementation of the 1994 NRMP, and present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

For cumulative effects discussions, present and foreseeable future activities reviewed for this analysis include:

• WA-18 Timber Sale implements varying degrees of harvesting activities on six stands totaling 237 acres and conducts prescribed burning on 893 acres in the Long Creek watershed. The Long Creek watershed drains into Hematite Lake in the North Nature Watch Area.

• Prior Creek, OGRDA a multifaceted project, proposes to reduce basal areas on 1,800 acres of mature oak-hickory forest, to construct a wetland, and prescribe burns up to 8,755 acres in the Prior Creek project area. This project also develops a grassland component which over time would provide additional grassland habitats, though limited in distribution.

• Maintenance of road and utility ROWs of which approximately 2,250 acres are mowed annually and may receive pesticide applications in the future.

• Ongoing operations on the Elk & Bison Prairie (EBP) (372 acres of grasslands) and the South Bison Range (SBR) (144 acres of grasslands).

• The Highway 68/80 road corridor expansion would be implemented in each alternative. The open land acres affected by implementation of this project have been incorporated into this EA for each alternative. This project area was assessed under separate NEPA documentation (FEIS US 68/KY 80 Improvements from Aurora to the Cadiz Bypass, Marshall and Trigg Counties 2006).

31 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects - None. Since open lands would not be maintained, there are no actions, hence, no direct effects.

Indirect Effects - Grasslands and cultivated lands represented on all ecological site types within the project area would gradually revert to shrubs and trees over the next 10 years, and early successional habitats on 6,930 acres of open lands would be lost. The Area Plan goals and objectives for the management of open lands would not be met. Riparian corridors adjacent to open lands would all revert to forest. Roads used exclusively for open lands access would be considered for closing, decommissioning, or inclusion as part of LBL’s trail system. Hay currently being provided from hay fields for feeding elk and bison would no longer be available.

Pesticides would no longer be used on these lands, and undesirable invasive species would continue to occur and increase in abundance in the abandoned open lands over the next 10 years. The invasive species that currently occupy the perimeter of open land types would spread into the abandoned fields and invasive species already present in the fields would increase and be present until the fields succeed into forest types. Habitat for the barbed rattlesnake root (Regional Forester’s Sensitive species) and other species that require open canopy/edge habitat (Area Plan) will be negatively impacted. Shade tolerant invasive species would continue to thrive in riparian corridors. Invasive species that prefer open, intense light habitats would decrease in riparian corridors as they revert to forest. Woody invasive species present within open lands would continue to adversely affect habitat diversity, native vegetation types, and recreational benefits of these areas.

Cumulative Effects - Vegetation diversity in grassland and cultivated open lands within the General Forest areas of LBL would be impacted due to the loss of these two major cover types as they reverted to forest. Ongoing or foreseeable vegetation management activities in WA-18 and within Long Creek watershed and Prior Creek projects would add minor amounts (1% of LBL land area) of grassland associated with woodland habitats on all ecological site types. Annual maintenance of vegetation in EBP and SBR and road and utility ROWs would continue and provide limited habitat. The acres associated with facilities that would still be maintained include approximately 1,055 acres of open lands, 140 acres of cool and warm season grass hay fields, 1,500 acres in road ROWs, and 750 acres in utility ROWs.

Approximately 95 acres of cropland in the corridor of Highway 68/80 would become part of the four lane road corridor. This land would go into riparian corridor, warm season grasses, maintained open land, and road ROWs. In addition to these acres being reclassified, approximately 190 acres of forest would be cleared and reclassified to maintained open land within the four lane road corridor.

Pesticides and fertilizer treatments that would be eliminated on croplands include approximately 1.5% of the acres in LBL. Approximately 4% of the total acres in LBL

would be converted from open land to forest cover in the long-term, with LBL then being 96% forested.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects - Implementation of this alternative would begin the transition of vegetation in LBL’s open lands towards the desired future condition described in the Area Plan and FEIS. As a result of implementing this alternative, 6,610 acres of existing open lands would continue to be maintained in the General Forest area of LBL, and vegetation diversity would continue to be provided across all open land types. There would be 3,630 acres in grasslands, 2,980 acres in cultivation, and 430 acres in newly designated riparian corridors.

Approximately 760 acres of cultivated land would be converted to a grassland type, including 100 acres restored to native warm season grasses and 475 acres reclassified to maintained open lands. About 90 acres of cool season grasses would be converted to warm season grasses.

Mowing or cultivation may result in the temporary direct loss of individual plants, but desirable plant populations would not be adversely affected. IPM practices, including the application of approved pesticides, would be used on all open land types where needed to control invasive and undesirable species. Herbicide use would decrease approximately 17% from current levels due to the reduced number of acres in cultivation and fewer total acres managed. The extensive pesticide review process would result in the use of lower risk pesticides. Implementation of Area Plan standards and design criteria will provide additional protection when pesticides are used. Pesticide use would be necessary to achieve the desired conditions on open lands.

Indirect Effects - Grassy filter strips, established over time as part of the riparian corridors, would provide transitional edge habitat between cultivated fields and forested portions of riparian corridors. While a portion of the riparian corridors would be managed as grassy filter strips, most of the 430 acres would be allowed to grow up into trees and shrubs over time. Reversion of the riparian corridors to trees and shrubs would result in a loss of open land habitat. (Appendix 6.1.4) Shade tolerant invasive species would continue to grow in riparian corridors. Control of invasive species within open lands would reduce source material to the riparian corridors. Invasive species that prefer open, high light habitats would decrease in riparian corridors as they revert to forest. Succession of these corridors would be monitored over time to insure they progress towards desired vegetative conditions.

Vegetation diversity would be enhanced with the control and reduction of invasive species in cultivated and grassland cover types over the next 10 years. Open land edge habitat for a Regional Forester’s Sensitive species, the barbed rattlesnake root would be maintained.

33 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Croplands converted to grasslands over time would increase the quantity of grassland habitats and grassland species diversity across LBL. IPM practices, including the application of pesticides, may be used on all open land types to control invasive pest species. There may occasionally be minimal negative indirect effects to some individual non-target plants on the immediate periphery of open lands due to drift or offsite movement from a significant unexpected rain event. However, implementation of IPM practices, Area Plan standards, and design criteria would minimize effects to non-target species. No populations of proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive species are likely to be adversely affected by implementation of this alternative.

Cumulative Effects - From 1994 to the present, open lands have been maintained according to the 1994 NRMP. For the last 7 years, pesticides have not been used in wildlife plantings and there has been a large increase in invasive species in these open lands (project record). As IPM measures are implemented, including the use of herbicides, vegetation diversity in grassland and cultivated open lands within LBL would be enhanced over the next 10 years.

Ongoing or foreseeable vegetation management activities in WA-18 and within Long Creek watershed and Prior Creek projects would add minor amounts (1% of LBL land area) of grassland associated with woodland habitats on all ecological site types. Annual maintenance of vegetation in EBP and SBR and road and utility ROWs would continue to be managed and provide limited habitat. The additional open land acres associated with facilities that would be maintained include approximately 1,055 acres of maintained open land, 143 acres of cool and warm season grass hay fields, 1,500 acres of road ROWs, and 750 acres of utility ROWs.

Approximately 5 acres would be converted to wetlands in the Prior Creek project under a separate decision. Approximately 95 acres of cropland in the corridor of Highway 68/80 would become part of the road corridor. This land would come out of cultivation and would go into riparian corridor, warm season grasses, maintained open land, and road ROWs surface. In addition to these acres being reclassified, approximately 190 acres of forest would be cleared in the 68/80 corridor and be reclassified to maintained open land type.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct Effects - As a result of implementing this alternative, 6,610 acres of existing open lands would continue to be maintained in the General Forest area of LBL. There would be 4,960 acres in grasslands, 1,650 acres in wildlife plantings, and 430 acres in newly designated riparian corridors. Croplands would be eliminated and converted to native warm season grasslands and wildlife plantings. The acres that would be managed in grassy filter strips in cultivated and grassland fields would not be established or maintained with herbicides. Mechanical means such as mowing or disking could be used to maintain grassy filter strips and help reduce invasive species.

Vegetation diversity would increase on croplands that were converted to native warm season grassland. There would be approximately 2,130 acres of cultivated land converted to a grassland type. About 1,620 acres would be restored to native warm season grasses, and 460 acres reclassified to maintained open lands. The establishment of wetlands would be covered under a separate decision. There would be 770 acres of cropland converted to wildlife plantings and 880 acres retained in wildlife plantings within the project area for a total of about 1,650 acres upon implementation of this alternative.

Mowing or cultivation may result in the temporary direct loss of individual plants, but desirable plant populations would not be adversely affected. IPM practices, including the application of pesticides, would be used on all open land types to control invasive and undesirable species. However, pesticides would not be used in riparian corridors. Herbicide use would decrease approximately 56% from current levels due primarily to the elimination of croplands and fewer total acres managed. Due to a higher level of invasives control required in croplands, annual pesticide applications are needed, but grasslands, after establishment, would need less frequent applications. The extensive pesticide review process would result in use of lower risk pesticides, and implementation of Area Plan standards and design criteria would provide additional protection when pesticides are used. Pesticide use would be necessary to achieve the desired conditions on open lands.

Indirect Effects - While a portion of riparian corridors would be managed as grassy filter strips, most of the 430 acres would be allowed to grow up into trees and shrubs over time. As a result of eliminating pesticides in riparian corridors, invasive species would continue to occur, spread, and compete with desirable vegetation within the corridor and adjacent open lands. Control of invasive species within open lands would reduce source material to the riparian corridors. Invasive species that prefer open, intense light habitats would decrease in riparian corridors as they revert to forest. Succession of these corridors would be monitored over time to insure they progress towards desired vegetative conditions. Reversion of the riparian corridors to trees and shrubs would result in a loss of open land habitat (Appendix 6.1.4). Croplands converted to grasslands over time would increase amounts of grassland habitats and grassland species diversity across LBL.

IPM practices, including the application of pesticides, would be used on open land types to control invasive pest species. Occasionally, there may be minimal negative indirect effects to some individual non-target plants on the immediate periphery of open lands due to drift or offsite movement from a significant rain event. However, implementation of IPM practices, Area Plan standards, and risk management measures would minimize effects to non target species. No populations of proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive species are likely to be adversely affected by implementation of this alternative.

35 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Ongoing or foreseeable vegetation management activities in WA-18 and within Long Creek watershed and Prior Creek projects would add minor amounts (1% of LBL land area) of grassland associated with woodland habitats on all ecological site types. Vegetation in EBP and SBR and road ROWs and utility ROWs would continue to be managed and provide limited habitat. The additional open land acres that would be maintained include approximately 1,055 acres of maintained open land; 143 acres of cool and warm season grass hay fields; 1,500 acres in road ROWs; and 750 acres in utility ROWs.

Approximately 95 acres of cropland in the Highway 68/80 road corridor would become part of the four lane road corridor. This land would go into riparian corridors, warm season grasses, maintained open lands, and road ROWs. In addition to these acres being reclassified, approximately 186 acres of forest would be removed and reclassified to maintained open land within the four lane road corridor. Approximately 5 acres would be converted to wetlands in the Prior Creek project under a separate decision.

3.2 Soil and Water Resources ______

3.2.1 Scope of Analysis

The scope of analysis for soils would include, soil loss, soil compaction, soil fertility, and stream contaminants within the assessment area during the life of the project. The assessment area includes all the open land acres identified under the existing conditions for the vegetation resources, the forested open land perimeter and woody inclusions within the perimeter of open lands.

The scope of analysis for water resources consist of wetlands, streams, springs, interior lakes, ponds, wildlife watering holes, and groundwater within the assessment area. The assessment area includes all the open land acres identified under the existing conditions for the vegetation resources, the forested open land perimeter and woody inclusions within the perimeter of open lands. Kentucky Lake to the west, an impoundment of the Tennessee River, and Lake Barkley to the east, an impoundment of the Cumberland River, are not considered part of LBL. Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley are included in the resource description because surface water from LBL ultimately drains into them.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

Soil Resource

Soil is the part of the earth’s surface composed of organic matter, minerals, and living organisms. Soil is capable of supporting a wide variety of biological, chemical and physical processes, and the cycling of nutrients and water. A soil’s physical materials consist of sand, silt, clay, and organic matter. Other particle sizes such as gravel, cobbles and boulders may be included with the soil mixture as a result of past geologic, geomorphic, and hydrologic activity.

The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS), last completed county soil surveys for Kentucky’s Trigg and Lyon Counties in 1981 and Tennessee’s Stewart County in 1953. The following soils information was taken from SCS (1981) for Kentucky soils and SCS (1953) for Tennessee soils in LBL (newer data is being compiled but not yet available).

According to soil surveys and current GIS data, the Lyon and Trigg County portion of LBL consists of approximately 17 soil series and 33 soil mapping units. The Stewart County portion of LBL consists of approximately 35 soil series and 83 soil mapping units. Each map unit on a soils map is a unique natural landscape. Typically, a soil map unit consists of one or more major soils and some minor soils. Soil series consist of soils that have similar horizons in their profile. The horizons are similar in color, texture, structure, reaction, consistency, mineral and chemical composition, and arrangement in the profile. Refer to the project record for a list of the soil mapping units of LBL.

Generally, most of LBL soils are derived from limestone or gravelly coastal plain residuum, or from combinations with Pleistocene loess. Many of the soils derived from underlying parent material are typically low in nutrients. Based on the dissected nature of the topography, it is assumed erosion over a long period of time had a major impact on the processes of soil formation on the ridge tops and upland slopes. In LBL, soils are so closely interspersed that they are most often mapped as soil complexes or combinations.

Upland soils are mostly forested. The most common upland soils are of six types: Baxter, Bodine, Brandon, Hammack, Lax, and, Saffell. About half of approximately 6,930 acres maintained as open lands occur in valley bottoms in long, narrow fields, typically Land Capability Class (LCC) 2 and 3. The remaining acres maintained as open lands are dispersed on the landscape from LCC 4 to 7 (See Appendix 6.2.1).

Bottomland soils at LBL typically have high site indexes and are generally one of five types: Clifty, Ennis, Humphreys, Lindside, and Nolin. The correct terminology for all bottomlands associated with a river or creek, would be “floodplain” since they are subject to flooding. However, in common usage and for the purposes of this assessment, they will be referred to as “bottomlands.” A terrace would have soils such as Elk or Otwell and would not be subject to flooding (personal communication, Rudy Forsythe, 04/02/2007). In email correspondence with Jerry McIntosh, USDA-NRCS, he explains, “Geomorphically, these are fluvial landscapes just like your larger floodplain areas (e.g.,

37 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Cumberland and Tennessee River)…the difference of course being primarily the size of the floodplain and nature/source of sediments. To be considered a stream terrace you must have an adjacent floodplain and these don’t fit that …. The sediments that comprise these areas have more alluvial than colluvial influence (ie. Water has laid them in there where it’s relatively flat). However, there are many colluvial toe slopes that are adjacent to these narrow bottomland areas throughout the LBL area. Often times these areas are referred to as Narrow Fluvial Valleys which insinuates they are narrow floodplains. It might take one heck of an event within the watershed to flood them, but it can happen. Again, by process of elimination these areas are more accurately characterized as bottomlands as opposed to any other geomorphic term we might apply to them.”

In general, the open land fields in row crop production are limited to fields with less than 3% slope. Fields that have 3% slope or greater are generally classified as Highly Erodible Land (HEL) in accordance with the 1985 Food Security Act (FSA). Most grasslands in LBL would be considered HEL due to their location on the landscape; however, these fields were not in row crop production at the time of implementation of the 1985 FSA and have remained in grass to the present, therefore, they require no HEL determination or compliance plan from Natural Resources Conservation Service. Production row crop fields classified as HEL are required to develop a conservation compliance plan through the NRCS and are subject to random FSA compliance status reviews conducted by NRCS. LBL currently does not have any HEL row crop fields and has not been notified of any past reviews or violations of the 1985 Food Security Act. Fields that have 2% slope or less are generally classified as Non-Highly Erodible Land (NHEL) and do not require a conservation compliance plan to comply with the FSA.

The Forest Service at LBL does require BMPs (Appendix 6.1.3) be implemented on NHEL as well as HEL fields. In addition to the Area Plan standards, practices include conservation crop sequence, conservation tillage or no-till, seasonal crop residue management across the slope planting, and vegetated concentrated flow areas. These practices minimize effects to soils. Conservation crop sequence consists of a corn soybean rotation. Conservation tillage consists of limited tillage where approximately 4,000-6,000 pounds of crop residue per acre (a minimum of 30% residue) remains on the soil surface after planting. Seasonal crop residue management requires crop residues to remain on the soil surface over the winter until 30 days or less to planting. Across the slope planting requires crops to be planted across the slope of the majority of the crop field. These requirements are more stringent than conditions placed on private sector farmland. Grassland vegetation is primarily managed by mowing or prescribed fire and does not involve annual soil disturbance.

Soil Compaction

Soil compaction is the increase in soil density resulting from loads applied to the soil surface. During the compaction process, soil volume is decreased primarily through the elimination of macro-pores (pores > 0.002 inches in diameter). Soil compaction is one of several types of closely related physical soil disturbances that can occur during planting, harvesting, and maintenance of open land fields. Seedbed preparation has been

discontinued when soil conditions are unsuitable such as with wet soil that could cause erosion and/or soil compaction. One option to relieve compaction is deep tillage (also called ripping or deep ripping). It is not defined as a separate tillage system. The use of this technology has grown rapidly in the Midwest in the last 5 years or so and has been used periodically in LBL, most recently last season. Deep ripping is generally defined as tillage done to a depth of more than 12 inches, usually with the goal of shattering the soil beneath the surface and so relieving soil compaction. Depending on the tillage standards and soil engaging points used, deep tillage may result in little disruption of the surface residue, or it may bury a substantial amount of this residue (Nafziger 2006). Most deep tillage as practiced at LBL has left the surface residue intact.

Other types of soil physical disturbance include puddling, rutting, and scarification. These disturbances often occur simultaneously and are most often caused by heavy equipment. These disturbances are addressed by Standard #8 in the Area Plan. If the spatial extent of disturbances exceeds 15% of the field, corrective measures will be taken, such as deep ripping to relieve compaction.

Soil Displacement (Topsoil Removal)

Soil displacement is the horizontal and vertical movement of surface soil from its original position on the landscape. The surface horizon or topsoil can be moved from one place to another through mechanical means (e.g. row crop and forage production, temporary and system roads). Since the surface horizon makes up the organic and mineral soil layers, soil displacement contributes to a loss in soil productivity which affects the growth of plants. Soil displacement associated with soil compaction may alter soil texture, and physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, which can lead to accelerated erosion, surface run off, and stream sedimentation.

Erosion (Soil Movement)

Soil erosion is another type of physical impact that can occur as a result of soil disturbance during open land management activities. Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are detached and transported by water, wind, or gravity to some down slope or downstream point. Erosion is a natural process but soil erosion can be accelerated as a result of human activity. Soil erosion is a major concern, but with the use and careful design of BMPs such as the Area Plan’s Design Criteria standards and R8 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Guide (SWCP) (McLaughlin et al. 2002), erosion and sedimentation would be reduced. Erosion reduction measures include using crop rotation, conservation tillage, residue use, contour farming, fertilization, and vegetation management. Seeding, fertilization, and other erosion control measures may also be necessary in order to maintain soil cover and nutrients and to limit erosion and sediment.

During past inspections of spring wildlife plantings and row crop fields, no areas of severe erosion were observed (field inspections, Franklin 2006-07). Future monitoring will confirm the effectiveness of treatments and practices used, and aid in future project implementation plans.

39 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Soil Productivity

Soil productivity is a concern when managing open lands. Conditions that can influence soil productivity include soil type, aspect, erosion potential, nutrient composition, and past land use. Soil productivity can be reduced by severe wildland forest fires, and other natural and anthropogenic activities.

Compared to conventional tillage with no crop rotation and no seasonal residue management, crop rotation and tillage systems have been found to have positive long- term effects on soil productivity and soil components, such as carbon, as well as on soil physical, biological, and chemical properties. In addition, both tillage and crop rotation have beneficial effects on weed and soil disease control (Mallarino et al. 2004, Al-Kaisi, M. et al. 2005). Mannering and Griffith (2006) state several factors influencing corn and soybean yields are affected when cropping sequence and tillage practices are changed. Crop rotation is beneficial in controlling diseases and pests that affect each crop. Crop yields are boosted by rotating crops rather than growing the same crop year after year (Thompson 2004 and Skillman 2001). Nitrogen costs are increasing and soybeans fix nitrogen into the soil thus helping to satisfy nitrogen needs for corn in rotation.

On LBL cropfields, post crop residue has been maintained on the soil surface until 45 days or less prior to planting for conventional tillage. Crop residues have been maintained at a minimum 30% level for conservation tillage. Rotation, tillage, and residue use also influence soil water content. A soil surface protected by crop residue would not surface seal or crust readily, thereby allowing rainfall to enter the soil rather than run off. Surface residue can be as much as 90% in a no-tillage system, compared with little or no surface residue remaining following conventional tillage. Surface residue can greatly reduce evaporation, thus retaining more water in the soil for plant growth. For example, no-till cropland with heavy residue cover may have as much as 20% more available water in the soil. Large amounts of residue returned to the soil increase both organic matter and the soils’ water holding capacity (Mannering and Griffith 2006). Monitoring of soil for physical properties on LBL has been very limited in the past. However, research has shown that the practice of conservation tillage (as practiced on LBL cultivated fields and described above) improves infiltration, water holding capacity, soil structure, organic matter and nutrient distribution (Blevins et al. 1983, Diaz-Zorita et al. 2004).

Soil Improvement

Maintaining soil productivity is important to assure adequate forage and crop production. Each State’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) are established as practical guidelines to be used to reduce the impact of management activities. The Region 8 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Guide (SWCP), the Area Plan standards, and LBL’s agricultural BMPs include the measures needed to protect soil and water resources. LBL’s Agricultural BMPs (Appendix section 6.1.3) require that soils be periodically tested and productivity maintained by applying lime and fertilizer.

Soil testing is required before applying lime and fertilizer to the soil. LBL’s permittee farmers normally have annual soil testing performed to determine lime and fertilizer amounts needed for maintaining optimum levels of N, P, and K for soil production on the fields as recommended by an accredited Laboratory using Milich III test procedures. Historically, soil testing has been used to assess the need for lime and fertilizer to optimize agronomic crop production. Recently, soil testing has been viewed as a means to assess a soil’s ability to retain added nutrients against losses to lakes, rivers, streams and ponds through runoff or leaching.

Most of LBL’s soils are acidic. Application of lime neutralizes soil acidity, raises soil pH, and adds calcium and magnesium to the soil. Liming acidic soils improves the environment for beneficial soil microorganisms, and promotes a more rapid breakdown of organic materials in the soil, releasing nutrients for plant growth (Rasnake and Murdock 1993). Agricultural lime is applied on the average of once every four years to increase soil pH, usually at a rate of about 2 tons per acre.

Maintaining good soil production is essential, not only for maintaining crop yields, but for increased residue production that protects and insulates the soil through the winter. The amounts applied are also driven by economics, especially since the sharp rise in costs of fertilizer. Typically, N and K are rapidly taken up by plant growth and there is no build up in the soil or threat to water quality. Phosphorous may build up in the soil but the levels are reduced by adjusting application rates according to soil tests.

Fertilizers used on LBL can include soil injected anhydrous ammonia for corn; granular formulations containing various rates of N, P, and K for corn, soybeans, wildlife plantings and hayfields, and granular urea for hayfields. Urea, a white granule containing 46% nitrogen, is widely used in the agricultural industry as a fertilizer and animal feed additive (Overdahl et. al. 1991).

Lime and fertilizers are routinely applied on less than 3 % of the land area of LBL and incorporated into the soil whenever possible. Amounts vary with each application based on soil test results and vegetation being established. Recent rates typically applied for corn were 150 - 175 pounds of N, and 60 pounds of P and K per acre; for soybeans, 0-25 pounds N and 60-80 pounds P and K; for hayfields, 50-30-30 (N-P-K); for spring wildlife plantings, 50-50-50, and fall plantings, 9-23-30.

Water Resources

LBL is divided into two roughly equal portions, separated by the Tennessee/Cumberland drainage divide, which runs approximately north/south down the longitudinal center of the peninsula. Generally, LBL drains from east to west for the Tennessee River drainage portion, and from west to east for the Cumberland River drainage portion. LBL’s approximately 79 watersheds at the 6th level Hydrologic Unit Code are relatively small and range from about 600 to 4,000 acres in size. The small sizes are the result of the relatively short distance from the drainage divide to either of the two impounded rivers.

41 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

As a result of these drainage features, the majority of LBL's streams have seasonal flows. Bear Creek and Lost Creek, located on the south end of LBL are perennial streams that extend outside LBL’s boundary. The largest perennial streams on LBL are Crooked Creek and Bear Creek. Other perennial streams are Lost Creek, Brandon Spring Branch, Barrett Creek, Panther Creek, Byrd Creek, Crockett Creek, Prior Creek, Long Hollow Creek (Barnes Hollow) and Fulton Creek.

The Area Plan identifies three priority watersheds as a focus for resource improvement – Turkey Bay, Crooked Creek and Lick Creek watersheds. Open lands comprise less than 10% of the acres in these 3 priority watersheds.

Table SWR-1. Stream Miles Within or Adjacent to Prescription Areas General Forest Core Areas

Total Miles % Miles % Miles In % Miles Bordering Bordering Core Open Land Forested Area Land Intermittent 642 41 6 453 70 148 23 Streams Perennial 17 4 22 6 36 7 42 Streams Total 659 45 7 459 70 155 24

A total of 45 miles of intermittent and perennial streams (7% of total stream miles) are adjacent to open lands and require establishment of riparian corridors. A total of 155 miles (24%) of streams flows through minimally disturbed core areas.

Following the Area Plan standard, riparian corridors are being established along all streams adjacent to open lands. Perennial streams require 100 feet set aside as riparian corridors. Intermittent streams require a 75-foot corridor except where a managed and maintained grassy filter strip is implemented. In those cases, a 50-foot corridor inclusive of a 20-foot grassy filter strip is allowed. The remaining corridor width between the grassy filter strip and stream will be natural vegetation allowed to mature into forest. A total of 430 acres will be withdrawn from open lands management to establish the wider riparian corridors.

Riparian corridors, as directed by LBL’s Area Plan, are more than just buffer zones. Riparian corridors are design criteria, which guide management activities within and near riparian areas to benefit riparian functioning. The analysis in the Area Plan determined there are many riparian functions, some of which are given higher priority than others. For example, those that protect beneficial uses of water quality and aquatic habitat have

some of the most sensitive parameters. If the sensitive beneficial uses of water quality and aquatic habitat can be protected and benefited, it is understood other functions of riparian areas are likely being met (i.e. floodwater storage, terrestrial wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetic values). Research, published literature, and ranked factors influencing riparian areas were used to determine the Area Plan standard widths for riparian corridors.

Currently riparian corridors have varying widths averaging from 10 to 30 feet of forest adjacent to streams. The remaining widths required for establishing the riparian corridors will gradually reforest if left undisturbed. Where manageable, 20 feet in grassy filter strips may be established to provide filtering of sediments before any runoff and sediment transport reaches the forest floor. Maintenance of these strips will be required such as mowing, burning, and occasionally herbicides to sustain the native grasses or other suitable vegetative filter strip. Where grassy filter strips are not implemented, the Area Plan requires a full 75 feet of natural vegetation to filter runoff and sediment due to the varying amounts of surface cover, uneven terrain, and varying vegetation types. Such factors play into the ability of flow to form into rills and carry sediments; thus the need for 75 feet widths. The Area Plan requires a full 100 feet along perennial streams to establish forest cover that will eventually provide large wood to the riparian corridor forest floor for nutrients and habitat and to the stream for aquatic habitat and flow dispersal.

Currently forest, other natural vegetation, and NNIS comprise the vegetation mix within streamside areas. Forest species and native understory plants and grasses are the desired components, not only for filtering and infiltrating runoff and sediments, but also for wildlife habitat and streambank stabilization in these zones. Field surveys have indicated high occurrences of Sericea lespedesa, Japanese honeysuckle and Napalese browntop along agriculture field edges and within borders of riparian corridor areas. Numerous other NNIS were recorded with lesser occurrence within the perimeters of the fields, which could serve as source material to riparian corridor areas. These NNIS offer some riparian functioning attributes for filtering runoff, erosion control and wildlife habitat.

Japanese honeysuckle invades forest edges and openings, disturbed woods and floodplains where it out-competes native vegetation above and below ground (Nyboer 1990). It establishes by seed dispersal and ground surface runners. The root system is highly competitive and forms dense mats. While it’s not a desirable species due to its competition with native species, its root system offers soil stabilization and erosion control. The foliage is digestible and nutritious not only in spring but winter when it provides food sources to rabbits, birds, small mammals and deer (Nuzzo 1997).

Sericea lespedeza was originally planted to control soil erosion and provide food and cover for wildlife. It has a deep woody tap root (Ohlenbusch and Bidwell 2001) making it competitive, drought resistant, and a protective cover for poor soils. Practical experience has shown sericea lespedeza is not a preferred food source for wildlife. It holds its greatest wildlife benefit as cover. It is reported to be allelopathic, and reduces

43 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

diversity in plant food and cover which support wildlife (Ohlenbusch and Bidwell 2001, Duncan and Clark 2005).

Nepalese browntop, a.k.a. Japanese stilt grass, invades habitats that have been disturbed and is found in riparian habitat, woodlands, and roadside ditches. It is a shallow rooted annual so does not offer erosion control benefits. Known to usurp quality nesting habitat (Tu 2000), it offers only minor food values to terrestrial birds (NRCS 2007) and is unpalatable to deer and livestock (Howard 2005).

Removal of NNIS from open lands would reduce source material to the riparian corridors and benefit riparian areas. Establishing the Area Plan’s riparian corridors to standard widths will promote forest habitat. Shade emanating from forest stands may reduce the occurrence of several NNIS, particularly those with high light requirements such as honeysuckle (Nyboer 1990). Sericea lespedeza and Napalese browntop are shade tolerant and would continue to survive under forest canopy in riparian corridors (Ohlenbusch and Bidwell 2001, Tu 2000).

Water Quality

To fulfill requirements of Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control (or Clean Water) Act of 1972, the Kentucky Division of Water (DOW) and Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) prepares a report every two years for submittal to the EPA. Section 305(b) of the Act requires states to assess and report current water quality conditions. Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the States of Kentucky and Tennessee have developed a list of water bodies presently not supporting designated uses as required by 40 CFR 130.7(b)(4) and needing total maximum daily load (TMDL) development (KY 303(d) NREPC, 2003 and TN 303(d) DWPC, 2002). Designated uses for the waters of both states are for fish and aquatic life, recreation (swimming), livestock, irrigation and wildlife. The most stringent water quality criteria are associated with the protection of fish and aquatic life and/or recreational uses. The 2006 303(d) List of Waters for Kentucky does not list any streams located in the LBL. The Draft 2006 303(d) for the waters of Tennessee does not list streams in LBL. This means streams located in LBL support designated uses such as swimming and fish consumption. Neither State lists the lower Cumberland River, the lower Tennessee River, or their reservoirs as not supporting designated uses.

The Four Rivers Watershed Watch report (November 9, 2006) includes information about the contaminants and data from 2006 sampling events. The report contains E. coli data maps for all sites, triazines (Atrazine) data maps for all sites and individual site data for E. coli and triazines (Atrazine). Information contained in this report on most probable number (MPN) for E. coli and water quality was taken from KY DOW and EPA websites. Information on maximum contaminant level (MCL) for triazines and water quality contained in this report comes from the EPA website. The 2006 sampling results for both E. coli and Atrazine for LBL samples taken at Crooked Creek are at acceptable levels and well below thresholds. LBL’s numbers are lower than numbers for

surrounding counties. The main source for E. coli in LBL would be wildlife. Atrazine has not been used on LBL since 2003.

The Four Rivers Watershed Watch report for nitrate sampling data from 1999 to 2005 has not indicated any concern for nitrates entering the waters of western Kentucky (2/3 of LBL lies in western KY and the remaining 1/3 lies upstream in TN). Sampling was taken at 75 to 100 locations across western Kentucky in predominantly agricultural areas and did not indicate any nitrate issues due to fertilizer. While a surface water quality standard for nitrates does not exist, drinking water standards do. Only a handful of samples exceeded the drinking water standard (none were on LBL) and were associated with wastewater effluent discharges. Data from Watershed Watch can be found in the project record. Clearly, if nitrates are not a problem in largely agricultural settings in western Kentucky, one would not expect nitrates from the smaller and more restricted operations of agricultural practices at LBL to be a concern in Kentucky or Tennessee.

The 5,283 acre watershed of Panther Creek in LBL has been used for long-term monitoring and environmental research since 1995. In addition to water chemistry, a number of studies have been conducted on the stream biota, gas evolution, and hydrology. Faculty and students from Murray State University, Austin Peay State University, and Vanderbilt University presently have research sites on portions of the creek. Three sites in the Panther Creek watershed have been monitored since 1995. All monitoring sites are sampled every 16 or 32 days corresponding with LandSat images. Surface water parameters include dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, turbidity, conductivity, temperature, nitrogen and phosphorus series, chlorophyll a, as well as a number of physical measurements. All data is archived and is available for student and researcher use.

Because the watershed is considered comparatively pristine and its water quality has been good, Panther Creek data function as a baseline for studies of other streams in the western part of Kentucky and Tennessee. Within the watershed are 221 acres (4% of the total watershed) of maintained open lands including cropland, wildlife plantings, hayfields, and other grasslands. These managed open lands are not contributing to adverse water quality conditions in Panther Creek.

While water quality sampling has been limited in LBL streams, it has been conducted in diverse watersheds on LBL, ranging from a watershed identified by the Area Plan as needing resource improvement (Crooked Creek) to one considered pristine (Panther Creek). Both watersheds have contained actively managed open lands since the 1960s. While most of the remaining watersheds on LBL have not been monitored for water quality, it can be assumed their conditions fall in between that of Panther Creek and Crooked Creek. Since the monitored watersheds meet standards and did not indicate any water quality issues, the rest of the waters in LBL’s watersheds most likely also meet water quality standards.

Kentucky Lake (Tennessee River), which is under the direction of TVA, runs the entire length of the west side of LBL. TVA monitored Kentucky Lake annually from 1991

45 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

through 1995 to establish baseline data on the reservoir’s ecological health under a range of weather and flow conditions. Kentucky Lake is now monitored every other year. The ecological health of Kentucky Lake rated good in 2005. Kentucky Lake has rated good all years except in 1995 when the rating was a “high fair”. Sediment quality rated good at all locations. No pesticides or polychlorinated biphenyls were detected and concentrations of metals were within the expected background levels. It can be inferred that waters on the west side of LBL draining into Kentucky Lake are not contributing to adverse effects in the lake. No monitoring data is available for the Cumberland River and east side of LBL other than the data associated with the Kentucky and Tennessee List of Waters on the 303(d) list. Because land management practices are similar in practice throughout LBL, it is assumed adverse effects from LBL waters are not being contributed to the Cumberland River and Lake Barkley.

The biological characteristics of LBL streams have received little study. However, in July 2001, the US Forest Service Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer (CATT) performed surveys on the 11 perennial streams flowing into Barkley and Kentucky Lakes. The CATT team inventoried stream habitat, fish, macro-invertebrates, sediment, and water chemistry to provide LBL managers with baseline data needed to develop resource management plans. Water chemistry results for pH, conductivity and temperature were generally acceptable (Whalen et al. 2002). Low flows in streams were a concern and any future management practices should limit water consumption and dewatering activities. The Whalen report described general lack of in-channel habitat diversity that was affecting aquatic communities. Field data indicated low amounts of large woody debris, few riffle structures and high levels of substrate embeddedness. Data from the CATT report was used in setting thresholds of the cumulative effects model for watershed condition ranking in the Area Plan.

Based on these tests, surveys and studies, it is readily apparent that the stream management zones (SMZ) prescribed under the NRMP and past open land management practices reduced sediment and pollutants from transporting into the steam network of LBL. Although narrow in width and invaded by NNIS, these SMZ’s protected water quality and offer some wildlife habitat. As the Area Plan riparian corridor standards are implemented and widths are increased to include more forest land and grassy filter strips, improvement to not only water quality is expected but also aquatic and terrestrial habitat. As desired forest vegetation re-establishes, streambanks will stabilize resulting in a reduction of substrate embeddedness and establishment of riffle habitat. Forest stands will eventually provide woody debris to the channel and to the riparian forest floor. No additional increase in standard widths was found to be needed to support riparian functions for amphibians and reptiles (see section 3.4.4). NNIS will retard the reestablishment of forest and desirable understory cover, however. Removal of NNIS from open lands would reduce source material to the riparian corridors. Studies recommend integrated pest management practices along with pesticide applications as control measures (see Section 3.1.3).

Groundwater

Surfacing groundwater creates many spring up-wellings at LBL. In 1969, LBL springs were surveyed and categorized as being free-flowing (perennial), trickle-flowing (perennial), seep (intermittent), or seasonal (intermittent). Free-flowing springs flow continuously throughout the year. Trickle-flowing springs flow throughout the year, but with a low water volume. Seep springs flow with enough frequency to maintain small standing pools which seldom dry up, and seasonal springs are dry part of the year. The survey identified 131 springs, of which 19 were free-flowing, 29 were trickle-flowing, 34 were seep, and 49 were seasonal springs. While they are limited in area, they are rich in species biodiversity (TVA 1994).

In 1988, Dr. Steven W. Hamilton of Austin Peay State University initiated a quarterly spring survey of 8 of LBL's largest springs to characterize these environments. In 1989, 2 additional springs were added to the survey. Samples of aquatic invertebrates are taken in addition to measurements of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, width, depth, and flow rate. Measurements are made in, around, and 30 feet below each spring source. Preliminary results indicated spring waters are of high quality for the parameters tested (TVA 1994). LBL's largest free-flowing spring is Lost Creek spring located in the Tennessee portion. Lingle-Gillis and Hamilton (1990) describe it as a temperate, calcareous spring with an average temperature of 58° F and discharge volume of 14,100 cubic feet per hour at the source. The researchers found 90 species of aquatic invertebrates in the spring, most represented by species of insects, snails, and crayfish. LBL's second largest spring, Prior Creek spring, had a discharge of 1,940 cubic feet per hour (14% of Lost Creek Spring's flow) and approximately 50% fewer species of invertebrates than those found in Lost Creek Spring (TVA 1994).

Potable groundwater has been collected by Ecotone Services Inc. for the past several years. Three sites are tested in Kentucky and seven in Tennessee. All test sites are located in or near facility areas. After the samples are collected, they are sent to McCoy & McCoy Laboratories, Inc. where they are analyzed for total nitrate and nitrite, pH, temperature, free chlorine, haloacetic acid (HAA), trihalomethanes (THM), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Nitrites, pH, temperature, and free chlorine are sampled daily, whereas, HAA, THM, and VOCs are sampled annually. For compliance, the Kentucky analysis results are sent to the Kentucky Division of Water / Drinking Water Branch and the Tennessee analysis results are sent to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. All analyses for August 17, 2006, the latest annual test results available at the time of this analysis, were within acceptable limits (Kentucky Division of Water/Drinking Water Branch 2006, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Chemical Analysis Report 2006).

These tests, surveys and studies, indicate current and past land management practices at LBL have not adversely affected the flows or quality of LBL’s groundwater.

47 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

3.2.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects - None. No management activities would occur that disturb the soil, soil cover, or water on the assessment area. There would be no soil compaction or displacement. There would be no pesticide and fertilizer treatments. Riparian corridors would not be managed.

Alternative 1 LCC 2 to 8 Row Other Warm Old Wildlife Hay Crop Grasslands Season Fields Planting Fields Grass Average 0.17 range of soil to loss 3.17 ton/acre/year t/a/y Acres 0 0 0 6,610 0 0

Indirect Effects - Under this alternative the current 6,930 acres of grassland and cultivated land on all ecological site types and structure types would gradually revert to shrubs and trees over time. Residue from recent cultivation on 4,100 acres would remain on the soil surface, offering cover and protection to the soil resource for about one year. After one year it would rapidly deteriorate. A small spike in erosion may occur after residue deteriorates and until sufficient ground cover is established. The formerly cultivated fields would be vulnerable to invasion of NNIS over the next several years until shrubs and trees establish. Even then, certain NNIS that are shade resistant would continue to thrive under shrubs and trees. During this time, the soil surface may be exposed and be susceptible to soil loss and erosion. The 2,830 acres of grasslands would continue to provide good soil cover and erosion control over the short term because grasses tend to have dense root mass that stabilize soil. Without management however, NNIS may increase in grasslands and soil cover would decrease. This reduction in desired vegetation cover could lead to an increase in soil erosion after a few years. Once the land reverts to shrubs and trees, a decrease in erosion should occur. Roads used exclusively for open lands access would be considered under a separate NEPA decision for closing, decommissioning, or inclusion as part of LBL’s trail system and would further reduce erosion.

Fertilizer and liming would cease. Any residual effects from the fertilizer and lime would be rapidly consumed by natural vegetation and NNIS. Then N, P and K levels would fall. The pH of soils would become more acidic without liming. Overall soil productivity may decrease but the vegetative cover would likely shift to adaptive species. Any compaction in open lands would decrease over the long term as freezing and thawing cycles and deep rooted vegetation breaks the density.

In place of riparian corridors, the areas adjacent to streams would revert to shrubs, trees, grasses and weeds. These unmanaged areas would remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff by filtration, decomposition, and volatilization. Sheet flow may become concentrated in small rills due to uneven ground cover and hills and increase sediment transport. Widths of 75-100 feet natural vegetation are sufficient to reduce the risk of rills forming and transporting sediments to the stream (Wenger 1999). Water quality would be protected by this alternative.

Cumulative Effects - Past land management activities have not adversely affected soils or waters as discussed under affected environment. Ongoing or foreseeable land vegetation management activities taken into consideration during this analysis include: Mulberry Flats timber sale (WA-18), the North Oak Grassland Demonstration Area, projects within Prior and Crockett watersheds, road and utility maintenance, and improvement of Highway 68/80. Over the long term and across LBL, this alternative would reduce erosion from wind and water. Water quality would be protected. As open lands adjacent to streams revert to trees and shrubs, streambanks would benefit from the addition of large woody debris. This will, over the long term, reduce head cutting in streams and reduce scour erosion from out of bank flow during storm events. This alternative would have no detrimental cumulative effects to other ongoing or foreseeable activities. Risk to the soil and water resources is lowest of the three alternatives.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects - As a result of implementing this alternative, the acres in cultivation would decrease from current levels of 4,100 to 2,980 acres. Cultivated acres (cropland and wildlife plantings) would be planted and maintained in a manner compliant with LBL’s agricultural BMPs, IPM, the Area Plan standards and the 1985 Food Security Act. Row crops would be restricted to planting on LCC 2 and 3. Conservation tilling, residue management and crop rotation are practices that will be followed to conserve and protect the soil resource. Grasslands will increase by 800 acres to a total of 3,630 acres and provide a dense vegetative soil cover. Lime and fertilizer would be applied to cultivated land and grasslands in amounts recommended by soil testing and follow the Area Plan standards and agricultural BMP’s. Approved pesticides would be applied as part of an IPM program and according to plan standards.

Risk of compaction will be less than current conditions since about 1,100 fewer acres will be under agricultural practices but more than under Alternative 1. Compaction will be controlled or relieved by requiring deep tillage periodically in the row crop fields. If other soil physical disturbance are noted during field inspections and determined to not meet Area Plan standards, corrective measures will be taken. This can range from restrictions or discontinuation of use of equipment during unsuitable soil conditions to requiring deep tillage.

There would be no direct effects to water. A total of approximately 430 acres of open lands in cultivation (360 acres) and grassland (70 acres) would expand riparian corridors to protect water resources. The 430 acres would convert to old field and eventually forest

49 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands except about 100 acres managed as grassy filter strips adjacent to cultivated open lands. Existing roads will be used for access to open lands.

LCC 2 to 8 Row Other Warm Old Wildlife Hay Crop Grasslands Season Fields Plantings Fields Grass Average 0.52 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.36 0.04 range of soil to to to to to to loss 5.5 0.73 3.9 3.17 4.9 3.9 ton/acre/year t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y Acres 2,100 1,270 840 190 880 1330

Indirect Effects - Soil productivity is expected to stay the same as current conditions because conservation practices will continue to protect the soil resources. Conservation tillage, no-till seeding and residue management will leave a minimum of 30% and up to 90% residue on the soil surface to protect it from erosion, maintain and improve soil moisture, provide organic material to soil structure and improve nutrient availability. Rotating crops will help control disease and pests (Mannering and Griffith, 2006). Application of fertilizer and lime will maintain soil productivity through additions of nitrates, phosphorus and potassium at levels determined and recommended by Mehlich III soil testing method. The Mehlich III soil testing method is required by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency for fertilization of USDA cost share practices. Continued soil testing at LBL using the the most current soil testing methods will prevent nutrient overloading as well as under fertilization.

Erosion and soil loss will be less than current conditions. By following the use of LBL’s agriculture BMPs, regional soil and water guidelines, and Area Plan standards, soil loss from row crops would be under the acceptable soil loss limit (T factor). Residue management and no till planting will maintain surface cover on the soil and protect against erosion. Following deep tillage, erosion may or may not increase, depending on disruption to the surface residue. Grasslands would increase by 800 acres under Alternative 2 and protect against erosion. The root mass from grass protects the soil surface from erosion, reduces transport of sediments and adds organic material to the soil. The conversion of 290 acres of crop and wildlife planting fields to warm season grasses would further reduce the total amount of soil erosion as native grasses produce a very dense mat of roots. Seedbed preparation would cause a spike in soil erosion rates for the first 1 to 2 years when the soil surface will be somewhat exposed until the warm season grasses become established. But after establishment and in the long term, erosion would be reduced. For example, a row crop field LCC 2 subclass e has an annual average soil loss of 1.7 tons per acre per year (t/a/y), a warm season grass field of the same LCC and subclass averages 0.59 t/a/y of soil loss, a reduction of 1.11 t/a/y.

grassy filter strips would be designed to intercept overland sheet flow and promote infiltration. Adequate soil drainage would be maintained to eliminate ponding and saturation problems that interfere with proper functioning of the filter strips. Where grassy filter strips are not implemented, a full 75 feet of natural vegetation will be required next to intermittent streams to filter runoff and sediment, due to the varying amounts of surface cover, uneven terrain and varying plant types. Perennial streams will require a full 100 feet to establish forest cover that will eventually provide large wood to the riparian corridor forest floor for nutrients and habitat and to the stream for aquatic habitat and flow dispersal.

A total of 45 miles of stream will be affected by open lands management activities (cultivated and grassland) and require riparian corridors. No adverse effects to water quality have been indicated by surveys and sampling during the current protection offered by narrow stream management zones. Removal of NNIS from open lands and the management of the grassy filter strips would reduce source material to the riparian corridors and benefit the condition of riparian areas. The extended widths of riparian corridors will add protection and provide other riparian functions of aquatic habitat, terrestrial wildlife habitat (see wildlife and reptile/amphibian sections of this EA), and aesthetics.

Cumulative Effects - Past land management activities have not adversely affected soils or waters as discussed under affected environment. Ongoing or foreseeable land vegetation management activities taken into consideration during this analysis include: Mulberry Flat timber sale (WA-18), the North Oak Grassland Demonstration Area, projects within Prior and Crockett watersheds, road and utility maintenance, and improvement of Highway 68/80. The Mulberry Flat timber sale, projects with Prior and Crockett watersheds and the North Oak Grassland Demonstration activities would add minor amounts of grasslands, providing further soil surface protection and reduction in erosion. Area Plan standards, including riparian corridors, will be adhered to by these activities. These additional riparian corridors along with the vegetative filter strips and riparian corridors established for open lands activities proposed by Alternative 2 would benefit streambanks and promote forest cover along streams. This will, over the long term, reduce head cutting in streams and reduce scour erosion from out of bank flow during storm events. Addditionally, over 155 miles of streams will continue to flow through Core Areas and will not be impacted by any openland management activities.

Road and utility maintenance and the improvement of Highway 68/80 will follow state BMPS to reduce risk of erosion and sediment transport. Using agricultural BMPs for croplands, wildlife plantings, grass, and hay fields and the conversion of row-crop to warm season grasses would reduce soil erosion and sediment runoff. Based on the planned activities, adherence to BMPs and IPM, and the estimated effects, Alternative 2 will protect water quality, and reduce soil loss as compared to the current condition but less than Alternatives 1 and 3. Standards would be met by this alternative and soil productivity will be maintained at existing levels.

51 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct Effects - This alternative would eliminate all cropland on LBL. The only cultivated lands would be wildlife plantings which increase to 1,650 acres. Grasslands increase to 4,960 acres. The acres converted from cropland to warm season grasses (1,620 acres) would occur primarily on the larger sized open lands, and the acres converted to wildlife plantings would occur on the smaller sized open lands.

Lime and fertilizer would be applied to cultivated land and grasslands in amounts recommended by soil testing and follow the Area Plan standards and agricultural BMP’s. Approved pesticides would be applied as part of an IPM program and according to plan standards, but they would not be applied in riparian corridors. Total amounts of lime, fertilizer, and pesticides applied would be more than in Alternative 1 but less than in Alternative 2.

Risk of compaction will be less than current conditions and Alternative 2 since about 2,450 fewer acres will be under agricultural practices. This is more than under Alternative 1. Grasslands typically would have low risk of compaction because heavy equipment is used only during establishment and during hay season. Haying occurs only during dry weather so detrimental effects to the soil would be limited. Compaction would be controlled or relieved by requiring deep tillage periodically in the wildlife planting fields and following agricultural BMPs and plan standards.

There would be no direct effect to water. Riparian corridors would be established on 430 acres to protect water resources. The first 30 feet along all intermittent streams, 75 feet along intermittent streams designated for 75 feet corridors and 100 feet along all perennial streams would be allowed to grow up into shrubs and trees. Grassy filter strips would be established and maintained for 20 feet on the lower edges of grasslands. Existing roads will be used for access to open lands.

LCC 2 to 8 Row Other Warm Old Wildlife Hay Crop Grasslands Season Fields Planting Fields Grass Average 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.36 0.04 range of soil to to to to to loss 0.73 3.9 3.17 4.9 3.9 ton/acre/year t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y t/a/y Acres 0 1,270 2,170 190 1,650 1330

Indirect Effects - Soil productivity would improve with Alternative 3. Wildlife plantings and grasslands will receive fertilizer and lime as needed, based on soil testing utilizing Mehlich III procedures. Organic material will increase in the soil due to the increase in native grasses.

Erosion and soil loss will be less than current conditions and Alternative 2, but more than Alternative 1. By following the use of LBL’s agriculture BMPs, regional soil and water guidelines, and Area Plan standards, soil loss from wildlife plantings on 1,650 acres would be under the acceptable soil loss limit (T factor). Grasslands would offer high erosion control from the dense root mass that also reduces sediment transport and adds organic material to the soil. Seedbed preparation would cause a spike in soil erosion rates for the first 1 to 2 years when the bare soil surface may be exposed until the warm season grasses become established. But after establishment and in the long term, erosion would be reduced. Warm season grasses can reduce soil loss compared to row crops on similar soils.

The establishment of riparian corridors would reduce erosion from wind and water, increase soil and water quality protection, and provide food and cover for wildlife. The establishment of riparian corridors and vegetated filter strips would further remove sediment, pesticides, fertilizer, and other pollutants from runoff than the 1994 NRMP stream management zone widths. Vegetative grassy filter strips would be designed to intercept overland sheet flow and promote infiltration. Adequate soil drainage would be maintained to eliminate ponding and saturation problems that interfere with proper functioning of the filter strips. Where grassy filter strips are not implemented, a full 75 feet of natural vegetation will be required along intermittent streams to filter runoff and sediment, due to the varying amounts of surface cover, uneven terrain and varying plant types. Perennial streams will require a full 100 feet to establish forest cover that will eventually provide large wood to the riparian corridor forest floor for nutrients and habitat and to the stream for aquatic habitat and flow dispersal. A total of 45 miles of stream could be affected by open lands management activities (cultivated and grassland) and require riparian corridors. However, no adverse effects to water quality have been indicated by surveys and sampling during the current protection offered by narrow stream management zones.

Removal of NNIS from open lands and the management of the grassy filter strips would reduce source material to the riparian corridors and benefit the condition of riparian areas. The extended widths of riparian corridors would add protection and provide other riparian functions of aquatic habitat, terrestrial wildlife habitat (see wildlife and reptile/amphibian sections of this EA), and aesthetics.

Cumulative Effects - Past land management activities have not adversely affected soils or waters as discussed under affected environment. Ongoing or foreseeable land vegetation management activities taken into consideration during this analysis include: Mulberry Flat timber sale (WA-18), the North Oak Grassland Demonstration Area, projects within Prior and Crockett watersheds, road and utility maintenance, and improvement of Highway 68/80. The Mulberry Flat timber sale, projects with Prior and Crockett watersheds and the North Oak Grassland Demonstration activities would add minor amounts of grasslands, providing further soil surface protection and reduction in erosion. Area Plan standards, including riparian corridors, will be adhered to by these activities. These additional riparian corridors along with the vegetative filter strips and riparian corridors established for open lands activities proposed by Alternative 3 would

53 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

benefit streambanks and promote forest cover along streams. This will, over the long term, reduce head cutting in streams and reduce scour erosion from out of bank flow during storm events. Road and utility maintenance and the improvement of Highway 68/80 will follow state BMPS to reduce risk of erosion and sediment transport.

However, over 155 miles of streams will continue to flow through Core Areas and will not be impacted by any openlands management activities.

The cumulative watershed effects are similar to Alternative 2; however Alternative 3 would result in less soil loss than Alternative 2 due to more acres in Alternative 3 being established in permanent warm season grasses. Based on the planned activities, adherence to BMPs, and the estimated effects, this alternative would improve water quality, and reduce soil loss compared to the current condition and Alternative 2 but less than Alternative 1. Even though soil loss is within acceptable levels in Alternative 2, there would be less soil loss and better water quality with Alternative 3. Standards would be met by this alternative and soil productivity would be maintained at existing levels.

3.3 Air Resources ______

3.3.1 Scope of Analysis

LBL lies within Lyon and Trigg Counties, Kentucky, and Stewart County, Tennessee. Due to the fact air pollution is transported locally and regionally, and air quality monitoring is limited on LBL, an area larger than LBL must be used to describe air quality and the effects of emissions from proposed activities. Therefore, the scope of this analysis is broadened to include counties within 50 kilometers of the LBL boundary.

This analysis would address effects of the primary emissions associated with the proposed actions within the analysis area. There are two categories of activities that would affect air quality, those related to cultivating cropland and those related to the use of prescribed fire as a management tool for maintaining grasslands. The primary emissions from cultivation would be nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons from off-road vehicles and tractors (mobile sources of pollution), and particulates from tilling and bush- hogging operations (area sources of pollution). Smoke from prescribed burning contains a variety of pollutants, but typically the most important pollutant emitted is fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, due to its effects on human health and visibility (National Wildfire Coordination Group 2001). Appendix 6.3 provides additional information on other pollutants emitted from wildland fire. Emissions from all proposed activities occur intermittently and at various places on the landscape, as opposed to point sources of pollution with continuous emissions from a stack.

3.3.2 Affected Environment

Land use in the immediate vicinity of LBL is largely agricultural, with LBL forming an “island” of primarily forested land. The nearest city is Murray, KY about 20 kilometers west of LBL. The closest urban area is Hopkinsville, KY/Clarksville, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), located about 30 kilometers east and southeast of LBL. Approximately 100 kilometers northeast of LBL, is Hendersonville, KY/Evansville, IN MSA. Within the analysis area, winds generally come from the southwest.

The pollutants of concern for this analysis include nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons which combine in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Although both are necessary for ozone formation, there are so many hydrocarbons present from both natural and man- made sources, nitrogen oxide becomes the limiting factor in how much ozone can be generated. Temperature is also a factor in ozone formation and concentrations of ozone are highest in the warmer months of the year. The analysis would address nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon emissions and how they affect ambient ozone concentrations. Particulate matter is also considered in this analysis. The focus would be on fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, because these pollutants cause more problems for human health and visibility than larger particles. To understand how the proposed activities might affect air quality, we need to consider the current condition, or pollution loading, in the analysis area.

Ambient air quality is described by comparing current pollutant concentrations to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the Clean Air Act. NAAQS are threshold concentrations of criteria pollutants set to protect human health and welfare. There are six criteria air pollutants: lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). When measured concentrations of these pollutants exceed the NAAQS, the area is usually designated as a “non-attainment” area by the EPA. States are then required to develop plans to reduce pollution levels and bring the areas back into attainment of the NAAQS. Within the analysis area for this assessment, State air regulators (Kentucky Division of Air Quality and Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control) monitor ozone and fine particulate matter at four sites: • Ozone: McCracken, Christian, and Livingston Counties, KY and in Montgomery County, TN. • Fine particulate (PM2.5): Christian County, KY and Montgomery County, TN.

TVA also operates an ozone sampler in Trigg County on LBL to monitor the downwind effect of TVA power plant emissions.

Air quality monitoring results show current emissions in the analysis area, plus pollution transported into the analysis area, are not causing exceedence of current air quality standards for ozone or fine particulates (Tables AR-1 and 2). There are no EPA designated non-attainment areas for any criteria pollutant within 50 kilometers of LBL. However there is one ozone maintenance area; the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, KY/TN MSA which covers Christian County, KY and Montgomery County, TN. This area

55 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

exceeded the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the past, but recent monitoring indicates ozone levels have declined. In January 2006, the area became a maintenance area with a goal to keep ozone levels below the NAAQS threshold. (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/)

Since emissions from operations at LBL contribute to ambient air quality condition and monitoring shows pollution levels are below the NAAQS, it can be concluded that current levels of emissions from LBL operations are not contributing to any exceedence of the NAAQS.

Table AR-1. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results for Ozone, taken from Sites within 50 kilometers of LBL*.

Fourth Highest 8-hour Monitor 3 Year Rolling Site ID Year Average in Parts per Location Average Million

Christian 210470005 2002 0.093 County, KY 2003 0.080 2004 0.074 0.082 2005 0.078 0.077 2006 0.076 0.076

Livingston 211451024 2002 0.09 County, KY 2003 0.08 2004 0.07 0.080 2005 0.075 0.075 2006 0.071 0.072

McCracken 211451024 2002 County, KY 0.086 2003 0.076 2004 0.067 0.076 2005 0.074 0.072 2006 0.075 0.072

Trigg County, Monitored by 2002 0.078 KY TVA 2003 0.070 2004 0.067 0.072 2005 0.075 0.071 2006 NA

Montgomery 471251010 2005 0.075 County, TN (3 years of data are 2006 0.057 needed for this calculation) *The ozone standard is exceeded at a site if the 3-year average of the fourth highest 8-hour average ozone concentration is 0.085 ppm or higher. Data source for all sites except Trigg County: EPA AirNow website accessed February 2007. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html The data for Trigg County monitor was obtained from annual monitoring reports at the following website. http://www.air.ky.gov/programs/airmonitoring/

57 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Table AR-2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results for Fine Particulate (PM2.5) taken from Sites within 50 kilometers of LBL*.

2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 3-year Average 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual 24-hour Annual Monitor Site ID 98th 98th 98th 98th Location Average Average Average Average percentile percentile percentile percentile (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)

Christian 210470006 26 12 35 14 31 13 31 13.0 County, KY

McCracken 211451004 27 12 37 14 39 13 34 13.0 County, KY

Montgomery 471251009 28 12 43 15 37 14 36 13.7 County, TN *The NAAQS is violated if the average of 3 years of annual means is 15 ug/m3 or greater (multiple community oriented monitors can be averaged together), or the 3-year average of the 24-hour concentration for the 98th percentile (using the maximum population oriented monitor in an area) is 35 ug/m3 or greater. Data source: EPA AirNow website accessed February 2007. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html

While ozone concentrations have been steadily declining at monitoring sites within the analysis area, fine particulates seem to be increasing.

The fine particulate NAAQS (PM2.5) focuses on particles with a diameter less than 2.5 microns, and establishes thresholds for both short-term (24-hour) and long-term (annual) exposures. PM2.5 monitors filter air for complete 24-hour periods on a 3-day cycle, collecting approximately 120 samples per year for analysis. The long-term NAAQS states annual average of the 24-hour sample values shall not exceed 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), based on a 3 year rolling average. The short-term NAAQS has recently been lowered by the EPA, from 65 to 35 ug/m3. Under the new standard, the 98th percentile of the 24-hour samples, based on a 3 year rolling average, would have to be less than 35 ug/m3.

Implementation guidance for the new PM2.5 NAAQS has not yet been released by EPA, but it can be expected new nonattainment designations would be made in the next few years. Monitoring results in the analysis area show the new 24-hour standard is close to being exceeded. A significant increase in total amount of fuel (both fossil and vegetative) consumed in the region would increase the likelihood of exceeding the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. However, primary and secondary emissions of PM2.5 from coal-fired power plants are anticipated to decline in the future with implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and as a result ambient PM2.5 concentrations are anticipated to decrease.

In addition, looking at ambient air quality data, emissions inventories can be used to assess the contributions of various pollution sources to total emissions for specific geographic areas. The regional haze planning organization,Visibility Improvement – State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), has spent considerable time and expense to develop the most current regional emissions inventory available. Table AR-3

compares total emissions of volatile organics (hydrocarbons) and nitrogen oxides (these two pollutants combine to form ozone), and fine particulates for: • All sources in the analysis area (counties within 50 kilometers of LBL), • All sources in the immediate vicinity of LBL (the three counties LBL lies within), • And, a subset of sources that include the types of activities proposed in the alternatives (off-road vehicles, agricultural and forestry, and fugitive dust) in the LBL counties.

Table AR-3 Emissions from the VISTAS 2002 Inventory

Volatile Nitrogen Fine Organics Oxides Particulates (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)

All sources in all counties 53,686 147,917 17,048 within 50 km of LBL

All sources in LBL counties 5,304 56,954 1,587

Subset of sources (off-road 2,692 405 199 vehicles, agriculture and forestry, fugitive dust) in LBL counties

Information obtained using the Emissions Tool available at the following website: http://199.128.173.141/emissions/ Accessed February 2007.

3.3.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, activities to maintain managed open lands would no longer occur at LBL. The direct effect to air quality would be elimination of emissions from vehicles and dust associated with cultivating the land and less wildlife watching in the immediate vicinity of LBL. Indirect effects would be lower concentrations of ozone and fine particulates at monitors in the analysis area. However the reduction in emissions from cultivation is not likely to be noticed in monitoring results, because LBL emissions are small compared with other agricultural activity in the surrounding landscape. Also emissions from cultivation represent a relatively small contribution to overall loading by all sources (Table AR-3).

The prescribed fire program for opens lands maintenance would also be discontinued under this alternative, but large burn blocks would continue under a separate action. However if hazardous fuels cannot be reduced, indirect impacts may occur with the development of unplanned wildfires within areas that would have been scheduled for

59 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

burning. With no control over weather conditions, specifically transport wind speed, wind direction, mixing height, stability class at the time of ignition, nor the amount of fuel that may be consumed if fuel moisture is low; there is potential for impact on human populations by unplanned wildfire smoke.

Cumulative Effects - There would be no cumulative effects from the no-action alternative. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects - Under Alternative 2, cultivated acreage would decrease by 1,120 acres (4,100-2,980) as land is converted to riparian corridors and grasslands. The direct effect to air quality is a reduction in emissions from vehicles and dust associated with cultivating the land, in the immediate vicinity of LBL. Indirect effects would be lower concentrations of ozone and fine particulates at monitors in the analysis area. However the reduction in emissions from cultivation is not likely to be noticed in monitoring results, because LBL emissions are small compared with other agricultural activity in the surrounding landscape. Also, emissions from cultivation represent a relatively small contribution to the overall loading by all sources (Table AR-3).

This alternative also targets 1,818 acres of open lands for prescribed burning. The open lands would be maintained using fire as part of larger landscape scale burns, where possible. Since prescribed burning is being addressed in a separate decision, and no further details are available at this time, consequences to air quality would be discussed in a more general manner based on the maximum fire management program allowed under the Area Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004). The Area Plan allows for up to an average of 10,000 acres of prescribed fire annually (over a 10 year period) for resource management, but the maximum area treated with prescribed fire at any one time (over several days) would probably be 5,000 acres or less. Air quality impacts would be considered within the context of these parameters.

Prescribed fire emissions affect air quality on an intermittent basis. The amount of smoke and how it is dispersed depends on size of the burn, type of fuel, and meteorological conditions at the time of the burn. In general, smoke from prescribed burning disperses into the atmosphere and combines with other existing pollutants. The wind transports the smoke/pollutants to areas many miles away from where they are added and possibly react with other gases/pollutants present in the atmosphere. The fate of emissions from prescribed fires is twofold. Most (about 75%) of the emissions are "lifted" by convection into the atmosphere where they are dissipated by horizontal and downward dispersion from the fire. The balance of the emissions (about 25%) remains in intermittent contact with the ground and the impact on air quality is dissipated by dispersion, surface wind turbulence, and particle deposition on vegetation and the ground.

The direct effects of smoke include human health and safety issues. Fine particulates affect human health through the respiratory system. Individuals with cardiopulmonary diseases are especially susceptible. Visibility on roads can be reduced by ground level smoke, causing a safety issue. This can be particularly bad if smoke continues into the

night when emissions are likely to be trapped near the ground and slowly transported from the burned area. The smoke would follow the drainages and collect in low lying areas. In a humid atmosphere the fine particles can be a primary contributor to the formation of fog, which can become very dense. Smoke can also create a general nuisance. For example, ash fallout can soil personal property, people may complain about the odors from the smoke, and/or suffer eye and nose irritation from the acrolein (and possibly formaldehyde) found in the smoke. Ground level smoke is usually responsible for these effects.

The indirect effects of smoke are similar to the direct effects, but are experienced at greater distances from the burn. These effects are usually the result of the “lifted” portion of the smoke. Prescribed fires are managed to disperse and dilute smoke to avoid the negative effects of emissions, especially downwind of the burn. However, mass ignition techniques (such as aerial ignition from helicopters) that have become more commonly employed in order to treat more acres over a shorter time period, can also put more particulate matter into the atmosphere over a relatively short time. In some situations this increase in particulate concentration might be enough to cause already dirty air to violate air quality standards, affect human health or reduce visibility; and this can occur some distance downwind.

Another indirect effect of prescribed burning on air quality could be a reduction in emissions resulting from wildfire. When hazardous fuels are removed through prescribed burning, wildfire occurrence and associated emissions should decrease. Emissions from wildfire generally impact human health and visibility conditions much more than prescribed fire emissions, because the land manager does not have control over weather conditions affecting fire behavior and smoke dispersion.

Application of nitrogen fertilizer can increase greenhouse gas emissions of nitrous oxide (N20) (USEPA 2000), however, the amounts and types applied on LBL would not contribute significantly locally or regionally.

Cumulative Effects - The best way to assess cumulative effects of emissions from any activity on air quality is to include these emissions, along with those from all other sources, in regional air quality modeling exercises. Regional air quality modeling is conducted by air regulators to assess the effectiveness of various pollution control strategies on air quality; and specifically demonstrate a specific set of control strategies would meet the NAAQS. An emissions inventory of all source types is a necessary component of modeling. The results of modeling describe cumulative effects of pollution on air quality, and can also identify contribution from various source categories.

The VISTAS regional haze modeling exercise is utilizing emissions inventories developed to reflect current and future emissions from all sources in southeastern states, including wildland fire emissions (from both wildfire and prescribed fire). Recent prescribed fire activity on all ownerships (averaged for years 2000 through 2004) was used to develop the baseline inventory. Future year inventories (2009 and 2018) incorporated anticipated increases in the use of prescribed fire on National Forest lands. This means increased emissions from LBL’s fire program have been included in regional

61 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

air quality modeling. States are using VISTAS emissions inventories to develop State Implementation Plans for Regional Haze improvement, and ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. These analyses have not been completed, but preliminary results indicate prescribed fire emissions, including future increases, are not expected to cause or contribute to NAAQS violations in the analysis area.

Despite the fact regional analysis may show prescribed fire emissions are not affecting the NAAQS, LBL would follow smoke management guidelines found in the FSM 5144 in order to avoid creating a nuisance situation, and to minimize visibility impacts and/or impacts to people’s health when implementing the prescribed fire program.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substanially Decrease Pesticide Use Direct and Indirect Effects - Under Alternative 3, cultivated acres would decrease by 2,450 acres (4,100 to 1,650). Effects would be similar to those for Alternative 2, except emission reductions would be even greater. This alternative also targets 2,322 acres of open lands for prescribed burning. The open lands would be maintained using fire as part of larger landscape scale burns, where possible. Even though this alternative targets roughly 500 additional acres of open land for burning, these acres are incorporated into larger burn blocks as discussed under Alternative 2; therefore, the effects would be essentially the same.

Cumulative Effects - This alternative is unlikely to affect NAAQS, and LBL would follow smoke management guidelines.

3.4 Wildlife Resources ______

3.4.1 Scope of Analysis

The scope of analysis for wildlife resources would include habitat for management indicator species (MIS), proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species, reptiles, and amphibians within open land acres identified under existing conditions in the Vegetation Resources Section, the forested perimeter of the open lands, woody inclusions, and ponds within the perimeter of open lands. Also included are additional sections with analysis of lime and fertilizer and pesticide effects.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 for all wildlife species that may occur in open lands when maintenance activities are being conducted, there is potential for direct effects to individual animals being temporarily displaced, harmed, or killed by equipment used to maintain the open lands. Timing and application of methods are designed to avoid these

impacts as much as possible. While there may be direct negative effects to individual animals, no populations of wildlife on LBL would be adversely affected because these instances are expected to be relatively rare based on observations made over the years of implementing these activities. Overall, populations requiring early successional habitats will benefit from the maintenance of these habitats.

3.4.2 Affected Environment - Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Twelve MIS were selected for the Area Plan (Appendix F, Area Plan FEIS). The Area Plan list was reviewed and a subset of MIS that occur in and adjacent to open land habitat were selected for this project (Table WR-1). MIS in this EA are assessed in relation to grassland and cultivated land cover types. The structure types associated with these cover types are discussed in the Vegetation Resources Section.

Some MIS and their associated habitats were eliminated from further consideration because habitats for these species are outside the project area, and potential habitat would not be affected by the project. These include recovery habitat for the endangered Price’s potato bean, snags within forests (pileated woodpecker), mature forest in riparian forest types (Acadian flycatcher), oak woodlands (prairie warbler), mature oak forest in open structural conditions (great-crested flycatcher), and complex canopy structure within mesophytic and riparian forests and mature forest interior habitat (wood thrush).

MIS will continue to be monitored at the plan level and as identified in the Area Plan for Objective #5 (OBJ5) G, H, I, and J (pages 53-54) and monitoring summary pages 105- 109. LBL population status and habitat conditions for MIS and some non- MIS that use open land habitat are located in the project record.

Table WR-1 LBL Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Note: MIS may appear under more than one resource/habitat category. Life form Scientific name Common name Selected for this project? (Yes/No) Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Plant Apios priceana Price’s potato bean No Snags within forests Bird Dryocopus pileaus Pileated woodpecker No Snags within open areas Bird Sialia sialis Eastern bluebird Yes Mature forest within riparian areas Bird Empidonax virescens Acadian flycatcher No Oak woodlands Bird Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler No Mature open oak forest Bird Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested flycatcher No Mesophytic and riparian forests with complex canopy structure and mature forest interior Bird Hylocichla mustelina Wood thrush No Grassland Bird Sternella magna Eastern meadowlark Yes Bird Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite quail Yes

63 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Note: MIS may appear under more than one resource/habitat category. Life form Scientific name Common name Selected for this project? (Yes/No) All forest type regeneration Bird Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat Yes Demand non-game species (wildlife viewing) Bird Sialia sialis Eastern bluebird Yes Demand game species (hunting) Bird Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite quail Yes Bird Meleagris gallopavo Eastern wild turkey Yes Mammal Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Yes

3.4.2.1 Eastern Meadowlark

The Eastern meadowlark is an indicator species selected to help indicate effects of management on the grassland community. This species nests on the ground in concealing herbage and has avoided recently burned grassland habitats (NatureServe 2004). Eastern meadowlarks are common and widely distributed residents of prairies, hay fields, pastures, fallow lands, roadsides, and occasionally fields sown to winter wheat. The meadowlark prefers short to medium height grasses and taller grasses (up to 2 feet high) for nesting (Hammel 1992). Dense grass cover and mowing after seed drop in hay fields produces preferred habitat for this species. Meadowlarks are considered partial migrants and over-wintering populations are frequently found in pastures and fallow fields.

Meadowlarks appear area sensitive, selecting large grazed and ungrazed pastures (Hull 2001). In Illinois, meadowlarks were encountered more than twice as often at sites of 50 to 250 acres than at sites less than 50 acres (Herkert 1991). However, Samson (1980) observed meadowlarks in all 4 sites of less than 25 acres that he inspected. Bird detections increased from about 20% to 70% as the area of sites increased from 250 to 2,500 acres, while fewer than 10% of sites less than 25 acres had meadowlarks.

Eastern meadowlark populations on LBL are monitored through an annual program of point counts. Analysis of this data by scientists at the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is currently in progress (LaSorte et al. 2007). Data on meadowlarks are very limited, possibly due to the smaller size of LBL open lands.

3.4.2.1a Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the eastern meadowlark includes all the open lands on LBL and habitats immediately surrounding them. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

This alternative would result in minimal amounts of marginal habitats for eastern meadowlark and associated species on LBL as grassland habitats revert to forest. Populations of resident Eastern meadowlark would likely be reduced to near undetectable levels and wintering populations would likely occur only sporadically along long linear

corridors of major highways and large (>100 ft wide) utility lines, and in EBP and SBR. Decreases in Eastern meadowlark populations would reflect the decrease in grassland communities. This is a significant change from the results expected in the Area Plan, which called for maintenance of open lands and would result in no net change of Eastern meadowlark abundance.

Direct Effects - There would be no action to continue to maintain open land habitat for this species in the project area. Existing habitat would be short-lived, and remaining maintained habitats for this species on LBL would be small amounts outside the project area.

Indirect Effects - Grasslands, croplands, wildlife plantings, and hay fields would gradually revert to shrubs and trees over the next 10 years and would no longer provide food or cover in suitable habitats for Eastern meadowlark. Preferred grasslands and fallow crop fields in the project area would be reduced by 100% from present day conditions. This would result in a decrease of Eastern meadowlark populations over time.

Cumulative Effects - Preferred grassland habitat for this species would not be maintained in the project area. Ongoing or foreseeable land management activities in WA-18 would not affect habitat for Eastern meadowlark. The OGRDA would provide open woodland with grassland understory. Implementation of large burn blocks, annual maintenance of EBP and SBR, road and utility ROWs would continue to maintain low amounts of marginal habitat for over-wintering individuals. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some marginal wintering habitat for Eastern meadowlark.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for Eastern meadowlark would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels are likely to be stable over time. Habitat conditions suitable for over-wintering populations of Eastern meadowlark would also be maintained in this alternative. Stable populations of Eastern meadowlark would reflect healthy grassland habitat. This would meet expectations described in the Area Plan for this MIS.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire could possibly disturb some nest sites in some locations, causing relocation of the nesting sites. However, most activities associated with maintaining open lands on LBL occur at a time that would avoid primary nesting season for this species.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of open lands across LBL, fallow row crop fields in fall and winter, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), and planted wildlife openings in excess of 10 acres in size would continue to provide components of preferred habitat conditions for this species, maintaining current population size.

65 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Managed open lands would be expected to continue to provide suitable habitat for over- wintering Eastern meadowlark. Meadowlarks over-wintering on LBL, or occupying habitat during migration, would likely be in good condition when they return to their summer breeding grounds.

Cumulative Effects - Grassland habitat for this species would continue to be maintained in the project area. Past, ongoing or foreseeable land management activities in WA-18 would not affect habitat for Eastern meadowlark. The OGRDAs would provide open woodlands with grassland understory. Implementation of large burn blocks, annual maintenance of EBP and SBR, and road and utility ROWs would continue to maintain low amounts of marginal habitat for over-wintering individuals. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some marginal wintering habitat for Eastern meadowlark. Overall, habitat for Eastern meadowlark would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels are likely to be stable over time.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Habitat for Eastern meadowlark would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels are likely to be stable or increase slightly over time. Stable populations of Eastern meadowlark would reflect healthy grassland habitat. This would meet expectations described in the Area Plan for this MIS.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire could possibly disturb some nest sites in some locations, causing relocation of nesting sites. However, most activities associated with maintaining open lands on LBL occur at a time that would avoid primary nesting season for this species.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of open lands across LBL and hay fields (warm and cool season grasses) would continue to provide components of preferred habitat conditions for this species. Fallow crop fields would no longer provide an overwintering food source. While the acres of wildlife plantings would be increased, they would mostly be on smaller openings, and planted wildlife openings larger than 10 acres in size would not increase substantially. Some acres of cultivated types would be converted to grassland types, and some acres of cultivated types would be lost to succession in riparian corridors. Native warm season grasses would be increased, and would benefit this species.

Cumulative Effects - Habitat for this species would continue to be maintained in the project area, except for row crops. Past, ongoing or foreseeable land management activities in WA-18 would not affect habitat for Eastern meadowlark. The OGRDAs would provide open woodlands with grassland understory. Implementation of large burn blocks, annual maintenance of EBP and SBR, and road ROWs and utility ROWs would continue to maintain low amounts of marginal habitat for over-wintering individuals.

Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some marginal wintering habitat for Eastern meadowlark. Overall, habitat for Eastern meadowlark would be maintained in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels are likely to remain stable over time.

Comparatively, the proposed action comes closest to maintaining both breeding and wintering habitat conditions for Eastern meadowlark in amounts and distribution similar to what exists today, in line with Area Plan expectations. Alternatives 1 and 3 would provide different combinations of breeding and wintering habitat than what exists today on LBL. Alternative 1 would reduce suitable habitat for Eastern meadowlark to its minimum potential (Table WR-2). Alternative 3, while providing a different mix, would maintain meadowlark populations.

Table WR-2 Grassland Management Indicator Species: Eastern Meadowlark

Expected influence of alternatives on overall population trends of the Grassland MIS, Eastern meadowlark1. Population trend influence is estimated based on expected effects on habitat quantity and quality. Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 (Proposed) 3 (Eliminate Row Crops) -- = = 1Population trend influence expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large positive influence, “+” = positive influence, “=” = little to no influence, “-“ = negative influence, “--“ = relatively large negative influence.

3.4.2.2 Northern Bobwhite Quail

Northern bobwhite quail was selected as an indicator species to help indicate effects of management on grasslands and hunting demand. Quail are a species of diverse early successional habitats, especially where several types of these habitats come together and create edges. Optimum habitat has been described as consisting of 30-40% grassland, 40-60% cropland, 5-20% brushy cover, and 5-40% woodland cover (NatureServe 2004). As the degree of interspersion (the mixing of these habitats) for these habitat types increases, the more suitable the area would become for quail. Many of the existing managed open lands are loosely connected in linear configurations of interspersed habitat patches along ridgelines or bottoms.

Quail also have changing habitat needs throughout the year. Nesting habitat of at least two years after burning, mowing, grazing, or cultivation is essential. Brood habitat of approximately 50% disturbed soil or bare ground and 50% cover with nearly bare ground underneath would be near optimum for quail. Native warm season grasses are beneficial for quail because they are bunch grasses with open access to bare ground, insects and seeds among the bunches, while the tall grass provides protection from predators and the elements. Fall and winter habitat of shrubby thickets, woods edges, and fallow fields are required for thermal and escape cover, food, and roosts. Quail are not long distance

67 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

colonizers and all these habitat combinations are required within an area of 50-100 acres in a larger landscape context of approximately 4,000 acres or more. Open land habitats are in short supply for bobwhite quail on LBL.

3.4.2.2a Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the northern bobwhite quail includes all the open lands on LBL and habitats immediately surrounding them. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

This alternative would result in minimal amounts of habitats for Northern bobwhite quail and associated species on LBL. Croplands, wildlife plantings, maintained open lands, and hay fields would gradually revert to shrubs and trees over the next 10 years and provide only marginal to nonexistent combinations of habitats for quail across much of the LBL landscape. Interspersion and connectivity between habitat patches would slowly dissolve as natural succession of fields and croplands takes place. Resulting decreased populations of quail would indicate the decrease in grass and cropland habitats. This would result in a negative effect on hunting opportunities for Northern bobwhite quail. This is a significant change from results expected in the Area Plan, which called for continued maintenance of open lands and increasing the amount of warm season grasses.

Direct Effects - There would be no action to continue to maintain open land habitat for this species in the project area. No croplands or wildlife plantings would be established, existing habitat would be short-lived, and remaining maintained habitats for this species on LBL would be small amounts outside the project area. This would have a negative effect on hunting opportunities for bobwhite quail.

Indirect Effects - Populations would noticeably be reduced to very low levels in most of the area over time (5-10 years) and quail would likely occur only sporadically along long linear corridors of road and utility ROWs and in the vicinity of EBP and SBR and wet meadows. Local populations of quail would become increasingly more isolated and vulnerable to disappearance as time progressed, which would have a negative effect on hunting opportunities for bobwhite quail.

Cumulative Effects - Habitat for this species would not be maintained in the project area. Implementation of large burn blocks, WA-18, and OGRDAs would have positive effects on habitat conditions for quail. Sequential timber harvest, thinning, and burning would begin to produce some characteristics of woodland habitats conducive to quail reproduction and survival. EBP and SBR and annual maintenance of road and utility ROWs would continue to maintain low amounts of habitats for individual coveys. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some marginal summer brood rearing habitat for Northern bobwhite quail. Overall, substantial quail habitat would be lost and this would have a negative effect on quail hunting opportunities.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for Northern bobwhite quail would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest an increase in nesting and brood habitat. Population levels locally may fluctuate due to changing habitat conditions, however, they are likely to be stable or increase across LBL over time. Stable populations of bobwhite quail would indicate no loss of their preferred habitat areas, including native warm season grasses, brushy areas, abandoned fields, margins of fields, and thickets with tall herbs, shrubs, and saplings.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of open lands across LBL, prescribed burning, fallow row crop fields in fall and winter, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), and planted wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred habitat conditions for this species. The acreage in cultivation, including large fallow crop fields and wildlife plantings, would be reduced by approximately 27% from present day conditions, but the amount of native warm season grasses and grasslands overall would increase. Land in riparian corridors would provide beneficial cover for the first several years as these lands reverted to trees and shrubs. Where clusters of openings occur together, interspersion and connectivity between patches of suitable habitats for quail would be maintained in most but not all locations.

Cultivated lands, especially wildlife plantings, would provide for exposed bare ground and clear walkways under vegetation. To have reproduction and a high percentage of successful quail broods, the ground has to be exposed for quail to scratch for seeds and insects. Consequently, cultivated lands are beneficial for reproduction of bobwhite quail. Quality winter escape and thermal cover for this species can be attained with stands of native warm season grasses. Therefore, for winter survival, native warm season grasses can be beneficial, and cultivated lands can provide an easily accessible food source of exposed seeds and waste grains.

Cumulative Effects - Under this alternative, habitat for bobwhite quail would continue to be maintained in the project area. When implemented, both WA-18 and OGRDAs would have positive effects on habitat conditions for quail. Sequential timber harvest, thinning, and burning would begin to produce characteristics of woodland habitats conducive to quail reproduction and survival. These practices combined with activities in Alternative 2 for managing open lands would compliment each other and create potential for population increases and expansion into new habitats by quail in Long Creek watershed and OGRDAs. Portions of highway corridors and utility lines maintained in these areas would continue to contribute to a diversity of habitats utilized by quail. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway

69 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

68/80 road corridor may provide some marginal summer brood rearing habitat for Northern bobwhite quail. All of these factors together would provide beneficial cumulative effects for bobwhite quail and would provide increased hunting opportunities for bobwhite quail.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Traditional row crops would be eliminated, but there would be an increase in wildlife plantings and an increase in native warm season grasses. Habitat for Northern bobwhite quail would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest an increase in nesting and brood habitat. Population levels locally may fluctuate due to changing habitat conditions, however they would likely increase across LBL over time.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities could possibly disturb some nest sites in some locations, causing relocation of nesting sites. However, most activities associated with maintaining open lands on LBL occur at a time that would avoid primary nesting season for this species.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of open lands across LBL, prescribed burning, and hay fields (warm and cool season grasses) would continue to provide preferred habitat conditions for this species over time. The acreage in cultivation, including large fallow crop fields and wildlife plantings would be reduced over time by approximately 60% from present day conditions. The loss of traditional row crops would be largely offset for bobwhite quail by an increase in wildlife plantings and a large increase in native warm season grass fields as they become established over time. Reverting land in riparian corridors would be of limited value the first several years, as they would be dominated by invasive species without the use of pesticides. After that, they would continue to be of limited value as they reverted to forest. Where clusters of openings occur together, interspersion and connectivity between patches of suitable habitats for quail would be maintained in most, but not all locations.

Cumulative Effects - Under this alternative, habitat for bobwhite quail would continue to be maintained in the project area. Additionally, both WA-18 and OGRDAs would have positive effects on habitat conditions for quail. Sequential timber harvest, thinning, and burning would begin to produce characteristics of woodland habitats beneficial to quail reproduction and survival. These practices, combined with activities in Alternative 3 for managing open lands, would compliment each other and create the potential for population increases and expansion into new habitats by quail in Long Creek watershed and OGRDAs. Portions of highway corridors and utility lines maintained in these areas would continue to contribute to a diversity of habitats utilized by quail. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some marginal summer brood rearing habitat for Northern bobwhite quail. All of these factors together would result in an increase in hunting opportunities for bobwhite quail.

Table WR-3. Grassland and Hunting Demand Indicator Species: Northern Bobwhite Quail

Expected influence of alternatives on overall population trends of the Grassland and Hunting Demand Management Indicator Species the Northern bobwhite quail1. Population trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 (Proposed) 3 ( Eliminate Row Crops ) -- + + 1Population trend influence expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large positive influence, “+” = positive influence, “=” = little to no influence, “-“ = negative influence, “--“ = relatively large negative influence.

Comparatively, the proposed action maintains breeding, brood, and wintering habitat conditions for Northern bobwhite quail in amounts and distribution similar to what exists today, but when coupled with other actions results in a cumulative increase in bobwhite quail habitat. This alternative meets Area Plan expectations. Alternative 1 would substantially reduce suitable habitat for Northern bobwhite quail and have a negative effect on quail hunting opportunities. Alternative 3 would provide different combinations of habitat than what exists today on LBL and when combined with other actions, would result in a cumulative increase in bobwhite quail habitat on LBL. Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely provide for comparable increase in hunting opportunities.

Northern bobwhite quail populations are monitored on LBL through an annual program of point counts. Analysis of this data by scientists at the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is currently in progress. However, preliminary results indicate declining populations (estimated 11.3% annual decline; LaSorte et al. 2007). Alternative 1 is expected to contribute to further declines while Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to reverse declines on LBL by improving habitat through expansion of grasslands and continued cultivation.

3.4.2.3 Yellow-Breasted Chat

The yellow-breasted chat is an indicator species selected to help indicate the effect of management of regenerating forest of all types. Primary habitats include thickets, brushy areas, woodland undergrowth, forest regeneration, and overgrown fields. The breeding habitat of this migratory species is dense brushy areas and hedgerows, and the nest is almost always placed in thick shrubs. Their territories encompass thickets, vines, and shrubs interlaced with grasses, forbs, and briars. Chats forage in dense vegetation and primarily eat insects and berries.

71 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

3.4.2.3a Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the yellow-breasted chat includes all the open lands on LBL and habitats immediately surrounding them. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Habitat would develop rapidly through natural succession and just as quickly grow out of successional stages preferred by yellow-breasted chat. Habitat abundance for this species would likely spike in 3-5 years and then gradually decline to low levels in 8-10 years. The subsequent decrease would indicate the loss of successional habitat into mature forest.

Direct Effects - There would be no action to continue to maintain open land habitat in this alternative, therefore no direct effects on chats.

Indirect Effects - This alternative would result in a substantial increase in forest regeneration habitat, including thickets, brushy areas, and overgrown fields in the first 3- 5 years. Croplands, wildlife plantings, maintained open lands, and hay fields would gradually revert to shrubs and trees over the next 10 years and provide short-term high quality combinations of habitats for yellow-breasted chat across much of the LBL landscape. Habitat would develop rapidly through natural succession and just as quickly grow out of successional stages preferred by yellow-breasted chat. After that, preferred habitats would remain only in roadside edges, brushy hedgerows of grazed fields (EBP and SBR) or wet meadows, and shrub thickets along utility ROWs.

Cumulative Effects - Habitat produced by WA-18 and OGRDAs would increase overall diversity for this species. As with quail, both projects would create some potential for expansion into new habitats by chats in Long Creek watershed and OGRDAs. Forested areas to receive timber management and landscapes to be maintained by frequent burning would provide additional suitable habitat conditions over time. Areas allowed to revert through natural succession would eventually outgrow (5-10 years) usefulness for yellow- breasted chat. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable nesting habitat along the ROW/woods edge for yellow-breasted chat. The overall cumulative effects would be a decrease in habitat for yellow-breasted chat.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for yellow-breasted chat would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would remain stable or increase slightly across LBL over time. Habitat for this species would be enhanced primarily when managed open lands produce lots of insects and fruit in and around the perimeter of various open land types. This would help meet Area Plan expectations for this species habitat.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire could possibly disturb some nest sites in some locations, causing relocation of nesting sites. However, nearly all activities associated with maintaining open lands on LBL occur at a time that would avoid primary nesting season for this species.

Indirect Effects - Reversion of open lands to shrubs and trees in riparian corridors would result in a short-term increase in habitat for this species. Late season mowing of portions of old field habitats across LBL, prescribed burning, and retention of shrub edges adjacent to open lands dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide habitat for this species. Of these open lands, approximately 3% are in permanent old field habitats which provide very good habitat conditions for this species.

Cumulative Effects - Managed open land habitats combined with habitat produced by WA-18, OGRDAs, and planned timber management activities would increase overall diversity for this species. Existing habitat conditions would be maintained and habitat would increase in Long Creek watershed and OGRDAs. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable nesting habitat along the ROW/woods edge for yellow-breasted chat. The overall cumulative effects would be an increase in habitat for yellow-breasted chat.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Habitat for yellow-breasted chat would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would remain stable or increase slightly across LBL over time. This would help meet Area Plan expectations for this species.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire could possibly disturb some nest sites in some locations, causing individuals to re-nest. However, nearly all activities associated with maintaining open lands on LBL occur at a time that would avoid primary nesting season for this species.

Indirect Effects - Reversion of open lands to shrubs and trees in riparian corridors would result in a short-term increase in habitat for this species. Late season mowing of portions of old field habitats across LBL, prescribed burning, and retention of shrub edges adjacent to open lands dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred habitat conditions for this species. Of these open lands, approximately 3% are in permanent old field habitats which provide very good habitat conditions for this species. Increased amounts of native warm season grasses would result in an increase in dense brushy areas around the periphery of these open lands.

73 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable nesting habitat along the ROW/woods edge for yellow-breasted chat. The overall cumulative effects would be an increase in habitat for yellow-breasted chat.

Comparatively, Alternatives 2 and 3 provide slightly better habitat for the long-term than the existing condition in terms of forest regeneration habitat, including thickets, brushy areas, and overgrown fields. Alternative 1 would actually create a large amount of suitable habitat for chat in the short-term, and then habitat conditions would decline as these areas become unsuitable (Table WR-4).

Table WR-4. Regenerating Forest Management Indicator Species: Yellow-Breasted Chat

Expected influence of alternatives on overall population trends of the regenerating Forest MIS the yellow-breasted chat1. Population trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 (Proposed) 3 (Eliminate Row Crops) -- + + 1Population trend influence expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large positive influence, “+” = positive influence, “=” = little to no influence, “-“ = negative influence, “--“ = relatively large negative influence.

Chat populations are monitored on LBL through an annual program of point counts. Analysis of this data by scientists at the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is currently in progress. However, preliminary results indicate declining populations (estimated 7.5% annual decline; LaSorte et al. 2007). This decline is presumably the result of low levels of forest regeneration on the project area. All alternatives should help reduce these declines in the short-term, with Alternative 1 having the largest short-term effect. In the long-term, maintaining chat populations is dependent on maintaining a stable level of open shrubby habitat. This would be provided in field borders and across some open land types in Alternatives 2 and 3.

3.4.2.4 Eastern Bluebird

This species has been selected as an indicator species to help indicate effects of management of snags in open conditions and wildlife viewing opportunities. Preferred habitats for Eastern bluebird consist of scattered hardwoods and grasslands in a pastoral setting with snags for nesting. Habitats frequented by Eastern bluebird are primarily grassy areas including meadows, pastures, roadsides, utility corridors, and cultivated lands. Mowed areas such as hay fields, grazed areas, and pond borders with nearby trees as perching or possible nesting sites provide some suitable habitat.

Bluebirds are secondary cavity nesters. It is essential to provide nest structures or protect live cavity trees and snags (dead or dying standing trees) in the vicinity of properly managed open grassy areas, not only for nesting but for winter roosts. Over-wintering

populations of Eastern bluebird are vulnerable to extreme weather conditions and require adequate food sources for maintenance of body fat and suitable cavities for shelter.

Each year a survey of bluebird nest boxes is conducted on LBL (Peak and Peak 2006). The number of bluebirds fledged in 2006 was the second-highest total in the 17 years volunteers have managed LBL bluebird trails. Using a ratio of bluebirds fledged per nest box, the 2006 nesting season ranked as the third best year, 165 bluebird nest boxes with 1,092 bluebirds fledging for a ratio of 6.62 bluebirds fledged per box. Results from previous 5 years are: 2000 - 871 bluebirds fledged from 153 boxes; 2001 - 964 bluebirds fledged from 154 boxes; 2002 - 1,086 bluebirds fledged from 158 boxes; 2003 - 978 bluebirds fledged from 161 boxes; 2004 - 1,129 bluebirds fledged from 164 boxes; and 2005 - 976 bluebirds fledged from 164 boxes.

3.4.2.4a Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the eastern bluebird includes all the open lands on LBL and habitats immediately surrounding them. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Open habitat would decrease rapidly through natural succession into shrubs and trees and then mature forest. This would result in a decrease of eastern bluebirds as open habitat decreased and the forest canopy closed. Eventually, as the forest matured into old growth, openings in the canopy would result in an increase in the population of Eastern bluebirds. This alternative would not meet Area Plan objectives for 10- and 50-year projections.

Direct Effects - Open lands would not be managed and initially, there would be little change in habitat for Eastern bluebirds.

Indirect Effects - As cultivated lands and grasslands reverted to shrubs and trees over the next 10 years, there would be declining combinations of habitats for bluebird across much of the landscape in LBL. Distribution of populations of Eastern bluebird would largely be reduced to edge habitats of roadsides, facilities, EBP and SBR, wet meadows, and along maintained utility corridors where adequate nesting and roosting structures exist.

Cumulative Effects - While available habitat in the project area would be lost, if suitable cavities are available, both WA-18 and the OGRDAs would create conditions that may provide some opportunities for bluebird populations to occupy new habitats. Areas to be maintained by frequent burning would persist in providing some suitable habitat conditions over time. Portions of highway corridors and utility lines maintained in these areas would also contribute to a diversity of habitats utilized by this species. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80

75 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

road corridor may provide some suitable nesting habitat along the ROW/woods edge for Eastern bluebird.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for Eastern bluebird would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would continue breeding population levels and are likely to increase across LBL over time. This would be consistent with the Area Plan expectations for the Eastern bluebird.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of open lands across LBL, prescribed burning, fallow row crop fields in fall and winter, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), and planted wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred foraging conditions for this species. Increases in native warm season grasses would likely be beneficial for this species. Cropland and maintained open lands would be expected to provide some suitable habitat for over-wintering Eastern bluebirds as well. Bluebirds over-wintering on LBL or occupying habitat during migration would likely be in good condition when they return to their summer breeding grounds.

Cumulative Effects - Managed open land habitats combined with habitat produced by WA-18 and OGRDAs would increase overall diversity. Existing habitat conditions would be maintained and it is reasonable to expect breeding populations of Eastern bluebird would increase in these locations, as well as capability to support more over- wintering bluebirds. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable nesting habitat along the ROW/woods edge for Eastern bluebird.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Eastern bluebird habitat would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would continue breeding population levels and are likely to increase across LBL over time. Increases in native warm season grasses would likely be beneficial for this species. This would be consistent with the Area Plan expectations for the Eastern bluebird.

Direct Effects - Open lands would continue to be managed and continue to provide habitat for eastern bluebirds. Prescribed fire could possibly disturb some nest sites in some locations causing relocation of nesting sites. However, much of the activity associated with prescribed burning on LBL occurs at a time that would avoid much of the primary nesting season for this species.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of open lands across LBL, prescribed burning, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), and planted wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred foraging conditions for this species. Fallow row crop fields would no longer be available in fall and winter, but would be largely offset by the availability of warm season grasses and increased wildlife plantings.

Cumulative Effects - Managed open land habitats combined with habitat produced by WA-18 and OGRDAs would increase overall diversity. Existing habitat conditions would be maintained and it is reasonable to expect breeding populations of Eastern bluebird would increase in these locations. Approximately 90 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable nesting habitat along the ROW/woods edge for Eastern bluebird.

Comparatively, none of the alternatives would affect abundance of snags in open conditions in the near future. However, Alternative 1 would reduce suitable habitat for Eastern bluebird to its minimum potential over time by reducing the open habitats required by bluebirds. Alternative 2 would maintain both breeding and wintering habitat conditions for Eastern bluebird in amounts and distributions slightly better than what exists today because of increased acreage of grasslands as opposed to cultivated lands. Alternative 3 would provide a different mix of habitat than what exists today, but increased grasslands would be beneficial for Eastern bluebird.

Eastern bluebird populations are monitored at LBL through an annual program of point counts. Analysis of this data by scientists at the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station is currently in progress. However, preliminary results indicate populations are stable to increasing (estimated 8.4% annual increase, LaSorte et al. 2007). Alternative 1 is expected to have large negative effects to populations, not due to loss of snags in open habitats, but due to loss of open habitats. Alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain or increase populations as a result of maintaining open habitats and increase wildlife viewing opportunities. Alternative 3 is expected to have the greatest positive influence on populations because of its greater conversion of croplands to grassland, which represents better habitat for this species.

Table WR-5. Demand for Non-game Wildlife Viewing Management Indicator Species: Eastern Bluebird

Expected influence of alternatives on overall population trends of snags in open habitats and demand for wildlife viewing MIS eastern bluebird1. Population trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 (Proposed) 3 (Eliminate Row Crops) -- + ++ 1Population trend influence expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large positive influence, “+” = positive influence, “=” = little to no influence, “-“ = negative influence, “--“ = relatively large negative influence.

77 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

3.4.2.5 Eastern Wild Turkey

This species was selected as an indicator species to help indicate the effects of management on hunting opportunities. The Eastern wild turkey is a creature of the landscape readily adapted to combinations of a variety of habitat conditions and, like Northern bobwhite quail, this species has habitat requirements that change with the seasons. Nesting habitat of at least two years after a regeneration harvest, burning, mowing, grazing, or cultivation is essential. Brood habitat up to 50% of an area capable of producing large volumes of insects in scattered small openings (<30 acres in size) would be near optimum for young turkeys. Fall and winter habitat of shrubby thickets, mature woodlands (pines and hardwoods), hard and soft mast producing trees, and shrubs are necessary in combination for thermal and escape cover, food, and roosts.

3.4.2.5a Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the eastern wild turkey includes all of LBL, both open lands and forests. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Open land components of habitat for Eastern wild turkey would gradually disappear over the next 10 years which suggests breeding population levels are likely to decline across LBL over time. This would result in a decrease in hunting opportunities for Eastern wild turkey, which would not meet Area Plan expectations for this species.

Direct Effects - Open lands in the project area would not be maintained. For the first few years, reverting open lands would continue to provide habitat for turkeys, but supplemental grains would not be available in formerly cultivated fields.

Indirect Effects - Croplands, wildlife plantings, maintained open lands, and hay fields would gradually revert to shrubs and trees over the next 10 years and provide gradually declining combinations of habitats for turkey across much of the landscape in LBL. Habitat capability for LBL to sustain population levels of wild turkey on the whole would be reduced. Despite the turkey’s ability to maintain large home ranges (>1 sq. mi), overall reduction in numbers would produce detectable changes in the distribution of Eastern wild turkey and a decline in hunting opportunity.

Cumulative Effects - Project areas allowed to revert through natural succession would eventually outgrow (5-10 years) its usefulness for wild turkey. Eastern wild turkey would encounter substantially improved brood habitat in stands treated in WA-18 and proposed OGRDAs. The combination of harvesting, thinning, and burning and subsequent development of a grassy understory would provide additional nesting and insect foraging areas for turkey of all ages. Areas to be maintained by frequent burning would persist in providing suitable habitat conditions over time. Portions of highway corridors and utility lines maintained in these areas would also contribute to a diversity of

habitats for this species. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable summer brood habitat along the ROW/woods edge for Eastern wild turkey. Overall, habitat for wild turkey would decline.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for Eastern wild turkey would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels are likely to remain stable across LBL over time. This would maintain hunting opportunities for turkeys and meet expectations of the Area Plan.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire during the growing season could possibly disturb some nesting sites in some locations, causing abandonment and renesting. Some level of reproductive success will still be realized and negative influences of mortality from open land maintenance on LBL-wide populations of wild turkey would be undetectable.

Indirect Effects - Prescribed burning, residual standing crops, fallow row crop fields in fall and winter, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses) and planted wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred foraging conditions for this species. Although standing row crops and wildlife plantings would decrease approximately 25% under this alternative, the increase in native warm season grasses would partially offset this loss of cultivated land.

Cumulative Effects - Eastern wild turkey would encounter substantially improved brood habitat in stands treated in WA-18 and proposed OGRDAs. The combination of harvesting, thinning and burning and subsequent development of a grassy understory would provide additional nesting and insect foraging areas for turkey of all ages. These additional acres of improved habitat conditions would augment, and likely reduce the dependence on managed open lands in Long Creek and Prior Creek areas. It is also reasonable to expect turkey populations to increase in areas with this combination of improved habitat conditions. Areas to be maintained by frequent burning would persist in providing suitable habitat conditions over time. Areas allowed to revert through natural succession would eventually outgrow (5-10 years) its usefulness as early succession habitat for wild turkey. Approximately 95 acres of cropland in the Highway 68/80 road corridor would be eliminated. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable summer brood habitat along the ROW/woods edge for Eastern wild turkey. Overall, habitat conditions for wild turkey would be maintained.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Although habitat mixes would be different, habitat for Eastern wild turkey would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding

79 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

population levels are likely to remain stable or increase slightly across LBL over time. This would maintain or increase hunting opportunities for turkeys and meet expectations of the Area Plan.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire during the growing season could possibly disturb some nesting sites in some locations, causing abandonment and renesting. While mechanical activities would decrease, prescribed fire would increase. If renesting is successful, some level of reproductive success may still be realized and negative influences of mortality from open land maintenance on LBL-wide populations of wild turkey would be undetectable. . Indirect Effects - Prescribed burning, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), native warm season grass fields, and cultivated wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred foraging conditions for this species. Standing row crops would be eliminated but would be partially offset by an increase in wildlife plantings. The large increase in native warm season grasses would be beneficial for this species.

Cumulative Effects - Eastern wild turkey would encounter substantially improved brood habitat in stands treated in WA-18 and the proposed OGRDAs. The combination of harvesting, thinning and burning and subsequent development of a grassy understory would provide additional nesting and insect foraging areas for turkey of all ages. Approximately 95 acres of cropland in Highway 68/80 road corridor would be eliminated. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable summer brood habitat along the ROW/woods edge for Eastern wild turkey. Overall habitat conditions for wild turkey would be slightly improved.

Comparatively, Alternative 1 would substantially decrease early successional wild turkey habitat on LBL. Alternative 2 would result in a roughly comparable mix of habitat similar to the existing condition, except for the loss of some cultivated land. Alternative 2 would maintain hunting opportunities at comparable levels meeting Area Plan expectations. Alternative 3, with loss of row crops but an increase in wildlife plantings and substantial increase in native warm season grasses, would maintain or increase habitat conditions for Eastern wild turkey in amounts and distribution slightly better than what exists today, maintaining or slightly increasing hunting opportunities and Area Plan expectations.

Wild turkey populations are monitored on LBL primarily through harvest data (project record). The past 20 years of harvest data indicates turkeys were most plentiful on LBL in the late 1980’s averaging about 435 gobblers per year in the spring harvest. In recent years, spring gobbler harvests have averaged about 240 per year. As with most species, habitat changes over time are primary factors determining habitat capability and numbers of individuals in sustainable populations. LBL’s forests have continued to grow older with more closed canopy and the amount of open lands and agriculture has decreased. Alternative 1 is expected to contribute to further declines. Alternative 2 is expected to

maintain current population levels while Alternative 3 should slightly increase wild turkey populations.

Table WR-6 - Demand game Management Indicator Species: Eastern Wild Turkey

Expected influence of alternatives on overall population trends of the demand game MIS eastern wild turkey1. Population trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 (Proposed) 3 (Eliminate Row Crops) -- = + 1Population trend influence expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large positive influence, “+” = positive influence, “=” = little to no influence, “-“ = negative influence, “--“ = relatively large negative influence.

3.4.2.6 White-Tailed Deer

This species was selected as an indicator species to help indicate the effect of management on hunting opportunies. White-tailed deer populations are well established on LBL. The white-tailed deer is LBL’s highest demand game species (averaging about 13,000 applications per year for quota deer hunts) and among the highest demand wildlife viewing species. Since the 1980’s, deer populations have increased substantially in the surrounding privately-owned farm communities outside of LBL due to extensive agricultural production. However, since these lands are privately owned, hunting opportunities are not available to the general public.

White-tailed deer populations on LBL are monitored primarily through harvest data. Twenty years of harvest data (project record) indicate deer were more prevalent on LBL in the eighties (average about 2000 harvested per year) than they are today (average about 1100 harvested per year). As with most species, habitat changes over time are a primary factor determining habitat capability and numbers of individuals in a sustainable population. LBL’s forests have continued to grow older and more closed canopy, the amount of open lands has decreased, and the amount of agriculture has decreased. Ultimately, the availability of food is the critical factor for deer. As habitat conditions declined, deer population densities were lowered on LBL through hunting to limit further decline in condition.

Quality deer habitat includes a mixture of mast producing trees, shrubs, vines, forbs, grasses and other plants such as fungi and sedges, and agricultural waste grains. Deer eat a wide variety of foods but are essentially browsing animals of the woods and edges that graze opportunistically on annual and perennial plants. Regenerating forests (usually less than 10 years of age) provide large amounts of browse available to deer. However, this habitat type is limited on LBL and rapidly disappearing since very little timber has been

81 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

harvested since 2000. Native warm season grasses provide summer forage, fawning and escape cover.

As with quail and turkey, food preferences and requirements change with the season. At times when food sources are available, hard mast, fruits, greens, and grains are highly sought after by deer. As forests have matured on LBL, hard mast crops have become prevalent throughout the area. During years when there are fair to good mast crops, deer eat large quantities of acorns and shift to other food sources when acorn supplies are exhausted. In years of poor mast crops, deer must eat large quantities of browse, agricultural grains if they are available, and grasses (Appendix 6.4 Mast crop surveys 1980-2006). During approximately 40% of the years data was collected, the mast crop was rated as poor.

It is important to note that although it only comprises 6-10% of the annual dietary budget of a deer, fall mast crops (primarily acorns) largely determine the health of a herd entering the reproductive season and amounts of body fat reserves necessary to survive harsh winter weather, especially on extensively forested areas such as LBL. In the event of a poor mast crop, supplemental foods such as cereal grains (corn, wheat, sorghum, etc.) provide a secondary source of nutrition highly sought after by deer during late fall and winter. Waste corn remaining in fields after harvest has been a valuable component of the diets of many wildlife species in the U.S. during fall, winter, and spring. This includes resident game species such as white-tailed deer, fox squirrels, wild turkeys, and Northern bobwhite quail (Krapu et al. 2004). Soybeans, although less important than corn, can also be beneficial (Ohio DNR 2007). When available, forbs are important deer food plants that are more digestible, and have more protein available for deer than woody plants and grasses. Legumes are probably the most important family of forbs in a deer’s diet.

LBL is a contiguous public tract with no private inholdings, and deer are not likely to leave LBL in search of food. The availability, nutritional value, and the quantity of food consumed would dictate the reproductive health of the herd on LBL and consequently the carrying capacity of the landscape to support deer. LBL’s forests are a primary source of mast, and managed open land habitats are a primary source of forage and grains.

3.4.2.6a Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the white-tailed deer includes all of LBL, both open lands and forests. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered

Alternative 1 - No Action

Under Alternative 1, white-tailed deer population levels would decrease across LBL over time. This would result in a decrease of hunting and viewing opportunities for deer. Most wildlife viewing is done in the open lands, and as the openings reverted to shrubs

and trees, the remaining deer would be even less viewable. This conflicts with the Area Plan which projects an increase in white-tailed deer.

Direct Effects - Open lands in the project area would not be maintained. Green forage would be available initially as abandoned open lands began to revert. Supplemental grains would not be available in formerly cultivated fields.

Indirect Effects - Open land components of habitat for white-tailed deer would gradually revert and exist in minor amounts across LBL over the next 10 years, and supplies of grasses and forbs would decline. With no croplands present, supplemental winter food would no longer be available, resulting in a decrease in nutrition during years of poor mast production (40% of the past 25 years). Reducing availability of summer forage and supplemental fall and winter food supplies in this alternative would largely shift feeding habits of the deer herd onto understory vegetation and browse. This change in feeding habits would negatively impact composition of advanced forest regeneration in understory, and nesting habitats for forest understory and ground nesting birds. Where food supplies are limited or deer populations are high, virtually all available forage is consumed. Nature preserves, parks, etc. in the South, Midwest, and elsewhere documented deleterious effects of deer on ground cover, including rare and sometimes endangered plants. Deer would also tend to concentrate their grazing activities along road corridors during spring green-up, increasing the likelihood of vehicle collisions with deer.

Cumulative Effects - Increases in available browse in projected timber harvest areas and the development of a grassy understory would provide food sources currently in short supply or unavailable in Long Creek watershed and OGRDAs. Regeneration harvests would develop escape and loafing cover for deer. It is likely deer would be attracted to these areas simply because there would be few areas on LBL to browse. Areas to be maintained by frequent burning would provide suitable habitat conditions over time. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some secondary forage sources for deer when preferred food sources are depleted. Hunting opportunities would decrease.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for deer would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels, although locally may fluctuate due to changing habitat conditions, are likely to remain stable across LBL over time. This would maintain hunting and viewing opportunities on LBL. This alternative is consistent with the Area Plan.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire could possibly cause mortality of individual fawns. Accidental mortality due to maintenance of open lands however would not be detectable in deer population levels across LBL. Availability of supplemental winter food would be reduced by as much as 27% because of a reduction in acres of cultivated land.

83 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Indirect Effects - Prescribed burning, residual standing crops, fallow row crop fields in fall and winter, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), and planted wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred foraging conditions for this species. Additional native warm season grass fields would provide additional summer forage and fawning and escape cover. Nearly all open lands provide quality conditions for summer foraging habitat for deer, and cultivated lands provide additional winter forage.

Cumulative Effects - Increases in available browse in timber harvest areas and development of grassy understory would provide sources of food currently in short supply or unavailable in Long Creek watershed and proposed OGRDAs. Acres treated under these two projects would augment habitats provided by managed open lands. Regeneration harvests would develop escape and loafing cover for deer and it is likely that deer would be attracted to these areas. Areas to be maintained by frequent burning would provide suitable habitat conditions over time. Approximately 95 acres of cropland in the 68/80 road corridor would be eliminated. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROW’s created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some secondary forage sources for deer when preferred food sources are depleted. Overall, the above projects would help to offset the decrease in cultivated acres, and the amount of habitat for white-tailed deer would be approximately equivalent to the existing condition, and hunting opportunities would remain about the same.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Habitat for deer would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels, although locally may fluctuate due to changing habitat conditions, are likely to remain stable across LBL over time. This would maintain hunting opportunities, but deer would be less viewable. This alternative provides a different amount of habitats than presented in the Area Plan, but moves in an ecological optimal direction (Area Plan FEIS).

Direct effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire could possibly cause mortality of individual fawns. Accidental mortality due to maintenance of open lands however would not be detectable in deer population levels across LBL. Supplemental available winter food would be reduced by elimination of croplands, but partially offset by the increase in wildlife plantings.

Indirect effects - Prescribed burning, hay fields (warm and cool season grasses), and planted wildlife openings dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide preferred foraging conditions for this species. Native warm season grass fields would provide additional summer forage and fawning and escape cover, but deer would be less visible in tall grasses. Nearly all open lands provide quality conditions for summer foraging habitat for deer, and wildlife plantings would continue to provide winter forage.

Cumulative Effects - Increases in available browse in timber harvest areas and the development of a grassy understory would provide sources of food currently in short supply or unavailable in Long Creek watershed and proposed OGRDAs. Acres treated under these two projects would augment habitats provided by managed open lands. Regeneration harvests would develop escape and loafing cover for deer and it is likely deer would be attracted to these areas. Areas to be maintained by frequent burning would provide suitable habitat conditions over time. Approximately 95 acres of cropland in the 68/80 road corridor would be eliminated. In addition, approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROWs created within the 68/80 road corridor may provide some secondary forage sources for deer when preferred food sources are depleted. Overall, the above projects would help to offset the decrease in cultivated acres.

Comparatively, Alternative 1 would result in a substantial reduction in quality open land habitat for white-tailed deer on LBL. Alternative 2 comes closest to maintaining habitat conditions for white-tailed deer in amounts and distribution similar to what exists today, except for the reductions in acres of cultivated land. These reductions should be offset by additional timber management activities and increased use of fire. Alternative 2 is consistent with Area Plan expectations for deer and would not result in a decrease in hunting or viewing opportunities. Alternative 3 would provide different combinations of habitat than what exists today on LBL through elimination of row crops and replacement with native warm season grasses and additional wildlife plantings. These, in combination with increases in timber harvests and use of fire, would result in suitable habitat for white-tailed deer. Alternative 3 offers a different mix of habitats than described in the Area Plan, and may result in a decrease in hunting opportunities due to hunter perception (see Section 3.5). It would also result in a decrease in viewing opportunities because deer use native warm season grasses for cover, and are difficult to view in tall grasses.

Table WR-7 - Demand Game Management Indicator Species: White-Tailed Deer

Expected influence of alternatives on overall population trends of the demand game MIS white-tailed deer1. Population trend estimates are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality. Alternative 1 (No Action) 2 (Proposed) 3 (Eliminate Row Crops) -- = = 1Population trend influence expressed as expected change from current levels: “++” = relatively large positive influence, “+” = positive influence, “=” = little to no influence, “-“ = negative influence, “--“ = relatively large negative influence.

3.4.3 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (PETS)

There were 14 species considered in a Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BAE) for the Continued Maintenance of Open Lands project in LBL (Table WR-8). Of these, 7

85 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

species were deemed to be potentially affected by the project (Table WR-9). Table 2 in the BAE lists all 14 species and the rational for selection of the 7 species.

Table WR-8 - PETS Species Considered in the BAE

Group Scientific Name Common Name Listing Bird Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior least tern Federally endangered Mammal Myotis grisescens Gray bat Federally endangered Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Federally endangered Plant Apios priceana Price’s potato bean Federally threatened Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Regional Forester’s Sensitive Mammal Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis bat Regional Forester’s Sensitive Mammal Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Aureolaria patula Spreading yellow false foxglove Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Juglans cinerea Butternut Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Lysimachia fraseri Fraser’s yellow loosestrife Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Phacelia ranunculacea Ocean-blue phacelia Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Prenanthes barbata Barbed rattlesnake-root Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Synosma (Hasteola) sauveolens Sweet-scented or Indian plantain Regional Forester’s Sensitive

3.4.3.1 Determination of Effects

The complete BAE for this project is in the project record. The BAE considers the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for each species, and makes a determination for the species based on those effects. The USFWS reviewed the BAE and concurred with the findings presented below for the federally listed species. The concurrence letter from the USFWS dated August 30, 2007, is available in the project record. The essential findings of the BAE are repeated here for the two federally listed species, and five Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species potentially affected by this project. (Note that the bald eagle was recently de-listed, and moved from federally threatened status to Regional Forester’s Sensitive.) The determination of effects is summarized in Table WR-9.

Gray bat (Myotis grisescens)

Summer or winter roosting habitat (caves) suitable for gray bats does not exist on LBL. However, suitable foraging habitat for gray bats within stream corridors and over ponds does occur within LBL, and gray bats have been documented utilizing this habitat.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 is not likely to have a direct affect on this species. This alternative may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect on the gray bat and no cumulative effects. Open lands would not be maintained and would be allowed to reforest. The increased forest cover within the riparian corridors would provide additional stream corridor protection.

The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed actions are not likely to have a direct affect on the gray bat. This alternative may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect to this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide additional foraging habitat with a more closed tree canopy and improved water quality. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat.

Alternative 3– Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

This alternative is not likely to have a direct affect on the gray bat. Alternative 3 may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect to this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide additional foraging habitat with a more closed tree canopy and improved water quality. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat.

Summary

Additional protection for water quality and foraging opportunities for the gray bat would be provided under all alternatives as a result of increased riparian corridors; and for Alternatives 2 and 3 through the implementation of agricultural BMPs and IPM practices. Monitoring for gray bats would continue and any new activity would be reported to the FWS KFO. Thus, the proposed actions under all alternatives are not likely to adversely affect the gray bat.

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist)

LBL has suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat that includes oak-hickory forest, stream corridors, and ponds; yet, no Indiana bats have been captured on LBL to date.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 is not likely to have a direct affect on the Indiana bat. This alternative may have a beneficial indirect affect on this species and no cumulative effects. Open lands

87 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

would not be maintained and would be allowed to reforest. The Indiana bat may be indirectly affected with the reforestation of open lands and increased riparian corridor widths. The increase in tree canopy and canopy closure along riparian corridors may eventually provide a small amount of additional roosting and foraging habitat and improved water quality. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed actions are not likely to have a direct affect on the Indiana bat. This alternative may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect to this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide potential additional roosting and foraging habitat and improved water quality. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

This alternative is not likely to have a direct affect on the Indiana bat. Alternative 3 may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect to this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide potential additional roosting and foraging habitat and improved water quality. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat.

Summary

Additional protection for water quality and foraging opportunities for the Indiana bat would be provided under all alternatives as a result of increased riparian corridors; and for Alternatives 2 and 3 through the implementation of agricultural BMPs and IPM practices. Monitoring for this species would continue throughout the project and any new activity would be reported to the FWS KFO. Thus, the proposed actions under all alternatives are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles nest in forested areas within about 2.5 miles of LBL shorelines to Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley and feed primarily on fish. Protection zones as identified in the bald eagle recovery plan (USFWS 1987) have been established around nesting and roosting sites in LBL. Although this species has been federally de-listed, bald eagles will continue to be monitored for the next several years.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 is not likely to have a direct affect on the bald eagle. This alternative may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect on this species and no cumulative effects. Open lands would not be maintained and would be allowed to reforest. The bald eagle may be indirectly affected with the reforestation of open lands. The increase in tree canopy in the open lands and along riparian corridors may eventually provide a small amount of additional potential perching and nesting habitat as well as improved water quality. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed actions are not likely to have a direct affect on the bald eagle. This alternative may have a beneficial indirect affect on this species and no cumulative effects. It is likely that the reclassification of the grasslands and cultivated lands to riparian corridors could have a beneficial indirect effect, as a result of an increased amount of perching and nesting habitat as well as improved water quality. In conclusion implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the bald eagle.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

This alternative is not likely to have a direct affect on the bald eagle. This alternative may have a beneficial indirect affect on this species and no cumulative effects. It is likely that the reclassification of the grasslands and cultivated lands to riparian corridors could have a beneficial indirect effect, as a result of an increased amount of perching and nesting habitat as well as improved water quality. In conclusion implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the bald eagle.

Summary

The implementation of the expanded riparian corridors in all alternatives; and agricultural BMPs and IPM practices in Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide additional protection for water quality in LBL’s streams and embayments which would be beneficial to eagle foraging areas. Thus, the proposed actions under all alternatives are not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the bald eagle.

Southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius)

There are no known populations of the Southeastern myotis bat on LBL. Roosting habitat for this species includes caves; however buildings, hollow trees and other

89 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

structure types are sometimes used, especially in the South. This bat forages in a variety of cover types including conifer, hardwood, suburban orchards, and structure types ranging from woodland to closed canopy forest, and in riparian and wooded wetland situations with large open water bodies nearby. Within these cover types, this species forages around ponds, streams, and other water sources.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 is not likely to have a direct affect on the Southeastern myotis bat. This alternative may have a beneficial indirect affect on this species and no cumulative effects. Open lands would not be maintained and would be allowed to reforest. The Southeastern myotis bat may be indirectly affected with the reforestation of open lands and increased riparian corridor widths. The increase in tree canopy in the open lands and along riparian corridors may eventually provide a small amount of additional potential roosting and foraging habitat and improved water quality. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing of the Southeastern myotis bat.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed actions are not likely to have a direct affect on the Southeastern myotis bat. This alternative may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect to this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide potential additional roosting and foraging habitat and improved water quality. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing of Southeastern myotis bat.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

This alternative is not likely to have a direct affect on the Southeastern myotis bat. Alternative 3 may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect to this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide potential additional roosting and foraging habitat and improved water quality. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing of the Southeastern myotis bat.

Summary

Additional protection for water quality and foraging opportunities for the Southeastern myotis bat would be provided across all alternatives as a result of increased riparian corridors; and for Alternatives 2 and 3 through the implementation of agricultural BMPs and IMP practices. Thus, the proposed actions under all alternatives are not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the Southeastern myotis bat.

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)

This species is found in sandstone rock shelters along cliff-lines and in small caves. Abandoned buildings are frequently used in some areas for roosting. Summer roosts are often in hollow trees and occasionally under loose bark. Foraging habitat for this species is primarily mature forest in both upland and lowland areas. This species has not been found on LBL.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 is not likely to have a direct affect on the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. This alternative may have a beneficial indirect affect on this species and no cumulative effects. Open lands would not be maintained and would be allowed to reforest. The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat may be indirectly affected with the reforestation of open lands and increased riparian corridor widths. The increase in tree canopy in the open lands and along riparian corridors may eventually provide a small amount of additional potential roosting and foraging habitat for this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 1 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing of Rafinesque’s big- eared bat.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed actions are not likely to have a direct affect on the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. This alternative may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect on this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide potential additional roosting and foraging habitat. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat.

91 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

This alternative is not likely to have a direct affect on the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Alternative 3 may have a minimal beneficial indirect affect on this species as a result of a small amount of grasslands and cultivated open lands reclassified to riparian corridors. Implementation of riparian corridor standards will increase the corridor widths which may provide potential additional roosting and foraging habitat. The proposed actions are not likely to have cumulative effects on this species. In conclusion, implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing of Rafinesque’s big- eared bat.

Summary

Additional protection for foraging opportunities for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat would be provided across all alternatives as a result of increased riparian corridors. Thus, the proposed actions under all alternatives are not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat.

Fraser’s yellow loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri)

This species is found around alluvial meadows, moist stream and river banks, river flats, woodlands and rocky upland and hardwood forests. Threats to this species include competition and shading due to forest succession and fire suppression. This species has not been verified on LBL to date.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 will likely have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the Fraser’s yellow loosestrife as this species has not been validated to occur in LBL. Open lands would not be maintained and riparian corridors would be greatly expanded and allowed to reforest. It is certain that allowing grasslands to reforest would reduce potential habitat for this species, thus eliminating the chances for it to occur within the project area. Although potential habitat for this species would be reduced, this alternative is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to Fraser’s yellow loosestrife.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and indirect effects related to Alternative 2 could occur for this species from road grading, pesticide application, fire suppression, mowing, disking, and seeding. However, implementation of Area Plan protective measures for these management activities will minimize the potential for this species to be adversely affected, directly or indirectly should this species be found to occur on LBL. The reclassification and maintenance of

281 acres of open lands as described in Alternative 2 is predicted to indirectly benefit this species by providing additional potential habitat. Cumulative effects will include future and connected actions in the open lands and adjacent areas such as pesticide use, prescribed fire, and timber sales. Pesticide use in the manner and locations proposed is not likely to adversely affect this species. Prescribed burns are conducted in a low to moderate intensity that will benefit this species through the creation of additional habitat. This species is a disturbance species that capitalizes on canopy gaps and open conditions caused by fire and flooding. Timber sales and contracts on LBL are administered in a manner to consider sensitive species and their habitats. These actions are not likely to adversely affect this species. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to Fraser’s yellow loosestrife.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct and indirect effects related to Alternative 3 could occur for this species from road grading, pesticide application, fire suppression, mowing, disking, and seeding. However, implementation of Area Plan protective measures for these management activities will minimize the potential for this species to be adversely affected, directly or indirectly should this species be found to occur on LBL. The reclassification and maintenance of 281 acres of open lands as described in Alternative 2 is predicted to indirectly benefit this species by providing additional potential habitat. Cumulative effects will include future and connected actions in the open lands and adjacent areas such as pesticide use, prescribed fire, and timber sales. Pesticide use in the manner and locations proposed is not likely to adversely affect this species. Prescribed burns are conducted in a low to moderate intensity that will benefit this species through the creation of additional habitat. This species is a disturbance species that capitalizes on canopy gaps and open conditions caused by fire and flooding. Timber sales and contracts on LBL are administered in a manner to consider sensitive species and their habitats. These actions are not likely to adversely affect this species. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to Fraser’s yellow loosestrife.

Summary

Alternative 1 would have a detrimental effect as all open lands would eventually revert to forest. Alternatives 2 and 3 may have a beneficial effect on this species by creating additional open habitat through the reintroduction of fire. The proposed actions under all alternatives are not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing for Fraser’s yellow loosestrife.

Barbed rattlesnake-root (Prenathes barbata)

This plant occurs in prairies, barrens, and dry woodlands. Potential habitat for this species in LBL includes forest cover in open-type conditions and grasslands on xeric and dry sites. Prior to 2006 there were two known locations of this plant in LBL in Stewart

93 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

County, Tennessee. In August 2006 approximately 40 individual plants were found on the periphery of six different fields and seven individuals along a popular hiking trail during open lands inventories in Stewart County. This species was given a Forest Rank of F1 in the Area Plan FEIS meaning the species was considered extremely rare on LBL (1-5 site occurrences). However with the recent findings, the Forest Rank has changed to F2, meaning that the species is now considered very rare and within the range of 6-20 site occurrences.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

In Alternative 1 open lands would not be maintained and would be allowed to reforest. This alternative will likely have no direct effect on the Barbed rattlesnake root. However the reforestation of the open lands would have a negative indirect affect on this species due to eventual canopy closure of existing edge habitat. Over half of the occurrences are associated with the periphery of managed open lands. Cumulative effects will include the use of prescribed fire and timber sales in areas adjacent to open lands. These management activities could partially negate the loss of habitat for this species in the open lands by creating canopy gaps. Timber sales and contracts on LBL are administered in a manner to consider sensitive species and their habitats. These actions are not likely to adversely affect this species. In summary, Alternative 1 would adversely affect known occurrences of the barbed rattlesnake root on LBL and cause the species Forest Rank to revert to an F1, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability over its entire range.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2 could impose some direct and indirect effects to this species from road grading; pesticide application, fire suppression, mowing, disking, and seeding. However, implementation of Area Plan protective measures for these types of management activities will minimize the potential for this species to be adversely affected, directly or indirectly. The creation and maintenance of an additional 281 acres of riparian corridor habitat is not likely to adversely affect this species because barbed rattlesnake-root occurs primarily on dry upland sites. This species is not likely to be found in cultivated land. Moreover, the 1,122 acres of reclassified cultivated lands in the future would be managed as maintained open lands. The reclassification of the cultivated lands along with implementation of the protective measures for this species will minimize any potential adverse affects to this species. Cumulative effects will include future and connected actions in the open lands and adjacent areas such as pesticide use, prescribed fire, and timber sales. Pesticide use in the manner and locations proposed is not likely to adversely affect this species. Prescribed burns are conducted in a low to moderate intensity manner that will benefit this species through the creation of additional habitat. Timber sales and contracts on LBL are administered in a manner to consider sensitive species and their habitats. These actions are not likely to adversely affect this species.

Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the barbed rattlesnake-root.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Alternative 3 could impose some direct and indirect effects to this species from road grading, pesticide application, fire suppression, mowing, disking, and seeding. However, implementation of Area Plan protective measures for these types of management activities will minimize the potential for this species to be adversely affected, directly or indirectly. The creation and maintenance of an additional 281 acres of riparian corridor habitat is not likely to adversely affect this species because barbed rattlesnake-root occurs primarily on dry upland sites. The 1,122 acres of reclassified cultivated land in the future would be managed as maintained open lands. The reclassification of the wildlife cultivated land along with implementation of the protective measures for this species will minimize any potential adverse affects to this species. Cumulative effects will include future and connected actions in the open lands and adjacent areas such as pesticide use, prescribed fire, and timber sales. Pesticide use in the manner and locations proposed is not likely to adversely affect this species. Prescribed burns are conducted in a low to moderate intensity manner that will benefit this species through the creation of additional habitat. Timber sales and contracts on LBL are administered in a manner to consider sensitive species and their habitats. These actions are not likely to adversely affect this species. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the barbed rattlesnake-root.

Summary

Given the recent discovery of several plants in the project area, Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have a positive effect on this species through the creation of additional habitat and the reintroduction of fire. The lack of preferred habitat through the loss of open lands under Alternative 1 would have an adverse effect on the viability of this species on LBL; therefore, “the perpetuation of this species is an important reason to maintain current open lands…and to return at least some of the lands that were formerly open to open land status” (Chester 2006). The proposed actions under all three alternatives are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing for the barbed rattlesnake-root.

95 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Table WR-9. PETS Effects Determinations for Continued Maintenance of Open Lands in LBL.

Common Name Listing Habitat Present Effects Determination Yes/No Interior least tern Federally endangered No No effect Gray bat Federally endangered Yes (Foraging habitat) Not likely to adversely affect Indiana bat Federally endangered Yes (Foraging habitat) Not likely to adversely affect Price’s potato bean Federally threatened No No effect Bald eagle Regional Forester’s Yes Not likely to cause a trend Sensitive towards Federal listing Southeastern myotis bat Regional Forester’s Yes (Foraging habitat) Not likely to cause a trend Sensitive towards Federal listing Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Regional Forester’s Yes (Potential-roosting Not likely to cause a trend Sensitive habitat) towards Federal listing Spreading yellow false Regional Forester’s No No effect foxglove Sensitive Appalachian bugbane Regional Forester’s No No effect Sensitive Butternut Regional Forester’s No (has been located No effect Sensitive beyond field perimeter) Fraser’s yellow loosestrife Regional Forester’s Yes Not likely to cause a trend Sensitive towards Federal listing Ocean-blue phacelia Regional Forester’s No No effect Sensitive Barbed rattlesnake-root Regional Forester’s Yes Not likely to cause a trend Sensitive towards Federal listing Sweet-scented or Indian Regional Forester’s No No effect plantain Sensitive

3.4.4 Reptiles and Amphibians

A concern has been raised about the adequacy of Area Plan Standard 35 riparian corridors to protect reptile and amphibian populations on LBL. Riparian corridors are design criteria, which guide management activities within and near riparian areas to benefit riparian functioning. The corridor design criteria and implementation are discussed in the Water Resources section (3.2) of this EA. With implementation of Standard 35, riparian corridors adjacent to open lands are being expanded from a minimum 10-foot buffer strip on each side of all streams (TVA NRMP 1994) to a minimum of 50-75 feet riparian corridor on each side of intermittent streams and a minimum of 100 feet on each side of perennial streams.

Many species of reptiles and amphibians require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Habitat requirements differ between species. Salamanders require damp leaf litter and coarse woody debris provided by forested habitats. Many species of frogs also prefer damp forested habitats, while other species prefer foraging opportunites provided by open habitats. Turtles use terrestrial habitat for hibernation and nesting, and vary among species in preferences of closed forested or open sunny areas for these uses. Snakes and lizards may forage, nest and hibernate in both forested and open habitats dependent upon

species, but frequently use open areas for basking. Given these varied habitat needs, reptile and amphibians are best served by providing diverse habitat conditions. LBL is home to 69 species of reptiles and amphibians, including 16 species of salamanders, 3 toad and 9 frog species, 12 species of turtles, 5 species of lizards and 24 species of snakes (TVA NRMP 1994, Scott 2002). None of these species are federally listed and none are on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.

A review of the literature related to reptiles and amphibians and corridor widths indicates most studies have investigated dispersal distances of herpetofauna from aquatic resources, including streams and temporary and permanent wetlands. Dispersal distances depend both on species and how adjoining upland habitat is used. Much of the literature has centered on the distance salamanders disperse from wetlands after breeding (Semlitsch 1998, Faccio 2003, Semlitsch and Bodie 2003, Regosin et al. 2005, Crawford and Semlitsch 2007, Gamble et al. 2006). Given the variability and variety of needs for each species, determination of buffers for the entire suite of reptile and amphibian species is complex. Particularly, salamander species are considered sensitive and require forested habitats, which is not true of all reptile and amphibian species on LBL. Most of LBL’s stream dwelling salamanders (genera Desmognathus, Eurycea, and Pseudotriton) do not leave the streambed to reproduce and rarely venture more than 100 feet from water (Scott 2007, pers. comm.) and none of the salamander species on LBL are locally rare or listed.

Conflicting science exists on recommended corridor widths for reptiles and amphibians, and recommended widths vary from study to study. One recommended a corridor width of 30-55m for salamanders, but this study did not examine populations greater than 36m distant from wetlands. (Petranka and Smith 2005) Others recommended 165-175m corridors for salamanders. (Semlitsch 1998, Faccio 2003) One extensive review of movement and habitat use literature recommended 160-290m for amphibians, 127 to 289m for reptiles, plus an extra 50m to protect from edge effects (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003). Using the methodology used by these authors of obtaining maximum dispersal distances, species on LBL would require approximately 400m (1,312 ft) of habitat surrounding riparian areas. However, these estimates are the amount of habitat needed to support entire populations. Since open lands border only 7% of LBL’s stream lengths, and the majority (92%) of LBL is forested, most stream corridors already have this much adjacent habitat or more. For the 7% of stream lengths that border open lands, corridors of this size would completely eliminate many of the open lands. Most of the above studies assume the area beyond the buffer zone would be completely incapable of supplying any habitat requirements for reptile and amphibian species, for example, urban areas. This is not the case at LBL, as most of LBL’s open lands and streams are surrounded by forested habitat. Additionally, many open lands on LBL are providing necessary habitat for herpetofauna, particularly basking, foraging and nesting areas for snakes and lizards. In summary, the riparian corridors in Area Plan Standard 35 are adequate for LBL’s reptile and amphibian species when considered in the context of LBL’s landscape. A more complete review of this subject can be found in the project record (Richardson and Bloemer 2007d).

97 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

3.4.4.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for reptiles and amphibians includes all the open lands on LBL, riparian areas, and forested habitats surrounding both. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions were considered.

Habitat for reptiles and amphibians on LBL would improve under all three alternatives due to expanded riparian corridors, decreases in the amount of land in cultivation, and decreased use of pesticides. Also, some species of reptiles and amphibians would benefit from increased acres of native warm season grasses in Alternatives 2 and 3.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Open land habitats for reptiles and amphibians would gradually disappear which suggests breeding population levels for species that use open lands, though locally may fluctuate, are likely to decrease across LBL over time. Species that use only wetlands and forested habitat may increase slightly. Species diversity would decrease as habitat diversity decreased.

Direct Effects - Open lands management activities would be discontinued, so there would be no direct effects to reptiles or amphibians in the open lands.

Indirect Effects - Grasslands, croplands, wildlife plantings, and hay fields would gradually revert to shrubs and trees, decreasing the amount of open areas available to reptiles for nesting and basking. Turtles, such as the Eastern box turtle, would be required to travel further to find appropriate nesting sites. Eventually, as only road and utility ROWs, EBP and SBR, and wet meadows would remain open, reptiles would be forced to use these openings, resulting in some mortality from automobiles. A decrease in reptile reproduction would also result as suitable nesting habitat decreased and more energy reserves were expended in reaching them. Forest species may experience small population increases over the next 10-50 years from an increase in forested habitat. Expanded riparian corridors would improve the quality of aquatic resources which amphibians use for breeding.

Cumulative Effects - Preferred habitat for reptiles would develop following shelterwood harvesting (WA-18) and in some of the area being thinned to low basal areas (Prior Creek). Both projects may result in a small temporary decrease in numbers of amphibians, particularly salamanders, in project areas but this effect would be minor due to large area of forested habitats available. Landscapes to be maintained by frequent burning would persist in providing some suitable open land habitat conditions over time for some species of reptiles and amphibians. Open areas allowed to revert from past management through natural succession would eventually outgrow (5-10 years) their usefulness for reptiles but provide increased habitat for amphibians. Approximately 190 acres of maintained grassy ROW’s created within Highway 68/80 road corridor may provide some suitable basking and nesting habitat for reptiles, but also result in direct

mortality from automobiles. Species diversity would decrease as habitat diversity decreased.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Habitat for reptiles and amphibians would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels would not change. Although numbers of individuals locally may fluctuate due to changing habitat conditions, populations are likely to remain stable across LBL over time.

Direct Effects - Mechanical maintenance activities and prescribed fire would result in limited direct mortality of individual reptile and amphibians. Mowing would result in very limited direct mortality as fields are mostly mowed late in the season when reptiles and amphibians are dispersed across the landscape. Please see section 3.4.5 for discussion of the effects of lime and fertilizer, and Section 3.4.6 for discussion of the effects of pesticides.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of portions of old field habitats across LBL, prescribed burning, and retention of shrub edges adjacent to open lands dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide diverse habitat conditions and maintain species diversity of reptiles and amphibians across LBL. Implementation of expanded riparian corridors would increase habitat and facilitate movement of herpetofauna between forested areas. Expanded riparian corridors would also improve the quality of aquatic resources which amphibians use for breeding.

Cumulative Effects - Managed open land habitats that remain open, combined with habitat produced by WA-18 and Prior Creek projects, would increase habitat diversity and therefore species diversity in these areas. The Highway 68/80 road corridor expansion would result in automobile related mortality. However, under this alternative other adjacent open lands would be available for reptiles to bask and nest in. Please see section 3.4.5 for discussion of the effects of lime and fertilizer, and Section 3.4.6 for discussion of the effects of pesticides.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Habitat for reptiles and amphibians would be maintained and enhanced in amounts and distributions that would suggest breeding population levels would be maintained. Although numbers of individuals locally may fluctuate due to changing habitat conditions, populations are likely to remain stable or increase slightly across LBL over time.

99 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands and amphibians are dispersed across the landscape. Please see section 3.4.5 for discussion of the effects of lime and fertilizer, and Section 3.4.6 for discussion of the effects of pesticides.

Indirect Effects - Late season mowing of portions of old field habitats, prescribed burning, and retention of shrub edges adjacent to open lands dispersed across the landscape would continue to provide diverse habitat conditions and maintain species diversity of reptiles and amphibians across LBL. Implementation of expanded riparian corridors would increase habitat and facilitate movement of herpetofauna between forested areas. Expanded riparian corridors would also improve the quality of aquatic resources which amphibians use for breeding.

Cumulative Effects - Managed openland habitats that remain open, combined with habitat produced by WA-18 and Prior Creek projects, would increase habitat diversity and therefore species diversity in these areas. The Highway 68/80 road corridor would result in automobile related mortality. However, under this alternative other adjacent open lands would be available for reptiles to bask and nest in.

Comparatively, Alternative 1 would result in a decrease of habitats used by reptiles, but an increase of habitats used by amphibians. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide the most diverse habitat conditions for reptiles and amphibians on LBL, with Alternative 3 providing slightly better conditions overall. Please see section 3.4.5 for discussion of the effects of lime and fertilizer, and Section 3.4.6 for discussion of the effects of pesticides.

3.4.5 Effects of Lime and Fertilizer Applications

Agricultural Best Management Practices (Appendix section 6.1.3) require that soils be periodically tested and productivity maintained by applying lime and fertilizer. As discussed in the Soils and Water Resources section 3.2, soil is tested before applications are made and only the indicated amounts of fertilizer and lime are applied to the fields. In addition, these substances are not broadcast over large tracts of land, but applied directly to specific fields and incorporated directly into the soil whenever possible. While proper fertilizer use is beneficial, some species of wildlife could potentially be harmed, especially by over-fertilization.

Concern has been raised about the risks to amphibian populations on LBL from fertilizer applied in agricultural fields. Much of the research on fertilizer and wildlife has involved amphibians. Amphibians, due to their semi-aquatic life history and permeable skin, are considered particularly vulnerable to chemical contamination while in the aquatic environment (Hayes et al. 2006). As discussed further in this analysis, the application methods, timing, and limited locations reduce this potential vulnerability to an insignificant issue.

Results of scientific studies have been mixed. Nitrogen compounds including ammonium, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate have been found to cause increased mortality to amphibian larvae vs. controls when added to water in laboratory and mesocosm

100

experiments (Watt and Jarvis 1997, Xu and Oldham 1997, Schuytema and Nebeker 1999, de Wijer et al. 2003, Ortiz et al. 2004, Smith et al. 2005). Generally, these mortalities are only found at high levels of ammonium nitrate, rarely found in field conditions. It appears that different species can be affected differently by exposure to fertilizers, with some species experiencing less mortality than others at the same exposure level (Smith et al. 2005) or experiencing no effects at all (Ortiz et al. 2004). Further studies indicate the complex nature of determining the effects of fertilizer on amphibian larvae. One study produced different results in purified vs. spring water, indicating that the spring water operates as a buffer, offsetting any fertilizer effect (Edwards et al. 2006). These scientific studies suggest that fertilizers, if present in the water at high concentrations, can produce a variety of effects on amphibians. However, many of these studies were designed to investigate widely broadcast forest fertilizers, or concentrations present in aquatic environments in an intensively farmed landscape, situations not directly applicable to open lands management on LBL.

Few studies have looked at the effect of fertilizer on adult amphibians. Marco et al. 2001 found that salamanders and newts avoided soil with urea when possible. Terrestrial salamanders (Plethodon vehiculum and Rhyacotriton variegatus) died when placed on soil treated with urea (225 kg N/ha and 450 kg N/ha) for 4 days, although roughskin newts (Taricha granulosa) did not, probably because the newts possess lungs, while the terrestrial salamanders primarily utilize cutaneous respiration. Hatch et al. 2001 studied the effects 100 kg N/ha urea on paper towel and soil substrates had on Western toads (Bufo boreas), Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae), long-toed salamanders and roughskin newts. The frogs and toads avoided urea on paper towel but not on soil substrates, the salamander also did not avoid urea on soil substrates. Frogs and toads kept on the urea treated soil for 5 days experienced reduced survivorship. Those that survived ate considerably less than those kept in control conditions. There was no effect on survivorship or diet for salamanders or newts. While fertilizer may have a negative effect on some species of adult amphibians, these species are not likely to be found in cultivated fields at planting time when fertilizers are applied, preferring moist areas with leaf litter rather than dry, open fields. Other studies have found that some amphibians avoid crossing agricultural fields, using drainage ditches or other moist areas for pathways (Mazerolle 2004, Mazerolle and Desrochers 2005). While some amphibians may disperse through fields, they are not likely to linger and therefore unlikely to suffer negative effects from fertilizer. Also, fertilizer applications on cultivated lands are mostly incorporated into the soil at the time of application, limiting the concentration of fertilizers on the soil surface.

Few studies have been done of the effects of fertilizer on other wildlife. It has been documented in the United Kingdom that birds prefer to forage in fields that have been fertilized versus those that have not (Hassall and Lane 2003, Atkinson et al. 2004). However, more species of birds prefer shorter grass swards to taller for invertebrate foraging, with a threshold at which the swards were too short to provide cover for the birds (Atkinson et al. 2004). Fertilizing and frequent mowing of hayfields would then provide improved forage area for birds. In addition, one study examined the effects of granular fertilizer containing nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on pheasants. No

101 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

difference in reproduction, egg quality, hatching success, chick survival or vision was noted between controls, pheasants allowed to voluntarily eat granules in a field setting, or pheasants force-fed granules (Fredrickson et al. 1978). Another study, reported that the spraying of liquid ammonium nitrate on cattle pastures during the nesting season showed adverse affects to nesting loggerhead shrikes due to a drop in invertebrate prey (Yosef and Deyrup 1998). However, fertilizer as currently applied at LBL, is judged to have little detrimental effect on the health of birds, as LBL’s hayfields are generally fertilized in March (prior to nesting) with granular fertilizer, and only a very small portion of LBL is treated.

One study noted that meadows that were fertilized had fewer meadow voles, likely because it promoted less diverse vegetation and less suitable forage for the voles (Hall et al. 1991). Less diverse vegetative communities may then produce a habitat with less diverse small mammal communities; however, the habitats and management of open lands on LBL are diverse enough that this effect would be limited to specific fields and not area wide.

Nitrogen buildup in aquatic environments is not generally sufficient to cause problems unless it occurs in large amounts, as is seen in urban areas or areas that are intensely farmed (Rouse et al. 1999). This is not the case on LBL where less than 3% of the land area is fertilized on a recurring basis and is scattered across the entire landscape. See Soils and Water Resources section 3.2 for fertilizers and water quality.

3.4.5.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for lime and fertilizer applications includes all the open lands on LBL, habitats immediately surrounding them, and the adjoining riparian areas. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects - Open lands would not be maintained, and no lime or fertilizers would be applied. Therefore, there would be no direct effects to wildlife as a result of lime or fertilizer application.

Indirect Effects - The indirect effects of no lime or fertilizer applications, as part of no open lands maintenance, would be that no fertilizer would have the potential to move offsite, or harm amphibians or other wildlife. However, there would be a decrease in overall productivity of the open lands soil over time. Species such as Johnson grass and Sericea lespedeza would dominate many fields due to lack of maintenance, and out- compete desirable species that provide habitat for wildlife. The shade intolerant species would diminish over time as the open lands reverted to forest, and early successional habitats required by many wildlife species would be lost, having a negative effect on species requiring these habitats.

102

Cumulative Effects – Some open land habitats outside the project area (such as the Elk and Bison Prairie, ROW’s, and facilities) would continue to be maintained and lime and fertilizer may be applied to lands outside the project area. However, with a lack of adequate early successional habitats and food sources for wildlife in the open lands project area as a result of not maintaining the open land habitats, wildlife populations would decrease over time, making it more difficult to meet wildlife management and wildlife-related recreation goals.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Open lands would continue to be managed and soil productivity maintained by applying the appropriate amounts of lime and fertilizer. Agricultural BMPs (Appendix 6.1.3) would be implemented including soil testing to determine lime and fertilizer needs. Expanded riparian corridors would be implemented according to Area Plan Standard 35. The amount of open land in cultivation would be reduced by 1,100 acres. Potentially, 4,310 acres of cultivated lands and grasslands may be routinely limed and fertilized (less than 3% of LBL).

Direct Effects - Occasionally, birds, small mammals, reptiles, or amphibians may be in or adjacent to the open lands when lime or fertilizer is being applied and may be adversely affected. Some individuals may experience direct mortality from equipment. BMP’s are designed to avoid adverse effects to them as much as possible. Overall, wildlife populations would not be adversely affected, because such incidences would be limited to few individuals and a small portion of the landscape.

Indirect Effects - Lime and fertilizer applications would have an indirect beneficial effect to wildlife by maintaining productivity of early successional habitats and food sources for those species that depend on them. This would help to meet wildlife management and recreation goals. Corn and soybean fields will be especially beneficial to a number of species in years such as 2007, as soft and hard mast availability in the coming winter are likely to be very low due to a late spring freeze compounded by drought.

The implementation of riparian corridors, agricultural BMPs, Area Plan standards, proper timing of application, and incorporation into the soil are all designed so that appropriate amounts of lime and fertilizer would be applied and kept on target to produce the desired effects, while minimizing any adverse effects. Some individuals of wildlife species (e.g. amphibians) may experience adverse physiological effects if chronically exposed to nitrate fertilizers, although this is highly unlikely given application methods using granular fertilizer and/or incorporation into the soil. Very small amounts of nitrogen or other fertilizer components may move offsite in water, slightly increasing primary productivity of streams and ponds. Water quality tests, as previously indicated in Section 3.2.2, (when even more land was in agricultural production and stream corridors were smaller), have shown water quality parameters to be within acceptable limits, therefore, indirect adverse effects from fertilizer or lime would not be anticipated to wildlife or humans.

103 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Cumulative Effects - Permittees have not been required to submit soil test results, but it has always been in their best interest economically to apply only the necessary amounts, and observation over the years indicated that compliance has been good (M. Cope, personal communication). There would be no cumulative adverse effects to wildlife from application of lime or fertilizer as proposed or historically applied because regular soil tests result in application rates being appropriately adjusted so that long-term build-up of unacceptable levels would be prevented. Lime and fertilizer may also be applied in areas outside the project area, including the EBP and SBR, road and utility ROWs. Because these are done on relatively small amounts of land in proportion to LBL’s total land area, and would follow the same guidelines as open lands, and no interactions (synergisms) of concern are reported for them with pesticides proposed for use or historically applied (Mistretta 2007), adverse cumulative effects are not expected to occur.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Except for traditional row crops, open lands would continue to be managed and soil productivity maintained by applying the appropriate amounts of lime and fertilizer. Agricultural BMPs (Appendix 6.1.3) would be implemented including soil testing on open lands to determine lime and fertilizer needs. Expanded riparian corridors would be implemented according to Area Plan Standard 35. Potentially, 2,980 acres of cultivated lands and grasslands may be routinely limed and fertilized. This is approximately a 30 % reduction compared to Alternative 2 and less than 2% of the total land area of LBL.

Direct Effects - Occasionally, birds, small mammals, reptiles, or amphibians may be in or adjacent to the open lands when lime or fertilizer is being applied. BMP’s are designed to avoid adverse effects to them as much as possible. Some individuals may experience direct mortality from equipment, although this is unlikely given application methods using pelleted fertilizer or injection/incorporation into the soil but these effects would be approximately 30% less than in Alternative 2. Overall, wildlife populations would not be adversely affected, because such incidences would be limited to a very few individuals and a small portion of the landscape.

Indirect Effects - Lime and fertilizer applications would have an indirect beneficial effect to wildlife by maintaining productivity of early successional habitats and food sources for those species that depend on them. This would help to meet wildlife management and recreation goals. Corn and soybean fields and grain would not be available to a number of species. The availability of summer forage lost in soybean fields would be somewhat offset by the availability of forage from native warm season grasses, but the availability of winter grains would not.

104

amphibians) may experience adverse physiological effects if chronically exposed to nitrate fertilizers, although this is highly unlikely given application methods using granular fertilizer and/or incorporation into the soil. Very small amounts of nitrogen or other fertilizer components may move offsite in water, slightly increasing primary productivity of streams and ponds, but this would be less than in Alternative 2. Water quality tests, as previously indicated in Section 3.2.2, with even more land in agricultural production and stream corridors were smaller, have shown water quality parameters to be within acceptable limits, therefore, indirect adverse effects would not be anticipated to wildlife or humans.

Cumulative Effects - Amounts of lime and fertilizer applied in Alternative 3 would be approximately one-third less than in Alternative 2. There would be no cumulative adverse effects to wildlife or humans from application of lime or fertilizer as proposed or historically applied because regular soil tests result in application rates being appropriately adjusted so that long-term build-up of unacceptable levels would be prevented. Lime and fertilizer may also be applied in areas outside the project area, including the EBP and SBR, road and utility ROWs. Because these are done on relatively small amounts of land in proportion to LBL’s total land area, and would follow the same guidelines as open lands, and no interactions (synergisms) of concern are reported for them with pesticides proposed for use or historically applied (Mistretta 2007), adverse cumulative effects are not expected to occur.

3.4.6 Effects of Pesticide Use on Wildlife and Humans

An integrated pest management program (IPM), including the use of pesticides, is necessary to achieve the goals and objectives for open lands management (Area Plan p. 51-54). The IPM program is described in detail in Section 3.1 and Appendix 6.9 of this EA. Pesticides proposed for use in open lands management include herbicides (for controlling undesirable plants), and fungicides (for controlling fungal growth). The list of approved pesticides can be found in Appendix 6.9. No aerial applications of pesticides are considered as part of this assessment.

The majority of pesticides used in open lands management are herbicides. Herbicides are needed for removing or controlling competing undesirable plant species such as fescue, Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza, and other aggressive invasive species.

Fungicides are used to control undesirable fungi which also can damage or kill desirable plant species, but are proposed only for emergency treatment of Asian soybean rust (ASBR). ASBR was discovered in the U.S. in November 2004, and first showed up on soybeans in KY in October 2006. The disease poses potentially devastating losses in soybean yields (Skillman 2006). Three fungicidal products proposed for use on LBL for treatment of ASBR do not come under Standard 23 (Table PR-A3) as the standard applies to herbicides. Analysis of these products was performed to allow adequate risk disclosure under NEPA and can be found in Appendix 6.9.1. To date, no treatment for ASBR has been needed at LBL.

105 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

In order to provide for human and environmental health and safety, a number of measures in regards to the selection and application of pesticides as part of LBL’s IPM program are being required. Only pesticides which have passed EPA, Forest Service, and USFWS reviews are proposed for use. EPA conducts an intensive review of all pesticides prior to being granted a label for proposed uses, and only EPA approved pesticides will be considered for use.

The Forest Service review follows Area Plan Standard 23, which specifies, “Herbicides are applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human (National Research Council 1983) and wildlife health (US EPA, 1986). If the rate or exposure time being evaluated causes the Hazard Quotient (HQ) computed for a proposed treatment to fail to achieve the current Forest Service R8 standard for acceptability (acceptability requires a HQ of < 1.0), additional risk management must be undertaken to reduce the unacceptable risk to an acceptable level, or an alternative method of treatment must be used.” The risk assessment of each chemical considers multiple factors including human and wildlife toxicology, and in many scenarios ecological considerations such as volatilization, potential for leaching and overland hydrological transport, and the potential effects of their environmental processes as they might affect aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and humans. The Forest Service is fully aware of the potential confounding effects of inert ingredients and surfactants when considering potential toxicological or environmental effects of applied pesticides. SERA and the BLM risk assessments used include extensive review of the literature relating to the products being evaluated and include the effects reported from the use of formulated and field mixed products as part of that review. Further, where that data was available in summary form for formulated products of the other products (not reviewed by SERA or the BLM) it is included and the effects are considered. Area Plan Standard 23 is a clear statement of a safety standard to be achieved for proper use of a pesticidal product when used in LBL management activities.

A third review, Section 7 review under the Endangered Species Act, was conducted by USFWS Kentucky Field Office (KFO). A detailed pesticide use proposal was prepared for each pesticide which included the pesticide label, material safety data sheet (MSDS), information about the proposed use, target pests, application rates, and federally listed species that may occur on LBL. These proposals were then reviewed by the USFWS KFO, and appropriate guidance was provided by them.

In addition to the above reviews, Area Plan Standards 16-28 would apply to pesticides used on LBL. Appendix 6.9 contains pesticide information, including the list of approved pesticides (6.9 Table A1) and a summary of results of the HQ analysis. Pesticide use proposals and results of the Section 7 consultation for pesticides are in the project record. Although there are several pesticides on the approved list, in a typical year, fewer than half of the approved pesticides would likely be used (eight were actually applied to project lands in 2007), and applied to half or less of the total open land acres in any year (applied to 38% of project open lands in 2007) which is less than 2% of the total

106

land area of LBL). Having the correct pesticide available to deal with a particular pest problem results in more effective use of pesticides and fewer pesticide applications.

The extensive pesticide review process results in the use of lower risk pesticides, and implementation of Area Plan standards and design criteria would provide additional protection when pesticides are used. Fertilizer effects were not considered in the analysis of potential risk from pesticide use because no synergistic effects, either between or among the pesticides evaluated, or between/among them and other chemicals potentially in the environment, were found reported in the science reviewed. The project record contains full documentation of the pesticide reviews and results.

3.4.6.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for pesticide applications includes all of LBL and the adjoining reservoirs. Past actions under the 1994 NRMP, and present and foreseeable future actions will be considered.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Under this alternative, project open lands would not be maintained, and no pesticides would be applied on any of these lands.

Direct Effects - No pesticides would be applied; therefore, there would be no direct effects to wildlife as a result of pesticide application.

Indirect Effects - The indirect effects of no open lands maintenance and no pesticide use would be the loss of open land habitat and a decline in wildlife species dependent on those habitats. No significant residuals remain from pesticides historically applied (Mistretta 2007). There would initially be a large increase of exotic invasive species in unmanaged open lands. Species such as Johnson grass and Sericea lespedeza would dominate many fields, and out-compete desirable species that provide habitat for wildlife. In the long-term, as open lands reverted to forest, many of the early successional invasive species would likely be shaded out, but they would remain in gaps, on the periphery, and in the seed bank.

Cumulative Effects - Open land habitats outside the project area would continue to be maintained and pesticides are applied in some of these open lands. Also, pesticides are applied in recreation areas for control of undesirable vegetation and for control of undesirable arthropod pests including ticks, mosquitoes, and biting flies. Control of exotic invasive species is proposed for the Highway 68/80 corridor, which would involve the use of pesticides. Additionally, aquatic weeds are becoming a serious problem in the reservoirs and some of the interior waters, and may require herbicide applications in the future under a separate NEPA decision. Control for these include IPM practices, and appropriate safety guidelines to protect the environment and wildlife and humans. Since no pesticides would be used on project lands, there would be no cumulative effects to wildlife from pesticide use in this alternative.

107 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

IPM practices, including the application of pesticides, would be used on all open land types to control invasive and undesirable species. Herbicide use would decrease approximately 17% from current levels due primarily to the reduced number of acres in cultivation and fewer total acres managed.

Direct Effects - Occasionally, birds, small mammals, reptiles, or amphibians may be in the open lands being treated and may be directly sprayed. IPM practices and risk management measures are designed to avoid adverse effects as much as possible. While some individuals may be adversely affected, populations would not be adversely affected, because such incidences are expected to rarely occur.

Indirect Effects - The extensive pesticide review processes, the implementation of riparian corridors, agricultural BMPs, IPM practices, and Area Plan standards are all designed so appropriate pesticides would be used and kept on target to produce the intended effects while minimizing adverse effects. Application of additional risk management measures would further reduce potential effects. Some individual animals may ingest treated vegetation or insects, resulting in adverse physiological effects. While some individuals may be adversely affected, populations would not be adversely affected because such incidences are expected to rarely occur. No residual problems are reported with pesticides currently proposed for use, and no significant residuals remain from pesticides historically applied (Mistretta 2007).

Cumulative Effects - Open land habitats outside the project area would continue to be maintained and pesticides are applied in some of these open lands. Also, pesticides are applied in recreation areas for control of undesirable vegetation and for control of undesirable arthropod pests including ticks, mosquitoes, and biting flies. Control of exotic invasive species is proposed for the Highway 68/80 corridor, which would involve the use of pesticides. Additionally, aquatic weeds are becoming a serious problem in the reservoirs and some of the interior waters, and may require herbicide applications in the future under a separate NEPA decision. Control for these include IPM practices, and appropriate safety guidelines to protect the environment, wildlife and humans. All of these involve a small amount of acres relative to the size of LBL, and many are at discreet locations separate from project lands. There would be no cumulative effects to wildlife from pesticide use, because no residual problems are reported with pesticides currently proposed for use or historically applied, and no interactions (synergisms) of concern are reported for them (Mistretta 2007).

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

IPM practices, including the application of herbicides, would be used on all open land types to control invasive and undesirable species. Herbicides would not be used in

108

riparian corridors. Herbicide use would decrease approximately 56% from current levels due primarily to the elimination of croplands and fewer total acres managed.

Direct Effects - Occasionally, birds, small mammals, reptiles, or amphibians may be in the open lands being treated and may be directly sprayed. The incidence would be less than in Alternative 2 because fewer acres would be treated. IPM practices and risk management measures are designed to avoid adverse effects as much as possible. While some individuals may be adversely affected, populations would not be adversely affected, because such incidents are expected to be rare.

Indirect Effects - The extensive pesticide review processes, the implementation of riparian corridors, agricultural BMPs, IPM practices, and Area Plan standards are all designed so appropriate pesticides would be used and kept on target to produce the intended effects while minimizing adverse effects. Application of additional risk management measures would further reduce potential effects. Some individual animals may ingest treated vegetation or insects, resulting in adverse physiological effects, but the number would be less than Alternative 2 because fewer acres would be treated. While some individuals may be adversely affected, populations would not be adversely affected because such incidences are expected to rarely occur. No residual problems are reported with pesticides currently proposed for use, and no significant residuals remain from pesticides historically applied (Mistretta 2007).

Cumulative Effects - Open land habitats outside the project area would continue to be maintained and pesticides are applied in some of these open lands. Also, pesticides are applied in recreation areas for control of undesirable vegetation and for control of undesirable arthropod pests including ticks, mosquitoes, and biting flies. Control of exotic invasive species is propsed for the Highway 68/80 corridor, which would involve the use of pesticides. Additionally, aquatic weeds are becoming a serious problem in the reservoirs and some of the interior waters, and may require herbicide applications in the future under separate NEPA decision. Control for these include IPM practices, and appropriate safety guidelines to protect the environment, wildlife and humans. All of these involve a small amount of acres relative to the size of LBL, and many are at discreet locations separate from project lands. There would be no cumulative effects to wildlife from pesticide use, because no residual problems are reported with pesticides currently proposed for use or historically applied, and no interactions (synergisms) of concern are reported for them (Mistretta 2007).

Comparison of Alternatives

Comparatively, all alternatives result in decreased use of pesticides in the project area from the current condition. Implementation of Alternative 1 results in a 100% decrease, Alternative 2 a 17% decrease, and Alternative 3 a 56% decrease. There would be minimal direct and indirect effects to wildlife from pesticide use in Alternatives 2 and 3, and no cumulative effects from any of the alternatives.

109 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

`3.5 Recreation and Environmental Education Resources

3.5.1 Scope of Analysis

The scope of analysis includes the variety of recreation and environmental education (EE) activities across LBL that are related to or affected by open lands and open lands maintenance.

3.5.2 Affected Environment Existing open land conditions at LBL for recreational and EE opportunities vary from the north end to the south end and each recreation activity or user group retains its own existing and/or desired conditions. Management of open areas provides a diverse avenue for recreation and EE experiences. Public land managers are responsible to manage natural resources while providing recreation and EE experiences. These responsibilities become more crucial as demand for outdoor recreation has grown rapidly over the last five decades, and is continuing to grow (Cordell and Green 2001). One concern is the loss of private land for recreation. The percentage of landowners permitting public access is likely to continue to decrease, thus providing for increases in public recreation are likely to fall on federal and state lands (Cordell and Tarrent 2002).

The Area Plan and TVA’s LBL Visitor Profile Study conducted in 1998 on LBL state three of the top five activities people participate in at LBL are scenic driving, hunting or scouting, and wildlife viewing. Other popular recreational activities include hiking, biking, equestrian use, off-highway vehicle use, and dispersed camping (Freeman 1998). The final EA for the Land Between The Lakes Wildlife Viewing Area indicates visitors prefer to view large animals such as deer, eagles, and bison (TVA 1995). Approximately 67% of the population in the U.S. participated in viewing and learning activities such as visiting a nature center or historic site in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2004).

Table RR-1. Percent Participation of General Population within a 150-mile Radius of LBL

Activity Age Age Age All 16-34 35-54 55+ Ages % % % %

View/photograph natural 64.1 65.0 53.4 61.3 scenery

Sightseeing 61.4 59.8 51.1 57.8

View/photograph other wildlife 47.7 51.8 46.5 48.9

View/photograph wildflowers, 43.6 49.6 44.9 46.2 trees, etc.

Source: 2000-2004 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. USDA Forest Service. Southern Research Station, Athens, Georgia

110

Open areas provide visual diversity on the landscape, and an opportunity for the public to enjoy scenic diversity and to observe wildlife along The Trace and secondary roads. Visitors to LBL may go for a scenic drive on any planned or unplanned route and catch a glimpse of a colorful variety of wildlife and plant species in and around an assortment of field types. As LBL’s 2 million annual visitors enter LBL on The Trace (LBL’s main north/south road) or on Highway 68/80 (LBL’s main east/west road), a motorist would notice hay fields, wildlife plantings, row crops, and native warm season grasses. Cultivated fields and forested areas are present when entering from the south end. LBL’s legal road system consists of 400 plus miles and passes by each field type.

Hunting and scouting activities within and around LBL open lands provide an opportunity to encounter, view and harvest game species. Cultivated fields and hay fields provide an extra food source for wildlife, while native warm season grass fields and old fields provide nesting habitat and cover. Species vary from birds, to small mammals, to large game species. Some of the game species are demand species identified in Section 3.4. More than 1,500 open fields within LBL are distributed across the landscape and furnish opportunities for approximately 6,500 quota white-tailed deer hunters (selected through a public drawing), 2,400 quota turkey hunters, and numerous additional non- quota large and small game hunters annually. Current open areas provide opportunities for each hunter to access the type of open land to meet their preference.

Hunting and scouting activities decreased by 1.4% over an 18-year span in the U.S. from 1983-2000. This decline was primarily due to difficulties in finding places to hunt (Cordell and Green 2001). Another survey concluded Kentucky residents participating in hunting activities declined by 20% from 1991 to 2001, but there was not a significant decline in Tennessee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Although studies show there is a decrease in hunting activities in the nation, the demand for hunting is rising (Cordell and Tarrant 2002) and access to hunting opportunities continues to be a problem. The 1998 LBL Visitor Profile Survey indicated hunting and scouting ranked fifth out of ten as the main reason for coming to LBL. LBL receives about 2 million visits annually. Approximately 20% of those visits (400,000) were for hunting or scouting (Freeman 1998).

Nature Watch Demonstration Areas (Nature Watch), recreation, and EE activities are interrelated and, the presence of open lands near EE facilities such as the Woodlands Nature Station and Brandon Spring Group Camp can offer numerous opportunities for educational programs such as bird-watching, butterfly banding, and nighttime wildlife viewing. Presently, open areas around these facilities include cultivated fields, hay fields, and warm season grass fields. These fields include a mix of both native and nonnative vegetation. Since invasive species are present in most of LBL open lands, there are tremendous opportunities to educate visitors by comparing areas with and without invasive species. This creates an opportunity for interpretive programs to expand beyond the confines of facilities and supplement the education day use facilities by providing places where visitors can go see and experience for themselves what they have learned.

111 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

While nature viewing opportunities are available throughout LBL, some visitors have limited knowledge or experience as to where and when to attempt to see wildlife, while those who have more nature viewing experience choose to seek opportunities as part of their recreational choices. Species that are viewable in open lands include white- tailed deer, wild turkeys, song birds, migratory birds, shore birds, elk, bison, coyotes, raptors, and other small mammals. At present, open areas in LBL are situated across the landscape in an array of vegetation types and sizes. This scenario attempts to meet the needs of both types of nature viewers mentioned above.

Currently, hikers, bikers, and horseback riders have access to a variety of trails passing through many landscape settings. Trail users often utilize trails for nature viewing while hiking or riding. Trail corridors often pass through open areas such as cultivated fields, hay fields, wildlife plantings, utility ROWs, and old fields. One hiker may wish to hike along a field blanketed with colorful wildflowers and butterflies, while another may wish to hike along the edge of a cultivated field looking for deer, turkeys, and other wildlife. Some users may wish to hike on a trail through only forested areas and avoid open areas completely, while others prefer a varied landscape. Under present conditions, LBL is able to provide each of the opportunities listed above in an effort to meet the desires of each individual.

Both dispersed camping, as well as developed campgrounds, are supported primarily by other recreation activities. For example, a large segment of the visitors who participate in dispersed camping either hunt or view scenery.

The recreation and EE activities mentioned above utilize open areas as well as forested areas in LBL. Open areas in LBL are only able to meet needs for recreational activities favorable to the geographic location, and the existing conditions attempt to offer a variety of opportunities to meet the desires of each individual or user group.

3.5.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area includes all of LBL, and recreation and EE activities associated with or affected by open lands. The time bounds are from implementation of the 1994 Plan through the implementation of foreseeable future activities.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects - Under this alternative, recreation and EE programs would not be susceptible to a large direct impact. Nature Watch, wildlife viewing, scenic driving, and hunting activities would not be interrupted by open lands maintenance equipment, and incidents where trail users, such as hikers, bikers, and horseback riders encounter open lands maintenance equipment would be eliminated as well. Dispersed camping and hunting would decrease as fields are taken over by invasive species and small woody shrubs.

112

Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 would have a negative effect as food sources and visibility of wildlife decrease and cause viewing and hunting to become increasingly more challenging. A loss of open areas is viewed by hunters as a loss of preferred habitat for several of LBL’s most popular game species, including deer, turkeys, quail, and rabbits. In poor mast production years, there would be no supplemental food available from open lands. This would ultimately result in a decrease of hunting and scouting activities.

Environmental education programs and facilities would have opportunities to develop messages based on what is taking place in the fields as maintenance of open lands ceased. Nighttime programs, butterfly banding, and bird-watching opportunities and programs may begin to decrease.

With no cultivated fields or wildlife plantings, and no warm season grasses for small game habitat, the abundance of demand wildlife species would diminish and EE facilities would be forced to focus their programs on why this is happening (ie: what kind of vegetation begins to grow in the fields and at what rate). Visitors who enjoy nature watch and scenic driving would have very limited viewing opportunities as early successional forests replaced open areas.

Some administrative access roads maintained only for open lands maintenance are also used as access by hunters, hikers, and horseback riders. If maintenance of open lands is discontinued those roads would be decommissioned or converted to trails in a separate decision.

Camping would start to decline as hunters who utilize camping facilities and backcountry camping opportunities begin to seek wildlife on other properties due to a loss of open areas, wildlife presence and viewibility.

Cumulative Effects - Since LBL’s creation in the mid-1960’s, there has been loss of open lands. This alternative would eliminate the remaining open lands in the general forest areas of LBL. This alternative would cause a decline in recreation and EE activities across LBL as woody vegetation increases and open areas decrease over the next 10-15 years and beyond.

Nature viewing and scenic driving activities would decrease as the landscape becomes constant and there is no longer a variety in scenery. Every route would have a repetitive backdrop. As visibility distance is diminished, and habitat necessary for some desirable plant and wildlife species disappears, opportunities would decline. Viewers with more experience would have capability to view some wildlife, but in a different setting, while viewers who have limited knowledge and experience would have an even narrower realm of viewing locations and would gradually surrender open viewing areas to early succession forest types and eventually to mature forests. Essential EE programs about open lands habitat would decrease as fewer open areas are available for programs. The loss of open land opportunities in this alternative would not affect the recreation and EE

113 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

opportunities provided in the Nature Watch, OGRDAs, road right of ways, utility right of ways, the Elk and Bison Prairie (EBP) and the South Bison Range (SBR).

Hikers, bikers, and horseback riders would notice a change in scenery as open areas are replaced with gradual reforestation. Trails may require less maintenance as open lands maintenance equipment would no longer be utilizing trail corridors for access. This alternative would be desired by users who prefer closed forests to open areas. Both dispersed camping, as well as developed campgrounds, would see a decrease in visitation as these activities are supported primarily by the other recreation activities, which would decrease under this alternative.

Alternative 1 would struggle to meet Area Plan goals or goals in the Agency’s National Recreation Strategy:

• Provide safe, natural, well-designed, and well-maintained recreation opportunities for visitors. • Provide opportunities for the public to learn about the values of conservation, land stewardship, and responsible recreation.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects - Under this alternative, adjustments of cover types at strategically planned locations on the landscape would give recreational activities opportunity to move forward towards achieving the environmental education and recreation goals of the Area Plan (Goals 1, 3, and 7).

Wildlife viewing, scenic driving, hunting and other recreation and environmental education activities in open lands would remain near the same levels as today. Dispersed camping in fields would be similar to current levels.

A direct effect to recreation and EE programs will occasionally occur though it will be less than current levels as fewer acres are planned for cultivation. Open lands maintenance equipment would be present during planting and harvesting seasons, and therefore may interfere with some wildlife viewing, scenic driving, and/or hunting activities. The equipment would distract from the natural scenery, and incidents where trail users, such as hikers, bikers, and horseback riders encounter open lands maintenance equipment would occasionally occur (depending on prescription, individual fields may be occupied for a few hours during zero to five visits per calendar year for maintenance).

Certain tools used for maintenance include prescribed fire, mowing, disking, lime, fertilizer and pesticide applications. The design criteria listed in Chapter 2 would minimize potential hazards to recreationists. Effects from dust and particulates in the air are addressed in the air resources Section 3.3. Public safety requirements such as posting notices prior to pesticide applications and prescribed burns, and alert messages on trail maps and trail heads, would aid in the effort to avoid contact with the average visitor. Recreationists are rarely observed in the fields at the time of applications, and would be

114

seen and avoided by applicators. Risks of pesticides to humans are disclosed in the Appendix and project record. Direct adverse physical effects would not be expected to occur to visitors from lime, fertilizer or pesticide applications or other maintenance activities.

Indirect Effects - With some vegetation types changing in select fields, some administrative access roads may be closed and decommissioned under separate NEPA decisions because access would no longer be needed. These roads are maintained as access for field maintenance, but are also used by hunters, hikers, and horseback riders. Other access roads would continue to be maintained. Environmental education facilities would have an opportunity to develop programs based on what is taking place as vegetation types are converted and habitats change. Dispersed camping, nature watch, and hunting activities would stay consistent with current conditions.

Openings in the landscape such as cultivated fields, hay fields, wildlife plantings, and grasslands provide viewing areas for nature viewing and scenic driving enthusiasts, as well as habitat for some desirable viewing species. Fields with wildflowers and native grasses would be present for viewing as well.

For wildlife viewing, viewing distances and frequency in open areas would vary depending on vegetation type and growth stage. Soybean fields provide a great location to view white-tailed deer in early summer while foraging on the bean plants, but viewing opportunities would decrease after the soybeans are harvested. Corn fields are another good example. Viewing distances in some fields would temporarily diminish as crops reach a certain height and density, providing cover rather than exposure. Viewing opportunities for birds, deer, turkeys and other wildlife would increase after harvest as they move in to forage on remaining row crops and waste grain. The abundance of wildlife observed in harvested cropland fields would increase during years of poor mast production, such as 2007.

Warm season grass strips in riparian corridors provide educational opportunities for EE facilities, such as Brandon Spring Group Camp and Woodlands Nature Station. These facilities would also have a chance to expand EE programs as open areas are maintained.

Hunting and scouting opportunities would be sustained as habitat for demand game species is created and/or diversified. Hunters and other wildlife groups have shown a strong interest and support in continuing maintaining row crops for wildlife habitat. Open areas are desired hunting and scouting locations due to the abundance, visibility, and frequency of use by game species. Varied field types for game species increases opportunities and satisfaction of the hunting experience on LBL, and supports the August 17, 2007 Executive Order to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat on federal lands (Bush 2007).

Cumulative Effects - The future Nature Watch and OGRDA would provide an increase in recreation and EE that occur in open lands. Hiking, biking, and horseback riding

115 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

activities are growing nationally and continued maintenance of open lands on LBL would support these activities. Camping sustainability at LBL would depend on the support of other recreation programs, but the industry as a whole is continually growing throughout the nation. This alternative would complement the opportunities in the local area.

This alternative would maintain recreation and EE activities over the next 10-15 years across LBL as open areas continue to be maintained. The future Nature Watch and OGRDAs would provide an increase in recreation and EE opportunities in those demonstration areas. Since LBL’s creation in the mid-1960’s, there has been loss of open lands. Approximately 430 acres of open lands would be reclassified to riparian corridors, only some of these acres would remain open. This small percentage is not anticipated to change the recreation opportunities.

Although little change is expected in open land opportunities in this alternative, the recreation and EE opportunities increase in the Nature Watch and OGRDAs. The opportunities remain the same in road right of ways, utility right of ways, the Elk and Bison Prairie and the South Bison Range.

Both dispersed camping, as well as developed campgrounds, would continue to be supported by recreation opportunities provided in open lands.

Alternative 2 would support Area Plan goals or goals in the Agency’s National Recreation Strategy:

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use Direct Effects - Some recreation and EE activities such as hunting, hiking, biking, horseback riding, and scenic driving would occasionally be impacted directly as visitors would come in contact with tools and equipment necessary for field conversion and maintenance. The probability of incidents is higher during the initial conversion stages, but would be lessened as cultivated fields are converted to grasslands. These fields require less maintenance than cultivated areas and incidents where users come into contact with equipment would be less than described in Alternative 2.

Certain tools used for maintenance of grasslands include prescribed fire, mowing, and fertilizer and pesticide applications. The design criteria listed in Chapter 2 would minimize potential hazards to users. Effects from dust and particulates in the air are addressed in the air resources Section 3.3. Public safety requirements such as posting notices prior to pesticide applications and prescribed burns, and alert messages on trail maps and trail heads, would aid in the effort to avoid contact with the average visitor.

116

The amount of pesticides needed to maintain grasses is substantially less than the amount needed to manage traditional row crops, therefore the potential for visitors encountering spray equipment decreases under this alternative compared to Alternative 2. Risks of pesticides to humans are disclosed in the Appendix and project record. Public safety requirements such as posting notices prior to pesticide applications and prescribed burns, and alert messages on trail maps and trail heads, would aid in the effort to avoid contact with the average visitor. Recreationists are rarely observed in the fields at the time of applications, and would be seen and avoided by applicators. Direct adverse physical effects would not be expected to occur to visitors from lime, fertilizer or pesticide applications or other maintenance activities.

Indirect Effects – Visibility of some species desired for wildlife viewing, such as white- tailed deer and wild turkeys would decrease from Alternative 2 as native warm season grass fields mature, because the height of the grasses would obscure visibility. During maturity, these fields would make a great location for experienced bird-watchers to view song birds. Deer and turkeys would be visible during the growing season, but would be limited as the vegetation matures. Tools necessary to sustain these fields such as prescribed fire and mowing would improve viewing as wildlife take to the fields to forage on new generation growth.

The replacement of cultivated fields with native warm season grasses and wildlife plantings would be a welcomed change for some visitors who enjoy scenic driving as fields would be more colorful and diverse. Wildflowers and other colorful vegetation would be more aesthetically pleasing than croplands to some visitors.

Some administrative access roads would be decommissioned based on field type. These roads are only maintained as access for field maintenance, but are also used by hunters, hikers, and horseback riders. Roads that would be decommissioned decreases access to recreational visitors to LBL. Other access roads would continue to be maintained and would still be accessible for recreation.

Hiking, biking, and horseback riding trends should remain the same as opportunities would remain. Trails that currently pass through cultivated fields offer a unique setting on National Forest lands and would offer a more natural setting as native warm season grasses are established.

Initial conversion would provide excellent EE opportunities, while dispersed camping and hunting would decrease as favorite hunting locations or crop fields disappeared. As newly converted vegetation begins to germinate, hunting opportunities would increase again as game species are present in the field to forage on the palliative vegetation.

Conversion of croplands to strategically located wildlife plantings and native warm season grasses would enhance hunting for some species but diminish for others. Habitat for small mammals such as cottontail rabbits, and ground nesting birds such as quail and wild turkeys are provided by native warm season grasses, and food sources for many game species would be provided in increased acres of wildlife plantings which would

117 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

help to offset the decrease in row crops. Varied field types for game species increase opportunities and satisfaction of the hunting experience on LBL, and support the August 17, 2007 Executive Order to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat on federal lands.

Cumulative Effects - This alternative would maintain recreation and EE activities over the next 10-15 years across LBL as open areas continue to be maintained. Recreation and EE activities would change slightly from Alternative 2. EE programs would have opportunities to expand and provide programs on wildlife habitat and especially native warm season grasses.

The future Nature Watch and OGRDAs would provide an increase in recreation and EE opportunities in those demonstration areas. The opportunities remain the same in road right of ways, utility right of ways, the Elk and Bison Prairie and the South Bison Range. Since LBL’s creation in the mid-1960’s, there has been loss of open lands. Approximately 430 acres of open lands would be reclassified to riparian corridors, only some of these acres would remain open. This small percentage is not anticipated to change the recreation and EE opportunities.

Alternative 3 would support Area Plan goals or goals in the Agency’s National Recreation Strategy:

3.6 Heritage Resources ______

3.6.1 Scope of Analysis

The scope of analysis includes the existing conditions, as well as direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for each alternative as it pertains to activities associated with maintaining open lands.

3.6.2 Affected Environment

Heritage resources consist of any material remains that have any association with humans. They may consist of: a) Prehistoric sites (c. 10000 B.C. - c. 1500 A.D.): structures, features, artifacts and objects which may include such things as pottery, basketry, weapons, tools, pit houses, middens (trash dumps), fire pits, ruins, rock carvings, graves or grave goods;

118

b) Historic sites (c. 1500 A.D. - 50 years ago): features, structures, buildings, artifacts and objects which may include such things as trash dumps, bridges, homesteads, cabins, graves, bottles, fence posts, ruins, graffiti, wagon ruts, trails.

As with open lands, both prehistoric and historic human populations occupied all environments on the landscape. Heritage resources (generally considered 50 years or older) at LBL include sites from all of the time periods listed in Tables HR-1 and HR-2, below.

Table HR-1. Prehistoric Site Types and Their Corresponding Time Periods Found at LBL

Period Date Paleo-Indian 10000-8000 B.C. Archaic 8000-1000 B.C. Woodland 1000 B.C.-1000 A.D. Mississippian 1000 -1500 A.D.

Table HR-2. Major Historic Themes and Time Periods for LBL

Historic Theme Date European Exploration ?-1780 Early Settlement 1780-1830 Antebellum 1830-1861 Civil War 1861-1865 Postbellum Industrialization 1865-1918 Between the Wars 1918-1945 Federal Land Acquisition 1930-1969

In 2000, LBL developed a categorical exclusion (CE) for Wildlife Open Lands Annual Maintenance in consultation with the Kentucky and Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). It was agreed that any impacts to sites that would occur as a result of the undertaking (continued maintenance of LBL open lands) had already happened through several decades (if not hundreds of years) of human activity on the landscape. It was also agreed at the time that open lands at LBL today are the same as open lands (usually as farm fields) before TVA took over and may be even much older; possibly as the result of Native American manipulation of their landscape. While this may be true, it does not necessarily mean any sites within LBL open lands are disturbed beyond recognition. In an attempt to locate sites within open lands and determine whether impacts were affecting their eligibility, it was agreed all open lands included in the wildlife open lands CE would be surveyed. Approximately 1,606 acres of open lands were surveyed between 2002 and 2003 (see Table HR-3).

119 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Table HR-3 List of Surveys Previously Conducted on LBL Open Lands

Report Date Author Acres Results A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of 706 2003 Carstens 706 13 new sites Acres of Open Farm Land in Land Between The 39 Isolated Lakes in Lyon and Trigg Counties, KY and finds Stewart County, TN An Archaeological Reconnaissance of 2003 Allgood 500 16 new sites Approximately 500 Acres of Spring Wildlife 3 previously Plantings recorded sites A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of 400 2003 Carstens 400 16 new sites Acres of Open Farm Land in Land Between The 2 previously Lakes in Lyon and Trigg Counties, KY and recorded sites Stewart County, TN

From the data we have, there are potentially as many as 69 recorded sites within open lands. Of the 69 sites, 26 are historic, 40 are prehistoric, and 3 are multicomponent sites (containing both historic and prehistoric artifacts). If these data are correct, there are also 12 cemeteries within open lands. However, field visits indicate the data may be suspect and most of the cemeteries are not within open lands.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, only requires Federal Agencies to manage historic properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Federal Agencies are to apply the National Register criteria in order to evaluate the historic significance of recorded sites and determine their eligibility for listing on the NRHP (36 CFR 800.4(c)(1)). A site is significant if it meets one or more of the evaluation criteria and contains integrity. For most of LBL most of the time, if an eligibility determination has been made for sites, it has often been the result of a field call on the part of the recorder during the initial documentation. In other words, no formal significance analysis applying the evaluation criteria in order to determine a site’s eligibility for listing on the NRHP has been conducted. Of the 69 known sites, 39 are listed as ineligible, 7 are listed as unevaluated, and for 23 sites eligibility is unknown. As was stated, these numbers may not accurately reflect the significance of the sites.

Answering the question of whether or not heritage sites would be impacted by any of the alternatives to continue maintenance of open lands at LBL is exacerbated by the lack of reliable data. However, based on history, we suspect the same types of impacts have been happening at the same locations for many years (Table HR-4). What we need to learn is whether there are sites within open lands and if so, how much impact, if any, has occurred and what can be done to protect sites in the future. An Open Lands Heritage Survey Plan was developed to address these issues (see Appendix 6.6.2).

120

Table HR-4. Open Land Types and Current Treatment Methods that could Impact Heritage Resources

Cultivated Cover Types Impact Wildlife Plantings Burn, disk

Croplands Burn, till, no till drilling

Grassland Cover Types Infrequent Soil Disturbance Maintained open lands and Burn, warm season grasses Infrequent disking

Hay fields Burn

Old Fields Burn

3.6.3 Direct, Indirect, and Culmulative Effects

Under NHPA, a significant or adverse effect is one which may diminish the integrity of an historic property’s (cultural resource/site, historic, or prehistoric site, heritage resource) location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or associations (36 CFR 800.9(b)). Open lands maintenance activities have potential to affect heritage resources in three distinct ways. The first is physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of a resource. The second is isolation of a resource from its setting or alteration of the character of its setting. The third is introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that alter the setting or are out of character with it. The cumulative effects area for heritage resources includes the open lands and riparian corridors, past, present, and foreseeable future actions.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect - We know some, if not all, of the current open lands at LBL were historically open lands. The direct impact of no longer maintaining open lands would be to not only lose historic fields and woods openings but the knowledge of their locations, why they were there, and how they got to be there. The root systems of trees and shrubs would displace subsurface artifacts and confuse site stratigraphy on historic and prehistoric sites. Lastly, early successional vegetation is often dense and quickly overtakes the landscape. If the fields revert to trees and shrubs with no maintenance, there would be less surface visibility and archaeological sites would be much harder to locate. Consequently, heritage resources would be affected in all three ways described above: physical destruction, isolation, and loss of or change of character.

Eliminating tilling would ensure no further impacts from maintenance activities would occur and sites would be hidden and protected by vegetation from possible visitor collection, looting, or vandalism.

121 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

The survey plan developed for this EA would be implemented under this alternative; though it would be difficult to locate sites as shrubs and trees move into open lands.

Cumulative Effects - The major cumulative effect of no longer maintaining open lands is that over time, any prehistoric and historic archaeological sites would be lost to dense vegetation and lack of surface visibility in addition to damage from tree root systems.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects - Continuing to manage open lands as they have been in the past would not result in any new damage to any potential archaeological sites that may be present. The open lands have been tilled for a number of years and no new areas are proposed. As long as the same tilling and disking methods continue to be used any impacts would be limited to the already disturbed plow zone. The benefit of increased visibility and improved likelihood of locating sites outweighs the slight possibility additional damage might be done to archaeological sites before the survey of these field types is completed. In any event, the survey plan developed for this EA would be implemented.

Cumulative Effects - Cumulative effects to heritage resources would be the same as the cumulative effects to the landscape brought on by continued maintenance activities. If erosion is happening in a particular field, then sites would become more exposed over time and more at risk. If deposition is occurring as the result of working a field then sites in those locations would be more deeply buried and consequently protected, but lost over time. Alternative 3: Eliminate Croplands and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct and Indirect Effects - This alternative ensures historic open lands would remain open, but ground surface visibility and the increased ability to locate prehistoric sites is lost in tilled lands. Surveying the landscape and identifying cultural resources is the first step to managing heritage resources. Ground surface visibility helps us locate sites so we can learn about the past as well as preserve and protect any intact sites we find. Eliminating tilling would ensure that no further impacts would occur and that the sites would be hidden and protected by the dense grassland vegetation from possible visitor collection, looting, or vandalism. The survey plan developed as a result of this EA would be implemented to locate any potential sites within former croplands.

Cumulative Effects - Over time, heritage sites would be hidden and thus protected by the heavy grassland vegetation. If erosion is happening in a particular field, then sites would become more exposed over time and more at risk. If deposition is occurring as the result of working a field then sites in those locations would be more deeply buried and consequently protected, but lost over time.

122

3.7 Economic and Social Resources ______

3.7.1 Scope of Analysis

This scope of analysis for the open lands economic and social values would include LBL Special Use Permit authorizations’ economic contributions to the local economy; Forest Service, and total government cost of operating open lands; impact on local recreation economy and opportunities; and use and passive use values by each alternative.

3.7.2 Affected Environment

Recreation The jobs, tax revenues, and business created by the Active Outdoor Recreation Economy are the life blood of rural communities that rely on recreation tourism to enjoy a high quality of life (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006). According to the US Department of Agriculture, rural tourism and recreational development:

• Spikes employment growth rates • Buoys earnings and income levels • Lowers local poverty rates • Shepherds improvements in local educational attainment and health

Profits from the Active Outdoor Recreation Economy are derived from both outdoor equipment and excursions.

• Quality equipment is elemental to a safe and fulfilling outdoor experience. Americans spend $46 billion each year on their equipment, apparel, footwear, accessories, and services.

• Americans want to spend money on active outdoor excursions, and they spend $243 billion on trips ranging from summer camping vacations to afternoon bike rides.

This adds up to $289 billion spent annually on active outdoor recreation gear and trips, a bigger direct expenditure contribution to the U.S. economy than that of the securities, commodity contracts, and investments industry, which generate $277 billion (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006). $77 billion in taxes are generated on wildlife viewing and hunting, which generate 780,000 jobs nationally (Tables ESR-1 and -2). Furthermore, in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee combined, $5.96 billion is contributed to the economy from hunting and wildlife viewing activities and 55,387 jobs created (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006).

LBL’s Open lands are currently managed to provide wildlife viewing, scenic driving, hunting experiences and beneficial wildlife habitat. Providing these opportunities are very important since wildlife viewing is the top activity visitors participate in at LBL

123 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

(Freeman 1998) and nationally (Cordell 1999). Both wildlife viewing and hunting are strong economic contributors. Therefore open lands on LBL are beneficial for tourism and recreation economy. Please see section 3.5 for trends and participation rates in wildlife viewing and hunting.

Table ESR-1. Wildlife Viewing Contributions to National Economy

Jobs Generated 467,000 Taxes Generated (State and Federal) $43.4 Billion The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006

Table ESR-2. Hunting Contributions to National Economy

Jobs Generated 322,570 Taxes Generated (State and Federal) $34 Billion The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006.

Open Lands The Forest Service’s current approach of authorizing others to maintain open lands on LBL for the government stimulates the economy of the surrounding area. The Forest Service utilizes different administrative tools, including special use permits (SUPs) and local contractors to maintain different types of open lands.

The Forest Service contributes approximately $240,000 each year to the local economy to manage openings other than croplands, such as wildlife plantings, warm season grasses, and maintained open lands. The details for this total are located in Table 6.7.1-A10 in the appendix.

Croplands are currently maintained by cooperative farming agreements issued under special use permits (SUPs). Individual farmers lease the land to earn income which filters to local economies. These individuals also spend monies on lime, fertilizer, seeds, etc. within the local communities. In return, open lands under SUP are maintained at minimal cost to the Forest Service, and croplands produce forage and cover for wildlife. Approximately $21,000 is generated from special use permits and used as barter for additional maintenance work by the SUP holders on LBL open lands.

The three variables used to calculate economic contributions are revenue generated dollars (revenues permitees received from selling crops), variable expenses (monies spent in the local community for seed, fertilizer, etc.), and guaranteed farms subsidies (direct payments using USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) formula, paid from FSA to farmers). The farm subsidies are authorized by the FSA under the Direct Counter-Cyclical Payment program to producers who operate on Federally owned land.

124

Tables ESR-3 and ESR-4 show current revenue for LBL’s cooperative farmers.

Table ESR-3. Revenue and Subsidies for Croplands

Crop Type Acres Revenue Farm Subsidies paid to Farmers by FSA Corn 1319 $115,162 $35,528 Soybeans 1319 $53,961 $13,810 **Wheat 0 0 $8,000 Hay 1389 $46,406 $0 Total Revenue and Payments Generated for Local Economy Annually by Open Lands Maintenance $272,867 *This table is figured based on maximal yield of 120 bushels/acre (corn) and 40 bushels/acre (soybeans) and average expenditures. Does not include land layout, farming practices based on restrictions imposed by USDA Forest Service on LBL, wildlife damage, % of crops left for wildlife, and other variables. Acreage numbers are from detailed acreage, Appendix 6.1.4 **Farmers are eligible for approximately $8,000 in wheat direct payments even though they may not grow wheat.

Table ESR-4. Total Economic Contribution Generated by Croplands

Variable Expenses $380,703 Dollars Generated $272,867 Total $653,570

3.7.3 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The outputs generated for economic contributions are based on average revenue and expenses to farmers for croplands and hayfields and average cost to the Forest Service for management practices outlined in this document. Each dollar amount generated through this section for each alternative is based on each alternative management prescription being in place at this current time. Therefore, dollar amounts are expressed in today’s terms.

Local Economic Contributions of Croplands and Hayfields Within LBL’s open lands program, approximately 4,030 acres are used to produce hay, corn, and soybeans under LBL’s current management practices. Each alternative set would change the amount of cropland acres at LBL. The changes in acres will produce the largest effect on the local economic contributions generated through this program.

Dollars created for the local economy can vary year to year depending on many variables including weather, fuel costs, and seed cost. One important variable in crop production is crop damage caused by wildlife. Sometimes wildlife consume a significant portion of the crops prior to harvest (Fralish 2002). Furthermore, the layout of the croplands can cause

125 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

more of a financial burden for farmers, increasing their overall variable expenses and labor. With the acres being spread across 270 square miles in small fields, farmers experience higher expenses than private farming practices. Calculations do not fully reflect these variables, which could lead to a decrease in the amount of revenue generated. Table ESR-5 summarizes the effects to cropland and hayfields economic contribution by alternative.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, open lands would no longer be maintained, and all openings allowed to revert to forest. Loss of open lands would result in complete loss of agriculture contributions to the individual cooperative farmers. Farmers would lose profits while they attempted to lease other land or change occupations. Contractors who currently maintain open lands other than croplands and hayfields on LBL would lose profit made from the open lands.

Cumulative Effects - A slight decline in the local economy would occur as profits from croplands and contracts for open lands maintenance disappeared. This will make it more difficult to maintain LBL’s mission to enhance the economy of the surrounding communities. LBL could use money not spent on contracts to maintain open lands on other projects.

LBL’s current agriculture acres are less than 2% of all the surrounding/bordering counties agriculture acres, and do not have an adverse effect on supply/demand and prices of agriculture commodities.

Agriculture acres across the U.S. have declined and this can also be said for Kentucky and Tennessee. However, production rates have stayed the same over the last 10 years. Since 1997, overall 1 million cropland acres have been lost in Kentucky and Tennessee combined. Loss of open lands on LBL would contribute to this overall loss.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Cropland and hayfields would continue to provide revenue to local farmers or contractors, dependent on the administrative tool used to carry out this project. Contracts for maintaining open lands other than croplands and hayfields would continue to benefit the surrounding community. A slight decrease from current revenue would be seen to match the decrease in acres of open lands as compared to current.

Cumulative Effects - Revenue would continue to filter through to the local economy. LBL’s current agriculture acres are less than 2% of all the surrounding/bordering counties agriculture acres, and do not have an adverse effect on supply/demand and prices of agriculture commodities. Prices and demands are usually determined on a national level.

126

Forest Service competition with the surrounding communities is not being fostered with the surrounding communities. This alternative supports LBL’s mission to enhance the economy of the surrounding communities.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, croplands would no longer be maintained, and would be converted to native wildlife plantings or native warm season grasses. Loss of croplands would result in loss of agriculture contributions to the individual cooperative farmers under the current SUP, or a similar administrative tool used to manage the land. Farmers would lose profits while they attempted to lease other land or change occupations.

This loss to the local economy would be partly offset by the increase in contracts to maintain open lands as more wildlife plantings and native warm season grass fields would be established as compared to Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects - Agriculture acres across the U.S. have declined and this can also be said for Kentucky and Tennessee. However, production rates have stayed the same over the last 10 years. Since 1997, overall 1 million cropland acres have been lost in Kentucky and Tennessee combined. Loss of croplands on LBL would contribute to this loss. A slight decline in the local economy would occur as profits from croplands disappeared. This would contradict LBL’s mission to enhance the economy of the surrounding communities. Some economic benefits to the local economy would be seen from all open lands the Forest Service continued to manage.

Table ESR-5. Local Economic Agriculture Contributions from Cropland Acres

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Net Revenue $0 $207,387 $70,285 Generated Variable $0 $309,516 $50,498 Expenses Farm Subsidies $0 $39,208 $0 Total $0 $574,160 $120,783 Calculations for this table include average production cost and variable expenses and does not take into account many variables such as: weather, fuel cost, seed cost, cropland layout, wildlife damage, risk, etc. Please see Appendix 6.7.1, Tables 6.7.1-A1 – 6.7.1-A8. Revenue generated and variable expenses could increase depending on whether maintenance of open lands is either prescribed burn or grasses are harvested by special use permit.

127 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Forest Service and Government Cost The total cost to the Forest Service and Federal Government would vary by alternative. Each alternative would have an effect on cost to manage open lands prescriptions and the amount of direct Forest Service funds and farm subsidies. Funds saved by the Forest Service are available for expenditure in other programs at LBL.

Forest Service cost and USDA FSA farm subsidies used to calculate total government cost contribute to the local economy. Farm subsidies, currently paid by the USDA directly to farmers, contribute to the local economic contribution within the agriculture sector which is reflected in Table ESR-6. Forest Service costs are funds paid to contractors to maintain open lands other than croplands and hayfields on LBL.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, open lands would no longer be maintained, and all openings allowed to revert to forest. LBL would no longer supply funds for maintenance, therefore funds would not be paid to farmers or contractors. Compared to the affected environment, approximately $21,000 barter value would be lost by the government.

Cumulative Effects - After accounting for the loss in the $21,000 barter value, LBL would have more funds available for other projects.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Table ESR-6 shows approximately $280,000 would be spent by the federal government to manage open lands on LBL, $240,000 from USDA-FS and $39,000 from USDA-FSA. Approximately $21,000 would be generated from special use permits and would be used as barter for additional maintenance work on LBL open lands from special use permittees, making it cost efficient to manage open lands, assuming a cooperative administrative tool such as SUPs would be used.

Cumulative Effects - The Forest Service spends approximately $240,000 to manage openlands.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, croplands would no longer be maintained, and would be converted to native wildlife plantings or native warm season grasses. LBL would have to increase its open lands budget to by approximately $150,000 to accomplish this, resulting in lack of funding for other projects, or a delay in the establishment of other open land communities. A delay in the establishment of other open lands communities would allow forest communities to begin succession in former croplands. This would further increase the cost of establishing open lands communities as the land would first have to be cleared of new growth. Revenue generated from

128

special use permits would not be available, further increasing the cost of maintaining open lands.

Cumulative Effects - A larger portion of LBL’s budget would have to go towards the establishment and maintenance of open lands, limiting funding for other projects.

Table ESR-6 shows the total cost to the government for managing the open lands program at LBL for each alternative. Costs are annual costs.

Table ESR-6. Total Government Cost per year

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 FS Cost Paid to $0 $240,211 $397,696 Contractors Farm Subsidies - $0 $39,208 $0 Paid to farmers by USDA Total Cost to $0 $279,419 $397,696 Government Dollars are in present value. See Appendix 6.7 for more information on cost figures.

Recreation Wildlife viewing is the top activity visitors participate in at LBL (See Section 3.5). This is also one of the top activities the American public participates in (66 Million); therefore, it benefits the tourism and recreation economy. The wildlife viewing contribution would grow as the “projected increase in participation in the south should increase more rapidly than the population” (Cordell 1999). Creating an environment that increases the chance to see wildlife can be beneficial to tourism destinations.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - In this alternative, the open lands are left to revert to forest. This would negatively affect wildlife forage, cover, and species diversity. The change in wildlife composition would result in a decrease in wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. This might result in a decrease of visitors interested in these activities, and therefore a decrease in profits surrounding communities earn from LBL’s visitors. Visitors interested in more forested environments would have more opportunity to recreate on LBL, contributing to the local economy.

Cumulative Effects - Without tourist dollars, the contribution from open lands recreation to surrounding communities would begin to decline. This alternative does not support LBL’s mission to booster the economy of the surrounding communities. With supply (locations) for hunting on the decline, and demand on the rise, economic incentive could be created for local areas with lands that could provide hunting experiences.

129 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, visitors would enjoy the same wildlife viewing opportunities available today. Visitor presence in the region would benefit the economy of the surrounding communities.

Cumulative Effects - This alternative supports LBL’s mission to support the economy of the surrounding communities by drawing visitors interested in recreation and EE on open lands.

Alternative 3 - Eliminate Traditional Row Crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects - Under this alternative, visitors would enjoy wildlife viewing opportunities, although opportunities to view wildlife in native warm season grass fields would decrease for some popular species. Visitor presence in the region would benefit the economy of the surrounding communities.

Cumulative Effects - This alternative supports LBL’s mission to support the economy of the surrounding communities by drawing visitors interested in recreation on open lands.

Values There are many values associated with National Forests such as passive and use values that cannot be expressed in monetary terms. These values are highly personal and subjective in nature. These, however, may be the greatest value of National Forests to the nation.

Specific passive and use values, such as existence, option, and bequest, can and have been expressed in monetary terms in economic literature. The economic literature clearly shows people hold passive use values for a variety of conditions on National Forests. Although, the Forest Service recognizes the validity and importance of these values, the existing literature is not sufficient to serve as a quantitative measure for some of these values that are often geographically localized in nature. Therefore, passive use values for such things as wildlife habitat, clean air, and recreation experiences must be taken into consideration in a qualitative sense. Such values are not expressed in monetary terms and therefore not included in the economic analysis. In the next section below, LBL has addressed the importance of such values and has weighed them within their management decision. They have also been used in the determination of net public values.

NFMA regulations define net public benefits as “An expression used to signify the overall long-term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be quantitatively valued or not.”

130

Use and Passive Use Values A value is something that contributes to one or more person’s psychological well-being. Different forest management regimes produce different type of economic stimulations and services that lead to values. In the case of LBL, its management regime alternatives are focused on multiple resource use and conservation. This management style focuses on recreational opportunities, watershed protection, resource management, and providing future generations with enhanced opportunities to decide how to use the resource. There are various ways in which each alternative provides value, all of which can be characterized as either use value or passive-use value.

Use Values Use values are obtained when someone gets enjoyment from some form of direct interaction with the resource. Use values can provide exercise, socialization, escape from physical and social pressures, self gratitude, privacy, spirituality, recreation use, economic development and others under the use values that are broken down into the following categories in the chart below.

Table ESR-7 Use Values/Benefits

Direct Use Community Scientific Sub-Values Sub-Values Sub-Values Recreation Non-recreation jobs Research Human Development Recreation Jobs Education Cultural-Heritage *Economic Development Management Hunting * Environmental Education *Economic Development *Wildlife Viewing

Use values/benefits categories were drawn from Morton 1999. *Were added since all use benefits of different user types were not represented. Some values/benefits of original table were deleted since they were not relative to this EA.

Use Values/Benefits Definitions Direct Use - Providing an enjoyment to a user or group from a direct interaction/participation with the resource or opportunity Community - A benefit received by the community from the use and existence of an area, place, experience, or resource Research - A benefit received in the scientific community from the use and existence of an area or resource

Sub Values Definitions Recreation - Recreation opportunities provided on LBL Human Development - Increase in population and impacts

131 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Cultural Heritage - Experiencing and learning about the cultural history and heritage of the land Hunting - Hunting opportunities and experiences at LBL Wildlife Viewing - Wildlife viewing opportunities and experiences at LBL Environmental Education - EE opportunities provided on LBL Research - Opportunities for the government or public to conduct research Education - Opportunities for individuals or groups to use LBL to learn Management - Types of management opportunities explored and demonstrated e.g. Recreation Management and Resource Management Economic Contribution - Providing economic support to the region and local economies Non-Recreation jobs - Jobs that are created by the existence of LBL that are not in the recreation field Recreation Jobs - Jobs that are created in the recreation field by the existence of LBL

Passive Use Values Passive use values can be defined as satisfaction simply knowing that a resource, action, place, or opportunities exist, and a benefit from the knowledge of continued existence. Passive use values can be broken down into three categories represented in Table ESR-8 below.

Table ESR-8. Passive Use Values/Benefits

Option Value Bequest Value Existence Value Future direct, indirect, Value of Benefits from knowledge and off-site benefits conserving/managing of continued existence forest or natural areas for future generations

Sub-Values: Sub-Values: Sub-Values: *Passive Vegetation *Ecological Diversity *Passive Vegetation Management *Passive Vegetation Management *Ecological Diversity Management *Ecological Diversity * Recreation *Recreation * recreation *Environmental *Cultural Heritage * Environmental Education *Environmental Education *Hunting Education *Cultural Heritage *Wildlife Viewing *Clean Water *Hunting *Clean Air *Wildlife Viewing *Clean Water *Clean Air

Use values/benefits categories were drawn from Morton 1999. *Were added since all passive-use benefits were not represented in relation to Land Between The Lakes. Majority of values/benefits of table were deleted since they were not relative to this EA. Values in above table were designed to represent the diversity of the population and what they value.

132

Passive Use Values/Benefits Definitions Option Value - When a person derives satisfaction simply from knowing that a resource, place, action or opportunity exist for future direct or indirect use Bequest Value - Value of conserving a resource, place, action, or opportunity Existence Value - When a person derives satisfaction simply from knowing that a resource place, action, or opportunity would continue existence

Sub Values Definitions Passive Vegetation Management - Promote the revision of open lands to forest and forest cover types aging to old growth recreation (for a more detailed definition please see Area Plan FEIS) Ecological Diversity - Actively manage our land and water resources to support and enhance wildlife and outdoor recreation (for a more detailed definition please see Area Plan FEIS) Recreation - Provides opportunities for recreation to various user groups Environmental Education - Provides a variety of EE opportunities across LBL Hunting - Provides managed hunting opportunities Wildlife Viewing - Provides managed wildlife viewing opportunities Clean Air - Manage for good air quality/reduce contamination Clean Water - Manage for good water quality/reduce contamination

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Both use and passive use values are important to the quality of life among specific users and persons. Passive use values, as well as use values, have been addressed in each alternative LBL evaluated. Keep in mind that a significant amount of people relate passive use values to the designation of natural areas or wilderness areas, however, passive use values can also be contributed to people by specific resource conservation management methods, EE opportunities, and cultural heritage to mention a few.

Many groups view passive use values differently. For example, a hunting user may get satisfaction knowing LBL manages for a healthy wildlife habitat for future generations. People who want designated areas that provide primitive recreation experiences could get the same satisfaction by using core areas. Below is an analysis of all use values and passive use values and how each alternative may satisfy them. All values were assigned by using the most current trends research available to the Forest Service. These values are also based on each alternatives prescription areas assigned.

The Use and Passive Use Value Analysis was based on current management practices. Values assigned to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were rated against an increase or decrease from current conditions.

133 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Scale: - - Large Decrease - Moderate Decrease N No Change or Slight Increase/Decrease + Moderate Increase ++ Large Increase

Table ESR-9. Direct Use Values/Benefits

Current 1 2 3 Management Human N N N N Development Cultural Heritage N N N N Hunting N -- N - Environmental N N N N Education Recreation N - N N Wildlife Viewing N - N N (All Species) Wildlife Viewing N -- N - (Large Species)

Increases and decreases shown under Direct Use Values/Benefits are influenced in the management practice under each alternative that could take place.

Table ESR-10. Community Use Values/Benefits

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Management Non-Recreation N - N N Jobs Recreation Jobs N - N N Economic N -- N - Contribution

Increases and decreases shown under Community Use Values/Benefits are influenced in the management change that could take place under each alternative.

134

Table ESR-11. Scientific Use Values/Benefits

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Management Research N N N N Education N N N N Management N - N N

The Scientific Use Values/Benefits increases and decreases were based on the type vegetation management proposed for each alternative and type of recreation management that would be needed for the recreation opportunities that may exist under each alternative.

Passive Value Analysis

Table ESR-12. Option Value

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Management Wildlife Viewing N - N N (All Species) Passive Vegetation N ++ N N Management Ecological Diversity N -- N N Recreation N -- N - Environmental N N N N Education Hunting N -- N -

The Option Value changes are based on whether there would be an increase or decrease in a person’s self gratification related to that specific sub value by the alternatives proposed management. For example, Alternative 2 and 3 would provide a person who receives a value/benefit from knowing that LBL provides an opportunity for hunting with the greatest self gratification in relation by numbers, health, and habitat. (This example could be used for both bequest and existence values just by applying their specific definition to the example.)

135 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Table ESR-13. Bequest Value

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Management Ecological Diversity N -- N N Passive Vegetation N ++ N N Management Recreation N -- N N Environmental N N N N Education Clean Air N N N N Cultural Heritage N - + + Clean Water N + N +

Table ESR-14. Existence Value

Current Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Management Recreation N -- N - Passive Vegetation N ++ N N Management Ecological Diversity N -- N N Clean Air N N N N Environmental N N N N Education Cultural Heritage N + + + Hunting N -- N N Clean Water N ++ + ++ Wildlife Viewing N -- N N (All Species)

Overall values of use and passive use values address diversity and specific population (1.8 million annual visitors to LBL) that would receive the benefits.

Additional studies of both use and passive use values as they relate to eastern forests and specific resources management practices need to be conducted since the absence of the information provided by such studies can only provide conclusions that are very general in nature (Vincent et al. 1995).

136

4.0 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: IDT Members: Steve Bloemer – Project Team Leader, Open Land Resources and Pesticides Barbara Wysock – NEPA Process Sandra Jones – Administrative Records Paul Mistretta – Pesticides, Region 8 Steve Bott – OGC Attorney Elizabeth Raikes – Wildlife and Open Land Resources Jim McCoy – Fire Management Jackie Franklin – Soil and Water Resources Judy Hallisey – Environmental Stewardship Manager David Jones – GIS, Murray State University Jamie Bennett – Heritage Resources Jamey Thweatt – Recreation and Environmental Education Resources Greg Barnes – Social and Economic Resources Crystal Powell – Communication Resources David Purser – NEPA, Region 8 Denise Schmittou – Communication Resources Becky Foust – Wildlife Resources Katie Richardson – Wildlife Resources Leslie Smith – Wildlife Resources Gary Peters – Wildlife Resources, Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Cindy Huber – Air Resources, Region 8

137 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Virgil Lee Andrews Jr. - Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Frankfort, Kentucky Jeff Boone - County Executive Director, USDA, Farm Service Agency, Lyon/Caldwell Counties, Kentucky Louis Boyd - District Conservationist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Stewart/Montgomery Counties, Tennessee Edward W. Chester - Professor (Botany), Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee Mike Clayton - District Conservationist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lyon/Caldwell Counties, Kentucky Marcus Cope - Tennessee Valley Authority (Retired), Marshall County, Kentucky Charlie Davis - Resource Soil Scientist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Henry County, Tennessee Joyce Duncan - District Secretary, Stewart County Conservation District, Stewart County, Tennessee Dr. Delton C. Gerloff - Professor, University of Tennessee, Agricultural Economics, Knoxville, Tennessee Coy Higdon - County Executive Director, USDA, Farm Service Agency, Trigg/Christian Counties, Kentucky Don Hirschman, Extension Plant Pathologist, University of Kentucky, Princeton, Kentucky Bill Holleran - Marketing Specialist, Organic Crop Program, Kentucky Department of Agriculture, Frankfort, Kentucky John Jenkins - Soil Data Quality Specialist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Montgomery County, Tennessee Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office, Frankfort, Kentucky Gaylon King - Conservation Technician, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lyon/Caldwell Counties, Kentucky Mindi Lawson - Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Frankfort, Kentucky David McMillen - Resource Soil Scientist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dickson County, Tennessee Arthur Floyd Scott - Professor (Herpetology), Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee Wally Smith - Conservation Technician, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Trigg County, Kentucky

138

Lonnie Stewart - District Conservationist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Trigg County, Kentucky Mac Stone - Division Director and Certifying Agent for Organic Farming, Value Added Plant Production, Kentucky Department of Agriculture, Frankfort, Kentucky Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office, Nashville, Tennessee US Fish & Wildlife Service Anthony L. Velasco - Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Frankfort, Kentucky

Tribes: Absentee – Shawnee Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma Cherokee Nation Chickasaw Nation Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Eastern Shawnee Shawnee Tribe United Keetowah Band of Cherokee

139 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

5.0 REFERENCES, ACRONYMS, AND GLOSSARY 5.1 References

Ahrens, W.H. 1994. Herbicide handbook. Weed Science Society of America. 7th ed. Champaign, Ill. 352 p.

Alabama Cooperative Extension Service System. 1996. Wildlife planting and practices. ANR-485 12 pgs.

Al-Kaisi, M.M., X. Yin and M.A. Licht. 2005a. Soil carbon and nitrogen changes as affected by tillage system and crop biomass in a corn-soybean rotation. Applied Soil Ecology 30:174-191.

Al-Kaisi, M.M., X. Yin, and M.A. Licht. 2005b. Soil carbon and nitrogen changes as influenced by tillage and cropping systems in some Iowa soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 105:635-647.

Anderson, J.D. and P.J. Martino. 1966. The life history of Eurycea l. longicauda associated with ponds. The American Midland Naturalist 75:257-279.

Ash, A.N. 1997. Disappearance and return of Plethodontid salamanders to clearcut plots in the southern Blue Ridge mountains. Conservation Biology 11(4):983-989.

Ashton Jr., R.E. 1975. A study of movement, home range, and winter behavior of Desmognathus fuscus (Rafinesque). Journal of Herpetology 9:85-91.

Ashton Jr., R.E., and P.S. Ashton. 1978. Movements and winter behavior of Eurycea bislineata (Amphibia, Urodela, Plethodontidae). Journal of Herpetology 12(3):295-298.

Atkinson, P.W., D. Buckingham, and A.J. Morris. 2004. What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands? Ibis 146:99-107.

Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicine Authority. 2003. Evaluation of the new active ingredient pyraclostrobin in the product Cabrio Fungicide. Canberra, Australia: Accessed: 05/03/2006. 46 p.

Bailey, M.A., J.N. Holmes, K.A. Buhlmann, and J.C. Mitchell. 2006. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles of the southeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG-2, Montgomery, Alabama.

140

Barbour, R.W., J.W. Hardin, J.P. Schafer, and M.J. Harvey. 1969. Home range, movements, and activity of the dusky salamander, Desmognathus fuscus. Copeia 969:293-297.

Barnes, T.G. 1998. Establishing Native Warm Season Grasses for Wildlife. Forest Landowner. November/December: 12-15.

Bartholomaeus, A. 2003. Pyraclostrobin. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Accessed: 05/03/2006. 46 p.

Bartman, C.E., K.C. Parker, J. Laerm, and T.S. McCay. 2001. Short-term response of Jordan’s salamander to a shelterwood timber harvest in western North Carolina. Physical Geography 22:154-166.

Bayne, E.M. and K.A. Hobson 1998. The effects of habitat fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on the abundance of small mammals in the southern boreal mixedwood forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:62-69.

Bennett, D.H., J.W. Gibbons, and J.C. Franson. 1970. Terrestrial activity in aquatic turtles. Ecology 51:738-740.

Berger, L. 1989. Disappearance of amphibian larvae in the agricultural landscape. Ecology International Bulletin 17:65-73.

Bergman, K., J. Askling, O. Ekber, H. Ignell, H. Wahlmand and P. Milberg 2004. Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619- 628.

Berrill, M., S. Betram, L. McGillivray, M. Kolohon, and B. Pauli. 1994. Effects of low concentrations of forest-use pesticides on frog embryos and tadpoles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13:657-664.

Best, L.B., R.C. Whitmore, and G.M. Booth. 1990. Use of cornfields by birds during the breeding season: the importance of edge habitat. The American Midland Naturalist 123:84-99.

Best, L.B., H. Campa III, K.E. Kemp, R.J. Robel, M.R. Ryan, J.A. Savidge, H.P. Weeks Jr., and S.R. Winterstein. 1997. Bird abundance and nesting in CRP fields and cropland in the Midwest: a regional approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:864-877.

Blaustein, A.R., and J.M. Kiesecker. 2002. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters 5:597-608.

Blevins, R.L., M.S. Smith, G.W. Thomas, and W.W. Frye. 1983. Influence of conservation tillage on soil properties. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 8(3).

141 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Bloemer, S, 2003. E-mail, Hunting Trends at LBL, 12/5/03.

Blouin-Demers, G. and P.J. Weatherhead. 2002. Habitat-specific behavioural thermoregulation by black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta). Oikos 97:59-68.

Bodie, J.R., and R.D. Semlitsch. 2000. Spatial and temporal use of floodplain habitats by lentic and lotic species of aquatic turtles. Oecologia 122:138-146.

Boone, M.D. and R.D. Semlitsch. 2001. Interactions of an insecticide with larval density and predation in experimental amphibian communities. Conservation Biology 15:228- 238.

Bowne, D.R., M.A. Bowers, and J.E. Hines. 2006. Connectivity in an agricultural landscape as reflected by interpond movements of a freshwater turtle. Conservation Biology 20:780-791.

Boyd, L. 2006. Personal communication (phone call) re: Stewart County TN. portion of Land Between The Lakes permittee farmer 1985 Food Security Act information and localized factors for the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dover, TN.

Bridges, C.M. and R.D. Semlitsch. 2000. Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conservation Biology 14:1490-1499.

Brittingham, M.C. and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience 33:31-35.

Brooks, R.T. 1999. Residual effects of thinning and high white-tailed deer densities on Northern redback salamanders in southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1172-1180.

Bumb, B.L. and C.A. Bannante. 1996. Policies to promote environmentally sustainable fertilizer use and supply to 2020. IFPRI: 2020 Brief 40. Accessed: 8/2007.

Burbrink, F.T., C.A. Phillips, and E.J. Heske. 1998. A riparian zone in southern Illinois as a potential dispersal corridor for reptiles and amphibians. Biological Conservation 86:107-115.

Burger L.W. Jr., P.J. Barbour, R. Hamrick, and M. Smith. 2006. Conservation Buffers: Wildlife Benefits in Southeastern Agriculture Systems. Mississippi State University Research Advances 9(2) Forest and Wildlife Research Center.

142

Burke, V.J. and J.W. Gibbons. 1995. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: a case study of freshwater turtles in a Carolina bay. Conservation Biology 9(6):1365-1369.

Bush, G.W. 2007. Executive Order: Facilitation of hunting heritage and wildlife conservation. Accessed: 08/17/2007

California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Medical Toxicology Branch. 1994. Summary of toxicological data: nicosulfuron. Sacramento, CAAccessed: 05/03/2006 5 p.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Medical Toxicology Branch. 2001. Summary of toxicological data: pyraclostrobin. Saramento, CA Accessed: 05/03/2006 10 p.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Medical Toxicology Branch. 2003. Summary of toxicological data: Tebuconazole. Saramento, CA Accessed: 05/03/2006 10 p.

Cambell, J. 2003. Report on botanical survey of wildlife openings and their margins. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Land Between the Lakes, Golden Pond, KY.

Castille. A.J. and A.W. Johnson 2000. Riparian vegetation effectiveness. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Technical Bulletin 799.

Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Howarth, A.N Sharpley, and V.H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8:559-568.

Chapman, E.W. and C.A. Ribic. 2002. The impact of buffer strips and stream-side grazing on small mammals in southwestern Wisconsin. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 88:49-59.

Chester, E.W. 2006a. An Environmental Assessment for the Continued Management of Open Lands on Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Impact on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Vascular Plant Species. Unpublished data.

Chester, E.W. 2006b. Addendum and Supplement to the Report: An Environmental Assessment for the Continued Management of Open Lands on Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Impact on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Vascular Plant Species. Unpublished data.

143 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Cho, J. and T.A. Dillaha. 2003. Vegetative filter strips and buffer zones. Virginia Tech University Accessed 8/3/2004.

Clayton, M. 2006. Personal communication (phone call) re: Lyon County KY. portion of Land Between The Lakes permittee farmer 1985 Food Security Act information. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Princeton, KY.

Close, D.D., Fralish, J.S., and Franklin, S.B. 2002. The Climate, Soils, and Vegetation of Land Between the Lakes. Pages 61-66 in E.W. Chester and J.S. Fralish, editors. Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship. Miscellaneous Publication Number 16, The Center for Field Biology Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee.

Cole, D. N. 1996. Wilderness recreation in the United States- Trends in use, users, and impacts. International Journal of Wilderness 2:14-18.

Cole, E.C., W.C. McComb, M. Newton, C.L. Chambers and J.P. Leeming. 1997. Response of amphibians to clearcutting, burning, and glyphosate application in the Oregon coast range. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:656-664.

Congdon, J.D., G.L. Breitenback, R.C. van Loben Sels, and D.W. Tinkle. 1987. Reproduction and nesting ecology of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in southeastern Michigan. Herpetologica 43:39-54.

Cope, M. personal communication 2007. (Phone call) (TVA Wildlife Biologist and Open Lands Manager at LBL from 1985 to 2000).

Cordell, H.K.1999. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL. 449 pp.

Cordell, H.K. and G.T. Green. 2001. Sustaining outdoor recreation and forests in the United States. in Palo Matti, Comps., eds. World Forests, Markets and Policies, World Forests Volume III. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 395-406.

Cordell, H.K. and M.A.Tarrant, 2002. Chapter 11: Forest-Based Outdoor Recreation. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Page 269 in Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis 2002. Southern Forest Resource Assessment Technical Report. USDA, Forest Service Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. GTR-SRS-053.

Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1989. Logging in Western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats and stream amphibians. Forest Ecology Management 29:39-57.

144

Cornell University. 1986. Herbicide profile: chemical fact sheet for: chlorimuron ethyl. Fact sheet # 82. Ithica, NY: Cornell University. Accessed: 05/03/2006. 5 p.

Cornell University. 1989. Tribenuron methyl (Express) herbicide profile. Fact sheet #219. Ithica, NY Accessed 05/03/2006 11 p.

Cornell University. 1993. Pesticide Information Profile: fluazifop-p-butyl. Ithica, NY: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis. Accessed 05/03/2006. 3 p.

Crawford, J.A. and R.D. Semlitsch. 2007. Estimation of core terrestrial habitat for stream-breeding salamanders and delineation of riparian buffers for protection of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 21:152-158.

Cromer, R.B. 2002. Herpetofaunal response to gap and skidder-rut wetland creation in a southern bottomland hardwood forest. Forest Science 48: 407-413.

Crosswhite, D.L., S.F. Fox, and R.E. Thill. 2004. Herpetological habitat relations in the Ouachita mountains, Arkansas. Pages 273-282 in General Technical Reports SRS-74. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Culliney, T.W. 2005. Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24:131-150.

Daigle, C., P. Galois and Y. Chagnon. 2002. Nesting activities of an eastern spiny softshell turtle, Apalone spinifera. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 166:104-107.

Davros, N.M., D.M. Debinski, K.F. Reeder, and W.L. Hohman. 2006. Butterflies and continuous conservation reserve program filter strips: landscape considerations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:936-943.

DeGraaf, R.M. and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Migratory Birds: Natural History, Distribution and Population Change. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. 676 pp.

Delcourt, H.R., 1987. The impact of prehistoric agriculture and land occupation on natural vegetation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2:39-44.

DeLong, C. and M. Brittingham. 2002. Warm-Season Grasses and Wildlife. Pennsylvania Wildlife No. 12. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. 8p.

145 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

DeMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology 12: 340-352.

deNoyelles, F., W.D. Kettle, and D.E. Sinn. 1982. The responses of plankton communities in experimental ponds to atrazine, the most heavily used pesticide in the United States. Ecology 63:1285-1293.

Deschenes, M., L. Belanger, and J. Giroux. 2003. Use of farmland riparian strips by declining and crop damaging birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 95:567-577.

de Wijer, P., P. J. Watt, and R.S. Oldham. 2003. Amphibian decline and aquatic pollution: effects of nitrogenous fertilizer on survival and development of larvae of the frog Rana temporaria. Applied Herpetology 1:3-12.

Diaz-Zorita, M., J.H.Grove, L. Murdock, J. Herbeck, and E. Perfect. 2004. Soil structural disturbance effects on crop yields and soil properties in a no-till production system. Agronomy Journal 96:1651-1659.

Dole, J.W. 1965. Summer movements of adult leopard frogs, Rana pipens Schreber, in Northern Michigan. Ecology 46:236-255.

Donaldson, B.M. and A.C. Echternacht. 2005. Aquatic habitat use relative to home range and seasonal movement of eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina: Emydidae) in eastern Tennessee. Journal of Herpetology 39: 278-284.

Duncan, C.A. and J. K. Clark. 2005. Invasive Plants of Range and Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence KS. 222p.

Durkin, P. R. 1995. Methods of assessing dermal absorption with emphasis on uptake from contaminated vegetation. Toxicology and Industrial Health 11: 63-79.

Durkin, P.R. 2006. Preparation of Environmental Documentation and Risk Assessments for the USDA/ Forest Service. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950

Edwards, T.M., K.A. McCoy, T. Barbeau, M.W.McCoy, J.M. Thro, and L.J. Guillette Jr. 2006. Environmental context determines nitrate toxicity in Southern toad (Bufo terrestris) tadpoles. Aquatic Toxicology 78:50-58.

Enge, K.M., and W.R. Marion. 1986. Effects of clearcutting and site preparation on herpetofauna of a north Florida flatwoods. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management 14:177-192.

146

Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Kentucky Division of Water 2004 303(d) LIST OF WATERS FOR KENTUCKY, September 2005, pg. 131-151.

Ernst, C.H. 1986. Ecology of the turtle, Sternotherus odoratus, in southeastern Pennsylvania. Journal of Herpetology 20:341-352.

European Commission, Health and Consumer Protectorate Director General. 2001. Review report for the active substance thifensulfuron-methyl. Accessed: 04/24/2006. 35 p.

European Commission, Health and Consumer Protectorate Director General. 2003. Review report for the active substance mesotrione. Accessed: 04/24/2006. 23 p.

European Commission, Health and Consumer Protectorate Director General. 2004. Review report for the active substancepyraclostrobin. Accessed: 04/2/2006 24 p.

Evans, D.R. and J.E. Gates 1997. Cowbird selection of breeding areas: the role of habitat and bird species abundance. Wilson Bulletin 109:470-480.

Ewert, M.A. and D.R. Jackson. 1994. Nesting ecology of the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) along the lower Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 1989. Chemical fact sheet: Imazethapyr. Fact sheet 196. Ithica, NY: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accessed: 05/03/2006. 7 p.

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 1995a. Clethodim. Pesticide Information Profile. Corvalis, Oreg.:Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accessed 01/29/2007 4 p.

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 1995b. Nicosulfuron. Pesticide information profile. Ithica, NY: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accesssed: 05/03/2006 4 p.

147 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 1996a. Fluazifop-P-butyl. Pesticide information profile. Corvalis OR.: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accessed: 03/11/2006 3 p.

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 1996b. Imazethapyr. Pesticide information profile. Corvalis, OR: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accessed 04/24/2006. 3p.

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 1996c. Metolachlor. Pesticide information profile. Corvalis, OR: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accessed: 05/03/2006 4 p.

EXTOXNET Toxicology Network. 2001. Lamda cyhalothrin. Pesticide information profile. Ithica, NY: Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, and the University of California at Davis and the Institute for Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State University. Accesssed05/03/2006 7 p.

Faaborg, J., 2003. Chapter 6 - Rethinking Avian Demography: Understanding Landscapes, Sources, Sinks, and Dispersal. Pages 77-112 in Saving Migrant Birds: Developing Strategies for the Future. University of Texas Press, Austin TX

Faccio, S. D. 2003. Postbreeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and spotted salamanders in Vermont. Journal of Herpetology 37:479–489.

Feber, R.E., H. Smith and D.W. MacDonald. 1996. The effects on butterfly abundance of the management of uncropped edges of arable fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1191-1205.

Feldhamer, G.A., Kilbane, T.P., and Sharp, D.W. 1989. Cumulative effect of winter on acorn yield and deer body weight. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:292-295.

Felix, Z.I., Y. Wang, and C.J. Schweitzer. 2004. Relationships between herpetofaunal community structure and varying levels of overstory tree retention in northern Alabama: First year results. Pages 7-10 in General Technical Report SRS-71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

148

Fettinger, J.L., C.A. Harper, and C.E. Dixon. 2002. Invertebrate availability for upland game birds in tall fescue and native warm-season grass fields. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 77: 83-87.

Fleishman, E., G.T. Austin, P.F. Brussard, and D.D. Murphy. 1999. A comparison of butterfly communities in native and agricultural riparian habitats in the Great Basin, USA. Biological Conservation 89:209-219.

Fluoride Action Network, Pesticide Action Project. 2005. Flumioxazin (103361-09-7). Accessed: 05/03/2006 7 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 1994. Tebuconazole (188). [source document unidentified but the.pdf shows pages 1055-1096] Accessed 05/03/2006.

Food and Agricultural Organization. 2000. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protectionproducts: fluazifop-P-butyl: butyl(R)-2[4-(5-trifluoromethyl-2pyridinyloxy) phenoxy]propionate.New York, NY: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Accessed: 11/03/2006 21 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2002. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protectionproducts: tribenuron-methyl. Accessed: 05/03/2006 23 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Pesticides in food: 4. Evaluation of data for acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans, maximum residue levels and supervised trials median residues (STMRs):4.1 Acephate (095)(R): of interest is the following: 4.19 Pyraclostrobin (210)(T). Accessed: 05/03/2006. 6 p.

Ford, W.M., M.A. Menzel, D.W. McGill, J. Laerm, and T.S. McCay. 1999. Effects of a community restoration fire on small mammals and herpetofauna in the Southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 114(2-3):233-243.

Forsythe, R. Personal communication (e-mail) re: soil definitions and terms. Resource Soil Scientist. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Murray, KY. 4/2/2007.

Fort, D.J., R. Rogers, H.Copley, L. Bruning, E.L. Stover, and D. Rapaport. 1994. Effect of sulfometuron methyl and nicosulfuron on development and metamorphosis in Xenopus laevis: impact of purity. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:2934-2940.

Fralish, J.S. 2002. Wildlife Restoration and Open Land Management at Land Between The Lakes: An Interview With Marcus Cope. Pages 117-130 in E.W. Chester and J.S. Fralish, editors. Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of

149 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship. Miscellaneous Publication Number 16, The Center for Field Biology Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee.

Fredrickson, L.F., R.L. Linder, R.B. Dahlgren, C.G. Trautman. 1978. Pheasant reproduction and survival as related to agricultural fertilizer use. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:40-45.

Freeman, P. A.1998. TVA’s Land Between The Lakes Visitor Profile Study Final Report. University of Utah.

Gamble, L.R., K. McGarigal, C.L. Jenkins, and B.C. Timm. 2006. Limitations of regulated “buffer zones” for the conservation of marbled salamanders. Wetlands 26: 298-306.

Gerloff, D.C. 2006. Field Crop Budget For 2006. University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. AE 07-16

Gerloff, D.C. 2007. Field Crop Budget For 2007. University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. AE 06-2

Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landscape Ecology 13: 263-268.

Gibbs, J.P. 2000. Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 14:314-317.

Giuliano, W.M. and S.E. Daves. 2002. Avian response to warm-season grass use in pasture and hayfield management. Biological Conservation 106: 1-9.

Grafe, T.U., S. Dobler and K.E. Linsemair. 2002. Frogs flee from the sound of fire. Proceedings of the Royal Society 269:999-1003.

Gray, M.J., L.M. Smith, and R. Brenes. 2004. Effects of agricultural cultivation on demographics of southern high plains amphibians. Conservation Biology 18:1368-1377.

Greenburg, C.H. 2001. Response of reptile and amphibian communities to canopy gaps created by wind disturbance in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 148: 135-144.

Grialou, J.A., S.D. West, and R.N. Wilkins. 2000. The effects of forest clearcut harvesting and thinning on terrestrial salamanders. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:105-113.

150

Guerry, A.D., and M.L. Hunter Jr. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conservation Biology 16:745-754.

Hall, A.T., P.E. Woods, and G.W. Barrett. 1991. Population dynamics of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in nutrient-enriched old-field communities.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 p.

Harlow, R.F., Whelan, J.B., Crawford, H.S. and Skeen, J.E. 1975. Deer foods during years of oak mast abundance and scarcity. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:330-336.

Harpole D.N., and C.A. Haas. 1999. Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management 114:349-356.

Hassall, M. and S.J. Lane. 2001. Effects of varying rates of autumn fertilizer applications to pastures in eastern England on feeding sites selection by brent geese Branta b. bernicla. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 86:203-209.

Hatch, A.C., L.K. Belden, E. Scheessele, and A. R. Blaustein. 2001. Juvenile amphibians do not avoid potentially lethal levels of urea on soil substrate. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20:2328-2335.

Hayes, T.B., P. Case, S. Chui, D. Chung, C. Haeffele, K. Haston, M. Lee, V. Phoung Mai, U. Majuoa, J. Parker, and M. Tsui. 2006. Pesticide mixtures, endocrine disruption, and amphibian declines: are we underestimating the impact? in The ecological relevance of chemically induced endocrine disruption in wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(S1):40-50.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2001. Cyhalothrin: CASRN: 68085-85-8. Washington, DC: Accessed: 04/24/2006. 38 p.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2002a. Diflufenzopyr: CASRN: 109293-97-2. Washington, DC Accessed 04/24/2006. 10 p.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2002b. Flumioxazin: CASRN: 103361-09-7. Washington, DC Accessed: 04/24/2006. 11 p.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2003a. Chlorimuron-ethyl: CASRN: 90982-32-4. Washington, DC Accessed 04/24/2006. 9 p.

151 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2003b. Imazethapyr: CASRN: 81335-77-5. Washington, DC Accessed: 04/26/2004. 9 p.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2005a. Mesotrione: CASRN: 104206-82-8. Washington, DC Accessed 04/24/2006. 13 p.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2005b. Metolachlor: CASRN: 51218-45-2 Washington, DC Accessed 04/24/2006. 30 p.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 2006. Thifensulfuron-methyl: CASRN: 79277-27-3. Washington, DC Accessed: 04/24/2006. 17 p.

Healy, W. M., and E. S. Nenno. 1983. Minimum maintenance versus intensive management of clearings for wild turkeys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:113-120.

Hecnar, S.J. and R.T. M’Clockey. 1998. Species richness patterns of amphibians in southwestern Ontario ponds. Journal of Biogeography 25:763-772.

Henningsen, J.C. and L.B. Best. 2005. Grassland bird use of riparian filter strips in southeast Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:198-210.

Herbeck, L. A. and D.R. Larsen. 1999. Plethodontid salamander response to silvicultural practices in Missouri Ozark Forests. Conservation Biology 13: 623-632.

Herkert, J.R. 1991. An ecological study of the breeding birds of grassland habitats within Illinois. Ph.D. thesis. University of Urbana-Champaign, IL

Highton, R 1956. The life history of the slimy salamander, Plethodon glutinosus, in Florida. Copeia 2:75-93.

Hilmie. I. and K.A. Cordes. 2002. Outdoor Recreation: Enrichment for a Lifetime 2 ED. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL. 497 pp.

Holleran, Bill. Personal Communication (phone call). 3/29/2007.Organic Inspection Agent, Marketing Specialist, Greenhouse and Nursery Industry. Kentucky Department of Agriculture.

Howard, J.L. 2005. Microstegium vimineum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online}. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).

152

Hull, S.D. 2001. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Eastern Meadowlark. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.

Hunter, W.C., D.E. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L., Confer, and P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440-455.

Index to the Administrative Record, FSEEE et al. v. USFS, Docket No. 5:06-CV-00092, (USDC, W.D. Kentucky), October 2006.

Index to the Administrative Record, Work Area 18 - Land Between The Lakes (LBL), Nickell et al. v. Lisowsky and USFS, Docket No: 5:06-CV-123-R, (USDC, W.D. Kentucky), September 2005.

International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). 2001. Fertilizers, Food and Water Accessed: 8/2007.

Jigma Chemicals, Ltd. n.d. Chlorimuron-ethyl. Accessed: 05/03/2006 2 p.

Johnson, D.H. and M.D. Schwartz. 1993. The Conservation Reserve Program and grassland birds. Conservation Biology 7:934-937.

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2006. Food plots. Accessed 06/28/2006.

Kentucky Department Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Native Warm Season Grasses. . Accessed 01/16/2007.

Kentucky Division of Water/Drinking Water Branch. 2006. McCoy and McCoy Laboratories, INC., Ecotone Services, potable water testing.

Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Division of Water. 2007. Final 2006 Integrated Report to Congress on the Condition of Water Resources in Kentucky, Volume II. 303(d) List of Surface Waters.

Keys, J.E., Jr., J.C. Carpenter, S. Hooks, F. Koenig, W.H. McNab, W. Russell and W. Smith. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern United States - first approximation (map and booklet of map unit tables) USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.

Kilpatrick, E.S., D.B. Kubacz, D.C. Guynn Jr., J.D. Lanham, and T.A. Waldrop. 2004. The effects of prescribed burning and thinning on herpetofauna and small mammals in the upper Piedmont of South Carolina: preliminary results of the National Fire and Fire

153 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Surrogate study. Pages 18-22 in General Technical Report SRS-71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Kingsbury, B.A. and C.J. Coppola. 2000. Hibernacula of the copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) in southern Indiana and Kentucky. Journal of Herpetology 34:294-298.

Kingtai Chemical Co. Ltd. n.d.-a. Clethodim. Zhejiang, P.R.China : Kingtai Chemicals Co. Accessed 01/29/2007. 4 p.

Kingtai Chemicals Co., Ltd. n.d.-b Tebuconazole fungicide. Zhejiang, P.R.China: Accessed 04/29/2007. 5 p.

Kirkland, G.L., H.W. Snoddy and T.L. Amsler. 1996. Impact of fire on small mammals and amphibians in a central Appalachian deciduous forest. American Midland Naturalist 135:253-260.

Kleeberger, S.R. and J.K. Werner. 1983. Post-breeding migration and summer movement of Ambystoma maculatum. Journal of Herpetology 17:176-177.

Knapp, S.M., C.A. Haas, D.N. Harpole, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 2003. Initial effects of clearcutting and alternative silvicultural practices on terrestrial salamander abundance. Conservation Biology 17:752-762.

Knutson, M.G., J.R. Sauer, D.A. Olsen, M.J. Mossman, L.M. Hemesath, and M.J. Lannoo. 1999. Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Conservation Biology 13:1437-1446.

Kolozsvary, M.B. and R.K. Swihart. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: Patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1288-1299.

Kramer, D.C. 1973. Movements of western chorus frogs Pseudacris triseriata triseriata tagged with Co60. Journal of Herpetology 7:231-235.

Krapu, G.L., D.A. Brandt, and R.R. Cox Jr. 2004. Less waste corn, more land in soybeans, and the switch to genetically modified crops: trends with important implications for wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:127-136.

Lacki, M.J., J.W. Hummer and J.L. Fitzgerald. 2005. Population patterns of copperbelly water snakes (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) in a riparian corridor impacted by mining and reclamation. American Midland Naturalist 153:357-369.

154

Lamoureux, V.S. and D.M. Madison. 1999. Overwintering habitats of radio-implanted green frogs, Rana clamitans. Journal of Herpteology 33: 430-435.

Lanyon, W.E. 1995. Eastern meadowlark. The Birds of North America, 160. NBS web site on Eastern meadowlark

LaSorte, F.A., T.R. Thompson, M.K. Trani, and T.J. Mersmann. 2007. Population trends and habitat associations of forest birds on southern national forests, 1992-2004. USDA Forest Service. Publication GTR-NRS-9.

Lee, P., C. Smith and S. Boutin. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 70:165-180.

Leeds, R., L.C. Brown, M.R. Sulc and L. VanLiehout. 1994. Vegetative filter strips: application, installation and maintenance. Ohio State University Accessed 8/3/2004.

Lindeman, P.V. 1992. Nest-site fixity among painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) in northern Idaho. Northwestern Naturalist 73:27-30.

Lingle-Gillis D. and S.W. Hamilton. 1990. The aquatic microinvertebrates of Lost Creek Spring, Land Between the Lakes Tennessee in M.T. Finley and S.W. Hamilton eds. Proceedings of the contributed papers session of the Third Annual Symposium on the Natural History of Lower Tennessee and Cumberland River Valleys. The Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN.

Loehle, C., T.B. Wigley, P.A. Shipman, S.F. Fox, S. Rutzmoser, R.E. Thill and M.A. Melchoirs. 2005. Herpetofaunal species richness responses to forest landscape structure in Arkansas. Forest Ecology and Management 209:293-308.

Lowe, R.L. 2002. Wildlife Management Program. Pages 107-115 in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA.

MacGowan, B.J. 2001. Warm Season Grasses: Why all the Fuss? Hoosier Farmland Wildlife Notes-FNR-188-W. Purdue University Forestry and Natural Resources. 2p.

MacGowan, B.J., L.A. Humberg, J.C. Beasley, T.L. DeVault, M.I. Retamosa and O.E. Rhodes Jr. 2006. Corn and soybean crop depredation by wildlife. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service Publication, FNR-265.

Machtans, C.S., M. Villard, and S.J. Hannon. 1996. Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors by forest birds. Conservation Biology 10:1366-1379.

155 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Mallarino, A.P., E. Ortiz-Torres, and K. Pecinovsky, 2005. Effects of crop rotation and nitrogen fertilizer on crop production. Iowa State University Northeast Research and Demonstration Farm ISRF04-13. 2 pgs.

Mann, R.M. and J.R. Bidwell. 1999. The toxicity of glyphosate and several glyphosate formulations to four species of Southwestern Australian frogs. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 36:193-199.

Mannering, J., D.P. Griffith. 2006. Value of Crop Rotation Under Various Tillage Systems. Agronomy Guide AY-230, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service Accessed 12/8/2006.

Marco, A., D., Cash, L.K. Belden, and A.R. Blaustein. 2001. Sensitivity to urea fertilization in three amphibian species. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 40:406-409.

Marinelli, L. and D. Neal. 1995. The distribution of small mammals on cultivated fields and in rights-of-way. Canadian Field Naturalist 109:403-407.

Marshalla, M.R, J. A. DeCeccoa, A. B. Williams,G. A. Galeb, R.J. Coopera. 2003. Use of regenerating clearcuts by late-successional bird species and their young during the post- fledging period. Forest Ecology and Management 183:127–135.

Martin, W. H. and Taylor, T. H. 2002. Grasslands and Grassland Management in Land Between The Lakes. Pages 267-283 in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA.

Martof, B. 1953. Home range and movements of the green frog, Rana clamitans. Ecology 34:529-543.

Mazerolle, M.J. 2004. Drainage ditches facilitate frog movements in a hostile landscape. Landscape Ecology 20:579-590.

Mazerolle, M.J. and A. Desrochers. 2005. Landscape resistance to frog movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:455-464.

McIntosh, J. Personal communication (e-mail) re: soil definitions and terms. Soil Survey Party Leader. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Mayfield, KY. 3/30/2007.

McLaughlin, K., J. Ragus, and W.H. Hansen. 2002. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Guide. USDA Forest Service R8 Southern Region Atlanta, GA.

156

McLeod, R.F., and J.E. Gates. 1998. Response of herpetofaunal communities to forest cutting and burning at Chesapeake Farms, Maryland. American Midland Naturalist 139:164.177.

Meister, R. T., C. Sine, and D.T. Sharp. 2006. Crop Protection Handbook, Volume 92. Willoughby, OH. Meister Media, Worldwide. 831 p.

Mendez-Delgdo, A., T.A. Dillaha and S. Mostaghimi. 1999. Sediment and nitrogen transport in grass filter strips. Journal of American Water Resources Association 35:867- 875.

Michigan Division of Environmental Quality (MIDEQ) 1997. Buffer/filter strips Accessed 8/4/2004.

Miles, R.K. 1995. Modeling the Effects of Landscape Structure on the Spatial Distribution of Brown-headed Cowbirds and Nest Parasitism in Forest Openings. Thesis for Master of Science Degree, The University of Tennessee. 92 pp.

Missouri Conservation Commission 1980. Native warm season grasses for wildlife. Bulletin 1.040 WD 7/93.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1993. Native Warm-Season Grasses for Wildlife. WD 1.040. 4p.

Mistretta, P. 2007. Risk assessment of pesticides proposed for use in the Land Between The Lakes open lands program. Project technical report, March 5, 2007.

Moore, M.J.C. and R.A. Seigel. 2006. No place to nest or bask: Effects of human disturbance on the nesting and basking habits of yellow-blotched map turtles (Graptemys flavimaculata) Biological Conservation 130:386-393.

Morton, P., 1999. The Economic Benefits of Wilderness in Cole, D. N. and S.F. McCool, 1999. Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a Time of Change. Proc. RMRS-P-000. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Moseley, K.R., S.B. Castleberry, and S.H. Schweitzer. 2003. Effects of prescribed fire on herpetofauna in bottomland hardwood forests. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 475-486.

Nafziger, E. 2006. Crop Science, Tillage for Corn and Soybeans.University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Accessed 12/8/2006

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). 1992. The effectiveness of buffer strips for ameliorating offsite transport of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from silvicultural operations. Technical Bulletin 631.

157 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

National Organic Program Standards. Final Rule with request for comments. 7CFR Part 204 Docket: TMD-00-02-FR Agriculture Marketing Service, USDA

National Research Council. 1983. Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. 191 p.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire. PMS 420-2. Boise, ID: National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Fire Use Working Team. 226 p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Conservation Practice Standard, Field Border Code 386. Section IV Field Office Technical Guide. Accessed 8/17/2006

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Conservation Practice Standard, Filter Strip Code 393. Section IV Field Office Technical Guide. Accessed 8/17/2006

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Native Grasses for Wildlife Habitat. Alabama Guide Sheet No. AL 645-C.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Native Warm Season Grasses: A Benefit for Wildlife and for Agricultural Producers. Accessed 16 January 2007.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Warm-Season Grasses In Pennsylvania. United States Department of Agriculture. 4p.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Plants Profile for Microstegium vimineaum (Trin.) A. Camus, Nepalese browntop. Accessed 23 August 2007.

NatureServe 2004. Nature Serve Expolorer: An online encyclopedia of life. 2002. Ver 1.6< http://www.natureserve.org/explorer> Accessed 01/25/04, 2/26/04

Nenno, E. S., and Lindzey, J. S. 1979. Wild turkey poults feeding activity in old field, agricultural clearings, and forest communities. Transactions of the Northeastern Section of the Wildlife Society 36:97–109.

New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials.1996. tebuconazole (Elite, Folicur) New Active Ingredient Registration 9/96. Albany, New York: Accessed 01/29/2007. 3 p.

158

North Dakota State University College of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Natural Resources. Plotting a Course 2006: Short-Term and Long-Term Agricultural Planning Prices For North Dakota. Accessed 10 Feb 2007.

Nupp, T.E. and R.K. Swihart. 2000. Landscape-level correlates of small-mammal assemblages in forest fragments of farmland. Journal of Mammalogy 21:512-526.

Nuzzo, V.1997. Element Stewardship Abstract for Lonicera japonica. The Nature Conservance, Arlington, VI. Accessed 14 August 2007.

Nyboer, R. 1990. Vegetation Management Guideline Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thumb.). Illinois Department of Conservation. Accessed 15 August 2007.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Food Plots for Wildlife. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Publication 392.

Ohlenbusch, P. and T.Bidwell. 2001. Sericea Lespedeza: History, Characteristics, and Identification. Kansas State Research and Extension, Pub. Number MF2408. Accessed 14 August 2007.

Oldham, R.S. 1966. Spring movement in the American toad, Bufo americanus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 44:63-100.

O’Neill, G and L. Doyle. 2002. Forest Management Program. Pages 131-146 in E. W. Chester and J. S. Fralish, editors. Land Between The Lakes, Kentucky and Tennessee: Four Decades of Tennessee Valley Authority Stewardship; Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA.

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. Title XXI100-624.

Ortiz, M.E., A. Marco, N. Saiz, and M. Lizana. 2004. Impact of ammonium nitrate on growth and survival of six European amphibians. 47:234-239.

Ouin, A., S. Aviron, J. Dover, and F. Burel. 2004. Complementation/ supplementation of resources for butterflies in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 103:473-479.

Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the U.S. Economy. Boulder, CO.

Overdahl, C.J, G.W. Rehm and H. L. Meredith. 1991. Fertilizer urea. University of Minnesota Extension Service.

159 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

cropsystems/DC0636.html> Accessed: 8/2007.

Palmer-Ball B.L. Jr. 1996. Ruffed Grouse pages 70-71 in The Kentucky Breeding Bird Atlas, The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

Paton, P.W.C. and W.B. Couch III. 2002. Using the phenology of pond-breeding amphibians to develop conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 16:194-204.

Peak, B. and J. Peaks, 2006. Project SOS: Save our Sialia. Bluebird nest box data for Land Between The Lakes.

Peavy, A. 2004. Unpublished analysis. Land Between The Lakes USDA Forest Service Southern Region Interior Forest Habitat Analysis, September 27, 2004. GIS analysis to assess the landscape context of Land Between The Lakes. USDA Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute, Fort Collins, CO.

Perkins, D.W., and M.L. Hunter Jr. 2006. Effects of riparian timber management on amphibians in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 657-670.

Petranka, J.W., M.E. Eldridge, and K.E., Haley. 1993. Effects of timber harvest on Southern Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology 7:363-370.

Petranka, J.W. 1994. Response to impact of timber harvesting on salamanders. Conservation Biology 8:302-304.

Petranka, J.W., M..P. Brannon, M.E. Hopey and C.H. Smith. 1994. Effects of timber harvesting on low elevation populations of Southern Appalachian salamanders. Journal of Forest Ecology and Management. 67:135-147.

Petranka, J.W., and C.K. Smith. 2005. A functional analysis of streamside habitat use by southern Appalachian salamanders: implications for riparian forest management. Forest Ecology and Management 210:443-454.

Phelps, J.P., and R.A. Lancia. 1995. Effects of a clearcut on the herpetofauna of a South Carolina bottomland swamp. Brimleyana 22: 31-45.

Pilliod, D.S., R.B. Bury, E.J. Hyde, C.A. Pearl, and P.S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 163-181.

Plummer, M.V. 1981. Habitat utilization, diet and movements of a temperate arboreal snake (Opheodrys aestivus). Journal of Herpetology 15:425-432.

Plummer, M.V. and J.C. Burnley. 1997. Behavior, hibernacula, and thermal relations of soft shell turtles (Trionyx spiniferus) overwintering in a stream. Chelonian Conservation Biology 2:489-493.

160

Plummer, M.V., N.E. Mills, and S.L. Allen. 1997. Activity, habitat, and movement patterns of softshell turtles (Trionyx spiniferus) in a small stream. Chelonian Conservation Biology 2: 514-520.

Pyburn, W.F. 1958. Size and movements of a local population of cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). Texas Journal of Science 10:325-342.

Rasnake, M. and L. Murdock. 1993 (revised). Liming acid soils. University of Kentucky, Department of Agronomy publication AGR-19. Accessed: 8/2007.

Reeder, K.F., D.M. Debinski, and B.J. Danielson. 2005. Factors affecting butterfly use of filter strips in Midwestern USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment. 109:40- 47.

Regosin, J.V., B.S. Windmiller, R.N. Homan, and J.M. Reed. 2005. Variation in terrestrial habitat use by four pool-breeding amphibian species. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 1481-1496.

Reinert, H.K., and R. T. Zappalorti. 1998. Timber rattlesnakes (Croton horridus) of the Pine Barrens: their movement patterns and habitat preference. Copeia 1988:964-978.

Relyea, R. and N. Mills. 2001. Predator-induced stress makes the pesticide carbaryl more deadly to gray treefrog tadpoles (Hyla versicolor). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98:2491-2496.

Relyea, R.A. 2005a. The lethal impacts of Roundup and predatory stress on six species of North American tadpoles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 48:351-357.

Reylea, R.A. 2005b. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 15:618-627.

Reylea, R.A. 2005c. The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications 15:1118-1124.

Reylea, R.A., N.M. Schoeppmer, and J.T. Hoverman. 2005. Pesticides and amphibians: the importance of community context. Ecological Applications 15:1125-1134.

Relyea, R., and J. Hoverman. 2006. Assessing the ecology in ecotoxicology: a review synthesis in freshwater systems. Ecology Letters 9:1157-1171.

Renken, R.B. 2006. Does fire affect amphibians and reptiles in eastern U.S. oak forests? in Dickinson, Matthew B., ed. 2006. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference; 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen.

161 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 158-166.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H.Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D..N. Pahley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight: North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY, USA.

Richardson, K.E. and S. Bloemer. 2007a. Birds and riparian corridors. Project Specialist Report, Project Record.

Richardson, K.E. and S. Bloemer. 2007b. Riparian corridors and butterflies. Project Specialist Report, Project Record.

Richardson, K.E. and S. Bloemer. 2007c. Riparian corridors and small mammals. Project Specialist Report, Project Record.

Richardson, K.E. and S. Bloemer. 2007d. Open lands, management practices, and herpetofauna: are they compatible on LBL NRA? Project Specialist Report, Project Record.

Richardson, K.E. and S. Bloemer 2007f. Open lands access roads. Project Specialist Report, Project Record.

Richardson, K.E. and S. Bloemer. 2007g. Pesticide risks to amphibians on LBL NRA. Open lands access roads. Project Specialist Report, Project Record.

Riedle, J.D., P.A. Shipman, S.F. Fox, and D.M. Leslie Jr. 2006. Microhabitat use, home range, and movements of the alligator snapping turtle, Machrochelys temminckii, in Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist 51:35-40.

Rizkalla, C.E. and R. K. Swihart. 2006. Community structure and differential responses of aquatic turtles to agriculturally induced habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 21:1361-1375.

Roth, E.D. 2005. Buffer zone applications in snake ecology: a case study using cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus). Copeia 2005:399-402.

Rothermel, B.B. and R. D. Semlitsch. 2002. An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest vs. old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conservation Biology 16:1324-1332.

Rouse, J.D., C.A. Bishop, and J. Struger. 1999. Nitrogen pollution: an assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(10): 799-803.

162

Rucker, D.R. 1985. Ruffed grouse go home again. Pages 10-12 in Impact TVA-Natural Resources and the Environment 8(4).

Russell, K.R. and H.G. Hanlin. 1999. Aspects of the ecology of worm snakes (Carphophis amoenus) associated with small isolated wetlands in South Carolina. Journal of Herpetology 33:339-344.

Russell, K. R., H. G. Hanlin, T. B. Wigley, and D. C. Guynn, Jr. 2002. Responses of isolated wetland herpetofauna to upland forest management. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:603–617.

Russell, K.R., Van Lear, D.H., Guynn, D.C., Jr. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 374- 384.

Ryan, M.B. and R. Marks. 2006. Native Warm-Season Grasses and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 25. NRCS. 8p.

Samson, F.B. 1980. Island biogeography and the conservation of prairie birds. Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conference 7:293-305.

Schaefer, J.M. and M.T Brown. 1992. Designing and protecting river corridors for wildlife. Rivers 3:14-26.

Schuytema, G.S. and A.V. Nebeker. 1999. Effects of ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, and urea on red-legged frogs, Pacific treefrogs, and African clawed frogs. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 63:357-364.

Scott, A.F. 2007. Biology Professor, Austin Peay State University, personal communication (email).

Semlitsch, R.D. 1983. Terrestrial movements of an eastern tiger salamander, Ambystoma tiginum. Herpetological Review 14:112-113.

Semlitsch, R.D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology 12:1113-1119.

Semlitsch, R.D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:615-631.

Semlitsch, R.D. 2001. Critical elements for biologically based recovery plans of aquatic- breeding amphibians. Conservation Biology 16:619-629.

Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17:1219-1228.

163 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Semlitsch, R.D., K.L. Brown, and J.P. Caldwell. 1981. Habitat utilization, seasonal activity, and population size structure of the southeastern crowned snake Tantilla coronata. Herpetologica 37: 40-46.

Shea, A.B. 1999. The Return of Native Grasses to Tennessee. Tennessee Conservationist Magazine. . Accessed 16 January 2007.

Shepard, J.P., J. Creighton, and H. Duzan. 2004. Forestry herbicides in the United States: an overview. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1020-1027.

Silva, M., L. Hartling and S.B. Opps. 2005. Small mammals in agricultural landscapes of Prince Edward Island (Canada): Effects of habitat characteristics at three different spatial scales. Biological Conservation 126:556-568.

Skillman, L. 2001. Crop Rotation Important Part of Farming. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. 3p.

Skillman, L. 2006. Asian rust found on KY soybeans. University of Kentucky Agricultural News and Information, Oct. 11, 2006. Accessed: 8/2007.

Smith, G.R., K.G. Temple, D.A. Vaala, and H.A. Dingfelder. 2005. Effects of nitrate on the tadpoles of two ranids (Rana catesbeiana and R. clamitans). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 49:559-562.

Smith, M.A. and D.M. Green. 2006. Sex, isolation and fidelity: unbiased long-distance dispersal in a terrestrial amphibian. Ecography 29:649-658.

Snodgrass, J.W., M.J. Komoroski, A.L. Bryan Jr., and J. Burger. 2000. Relationships among isolated wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: Implications for wetland regulations. Conservation Biology 14:414-419.

Soil Survey of Lyon and Trigg Counties Kentucky. 1981. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) in cooperation with Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station and Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.

Soil Survey Stewart County Tennessee. 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) in cooperation with Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Southern Forest Resource Assessment, 2002. Effects of Linear Land Uses (Roads, Power Lines, and Trails) on Forest Wildlife in Terra-3: Human Influences on Forest Wildlife

164

Habitat Draft Report. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, October, 2002. 6 pp.

Stewart, L. 2006. Personal communication (phone call) re: Trigg County Ky. portion of Land Between The Lakes permittee farmer 1985 Food Security Act information and localized factors for the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cadiz, KY.

Storfer, A. 2003. Amphibian declines: future directions. Diversity and Distributions 9:151-163.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2003a. Glyphosate - human health and ecological risk assessment final report. Rept. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a. Washington DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 281 p.43

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2003b. Triclopyr – revised human health and ecological risk assessments final report. Rept. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 264 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2004a. Dicamba – human health and ecological riskassessment – final report. Rept. SERA TR 04-43-17-06d. Washington DC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 179 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2004b. Imazapic – human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Rept. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 110 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2004c. Imazapyr – human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Rept. SERA TR 04-43-17-05b. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 149 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2004d. Metsulfuron methyl – human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Rept. SERA TR 04-43-17-01b. Washington DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 152 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2005. Hexazinone - human health and ecological risk assessment final report. Rept. SERA TR 05-43-20-03d. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 281 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2006. 2,4-D - human health and ecological risk assessment, final report. Rept. SERA TR 06-43-29-02b. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. 245 p.

165 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Taylor, B.E., D.E. Scott, and J. Whitfield Gibbons. 2005. Catastrophic reproductive failure, terrestrial survival, and persistence of the marbled salamander. Conservation Biology 20:792-801.

Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. 2003. Guide to Forestry, Best Management Practices in Tennessee.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Chemical Analysis Report. 2006. McCoy and McCoy Laboratories, INC., Ecotone Services, potable water testing.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 2006, Water Pollution Control, Tennessee Waters. Draft 2006 303(d). Accessed 8/17/2006.

Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA: Kentucky Reservoir Ecological Health. 2007. Accessed 2/1/2007

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Natural Resource Management Plan at Land Between The Lakes. Volume I. Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1994. Natural Resource Management Plan for Land Between The Lakes. Volume II. Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1995. Final Environmental Assessment for Land Between The Lakes Wildlife Viewing Area. Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, KY 42211.

Teplitsky, C., H. Piha, A. Laurila, and J. Merila. 2005. Common pesticide increases costs of antipredator defenses in Rana temporaria tadpoles. Environmental Science Technology 39:6079-6085.

Thompson, F.R., III, and R.M. DeGraff. 2001. Conservation approaches for woody, early successional communities in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:483- 494

Thompson, Susan. 2004. Corn-Soybean Rotation Still Makes Sense. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. 1p.

Thurmond, D.P., K.V. Miller, and T.G. Harris. 1995. Effect of streamside management zone width on avifauna communities. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 19:166-169.

Thurman, E.M., D.A. Goolsby, M.T. Meyer, M.S. Mills, M.L. Pomes and D.W. Kolpin. 1992. A reconnaissance study of herbicides and their metabolites in surface water of the

166

Midwestern United States using immunoassay and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Environmental Science Technology 26:2440-2447.

Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed control handbook: Section 7c:.Fluazifop- P-butyl. Davis,CA: The Nature Conservancy. Accessed: 11/03/2006. 6 p.

Tu, M. 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract for Microstegium vimineum, The Nature Conservancy’s Wildland Invasive Species Program, Dept. of Vegetable Crops and Weed Sciences, University of California, Davis CA, 8/00. Accessed 15 August 2007.

University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 2006. Lime and fertilizer recommendations 2006-2007. AGR-1. 20 pgs.

University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 2005. Field Crop and Forage Enterprise Budgets. Version 6.0. Accessed 5 Feb 2007.

University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources. 2007. 2007 Hay and Haylage Budgets. Agriculture Electronic Bulletin Board. Accessed 10 Feb 2007

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service. 2006. Final Rule with request for comments. 7 CFR Part 205 [Docket Number: TMD-00-02-FR] RIN: 0581- AA40

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. 1995. ARS Pesticide Properties: fluazifop-P-butyl. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service. Accessed: 11/03/2006. 2 p.

U.S. E.P.A. 2000. Fertilizer Management. EPA State and Local Climate Change Program. Accessed: 8/2007.

USDA Economic Research Service. 2007. Corn and soybean farming data. http://www.ers.usda.gov

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) Kentucky. Predicting Soil Loss Using The Universal Soil Loss Equation. Lexington, Kentucky May 1978. Natural Resources Conservation Service required technical reference.

USDA Farm Service Agency. 2007. Data Sets: U.S. and Regional Cost and Return Data. Economic Research Service.

167 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

htm#historic1> Accessed 30 Jan 2007

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Land and Resource Management Plan, Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area. Management Bulletin R8-MB-119A. Golden Pond, KY.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area. Soil Water and Air Management. Management Bulletin R8-MB-119B Volume 1 & 2.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices.

USDA NRCS National Plant Materials Center. 2002. Plant Fact Sheet. . Accessed 16 January 2007.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC Pp. 20.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005a. Diflufenzopyr: ecological risk assessment. final report. Reno, NV Accessed: 05/03/2006. 173 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005b. Diflufenzopyr: ecological risk assessment. final report. Appendix A: summary of available and relevant toxicity data from ecological risk assessment literature review for diflufenzopyr. Reno, NV.: Accessed: 05/03/2006. 23 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005c. Diflufenzopyr: ecological risk assessment. final report. Appendix B: ecological risk assessment worksheet - diflufenzopyr. Reno, NV Accessed: 05/03/2006. 45 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Standard evaluation procedure: ecological risk assessment. Publ. EPA-540-9-85-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Off. Pestic. Prog., Haz. Eval. Div. 96 p.

168

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. Thifensulfuron methyl; notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a tolerance for a certain pesticide chemical in or on food. Federal Register 69:40920-40927.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. Tribenuron methyl; pesticide tolerance. Federal Register 69: 56711-56718.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database. 2002. Chlorimuron-ethyl: CASRN: 90982-32-4.Washington, DC< http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/search/f?./temp/~YbdLtu:4> Accessed: 04/25/2006. 6 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database. 2003a. Cyhalothrin/Karate: CASRN: 68085-85-8. Washington, DC< http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/search/f?./ temp/~vapFpG:2> Accessed 04/26/2006. 5 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database. 2003b. Pursuit: CASRN: 81335- 77-5. Washington, DC Accessed 04/26/2006. 6 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database. 2004. 0.15Metolachlor: CASRN: 51218-45-2. Washington, DC < http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/search/f?./temp /~kvquua:4> Accessed: 04/26/2006. 9 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IRIS Database. 2006. Metolachlor (CASRN 51218-45-2). Washington, DC< http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/subst/0074.htm> Accessed: 04/26/2006. 9 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1990. Nicosulfuron. Pesticide fact sheet #216. Ithica, NY: Cornell University. < http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/herb-growthreg/naa-rimsulfuron/ nicosulfuron/nicosulfuron-epa-fact.html> Accessed: 05/03/2006. 8 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1992. Clethodim (Select) Herbicide Profile 1/92 EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet 320. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Accessed: 8/18/2006. 7 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1995.Reregistration eligibility decision (RED): Metolachlor. Washington, DC< http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0001.pdf> Accessed05/03/2006. 259 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1997.Clethodim (Select) Pesticide Tolerance Petition 2/97. Federal Register 62 (29)

169 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1999a.Pesticide fact sheet: diflufenzopyr. Washington, DC. < http://www. epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/diflufenzopr.pdf> Accessed: 05/03/2006. 12 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs. 1999b. Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerance. Fed. Reg. 64: 1132-1138.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs. 1999c. Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemption. Fed. Reg. 64: 28377-28384.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2001a.Clethodim; Pesticide Tolerance. Federal Register 66: 30073-30080.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2001b.Flumioxazin. Pesticide fact sheet. Washington, DC: Accessed: 04/24/2006. 14 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2001c.Mesotrione. Pesticide fact sheet. Washington, DC: Accessed: 05/03/2006. 7 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2003a. Fluazifop-P-butyl use closure Memo. Memorandum 11/26/2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Accessed: 11/03/2006. 5 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2003b S-metolachlor pesticide tolerances. Federal Register 68: 15945-15957.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2004a.Fluazifop-p-butyl. Revised acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED). Memorandum OPP-2004-0347-0008. Washington, DC Accessed: 05/05/2006. 22 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2004b.Fluazifop-P-butyl: Revised HED chapter of the tolerance reassessment eligibility decision (TRED)document. Memorandum OPP-2004-0347-0004. Washington, DC< http://www.flouridealert.org/pesticides/fr.fliazifop-p-butyl.html> Accessed: 05/05/2006. 97 p.

170

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 2004c.Report of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) tolerance reassessment progress and riskmanagement decision (TRED) for nicosulfuron. Washington, DC< http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/nicosulfuron_tred.pdf> Accessed: 05/03/2006. 6 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat management guidelines for the bald eagle in the Southeast, third revision.

Verry, E.S., J.W. Hornbeck, C.A. Dolloff. 2000. Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers Washington D.C.

Vickery, P.D., M.L. Hunter, Jr. and S.M. Melvin. 1994. Effects of habitat area on the distribution of grassland birds in Maine. Conservation Biology 8:1087-1097.

Vincent, J.W., D.A., Hagen, D. A., P.G. Welle, and K. Swanser. 1995. The Passive-Use Values of Public Forest Lands: A Survey of the Literature.

Vinson, W.E., and J.V. Parochetti. 2006. Weed management strategies for sustainable cropping systems. Project Outline NE1026, National Information Management and Support System. Accessed August 2007.

Vos, C.C. and A.H.P. Stumpel. 1995. Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landscape Ecology 11:203-214.

Washburn, B.E., T.G. Barnes, and J.D. Sole. 2000. Improving Northern bobwhite habitat by converting tall fescue fields to native warm-season grasses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 97-104.

Watt, P.J. and P. Jarvis. 1997. Survival analysis in palmate newts exposed to ammonium nitrate agricultural fertilizer. Ecotoxicology 6:355-362.

Weatherhead, P.J. and D.J. Hoysak. 1988. Spatial and activity patterns of black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta) from radiotelemetry and recapture data. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 463-468.

Weilbull, A., J. Bengtsson, and E. Nohlgren. 2000. Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743-750.

Wells, K.D and R.A. Wells. 1976. Patterns of movement in a population of the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) with observations on aggregations. Herpteologica 32: 156-162.

171 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Welsh, H.H., Jr., G.R. Hodgson, and A.J. Lind. 2005. Ecogeography of the herpetofauna of a northern California watershed: linking species patterns to landscape processes. Ecography 28:521-536.

Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and vegetation. Institute of Ecology. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Wentworth, J.M., A.S. Johnson, and P.E. Hale. 1990. Influence of acorn use on nutritional status, and reproduction of deer in the Southern Appalachians. Proceeding of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 44:142-154.

Wentworth, J.M., A.S. Johnson, P.E. Hale and K.E. Kammermeyer. 1992. Relationships of acorn abundance and deer herd characteristics in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 16:5-8.

West, B. 2004. Wildlife food planting guild for the Southeast. Mississippi State Extension Service Publication 2111.

Whalen, J., J. Moran, M. Joyce and C. Roghair. 2002. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Assessment of Stream Habitat, Fish, Macroinvertebrates, Sediment and Water Chemistry for Eleven Streams in Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Whitaker, D.M. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Breeding bird assemblages inhabiting riparian buffer strips in Newfoundland, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 167-179.

White, D. 2006. Personal communication (e-mail) re: Kentucky Lake Water Quality. Center for Reservoir Research and Hancock Biological Station, Murray State University, Murray, Ky.

Wilcox, B.A., and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887.

Willson, J.D. and M.E. Dorcas. 2003. Effects of habitat disturbance on stream salamanders: Implications for buffer zones and watershed management. Conservation Biology 17: 763-771.

Wojtaszek, B.F., T.M. Buscarini, D.T. Chartrand, G.R. Stephenson, and D.G. Thompson. 2005. Effect of Release® herbicide on mortality, avoidance response and growth of amphibian larvae in two forest wetlands. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24:2533-2544.

172

World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety. 1990. Cyhalothrin andlambda-cyhalothrin (HSG 38, 1990). Cyhalothrin and lambda- cyhalothrin: health and safety guide.Health and safety guide no. 38. Geneva, Switzerland: Accessed: 05/03/2006. 21 p.

Xu, Q. and S. Oldham. 1997. Lethal and sublethal effects of nitrogen fertilizer ammonium nitrate on common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32:298-303.

Yahner, R., 1988. Changes in Wildlife Communities Near Edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-339.

Yosef, R. and M.A. Deyrup. 1998. Effects of fertilizer-induced reduction of invertebrates on reproductive success of Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus). Journal of Ornithology 139: 307-312.

Young, G.I. and R.H. Yahner. 2003. Distribution of, and microhabitat use by woodland salamanders along forest-farmland edges. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117: 19-24.

Zaffaroni, N.P., T. Zavanella, A. Cattaneo, and E. Arias. 1986. The toxicity of 2,4- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid to the adult crested newt. Environmental Research 41:79-87.

173 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

5.2 Acronyms APE Area of Potential Effect Area Plan 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan ASBR Asian Soybean Rust BA Biological Assessment BAE Biological Assessment and Evaluation BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BMP Best Management Practices CATT Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer CFR Code of the Federal Regulations CO Carbon Monoxide CWA Clean Water Act DEM Digital Elevation Model DOI Department of Interior DOW Division of Water DWPC Division of Water Pollution Control EA Environmental Assessment EBP Elk & Bison Prairie EE Environmental Education EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Ecological Study Area (also commonly used for 'endangered species act') FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FS Forest Service FSA 1980 Food Security Act FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FWS KFO Fish and Wildlife Service Kentucky Field Office GIS Geographic Information System GMC Genetically Modified Crops GPS Geographical Positioning System HEL Highly Erodible Land HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act HQ Hazard Quotient; in relation to pesticide and herbicide safety HRMP Heritage Resources Management Plan IDT Interdisciplinary Team IPM Integrated Pest Management KFO Kentucky Field Office KLMP Kentucky Lake Monitoring Program LBL Land Between The Lakes LCC Land Capability Class LRMP Land and Resources Management Plan LT Leadership Team M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MIS Management Indicator Species MOS Margin of Safety MPN Most Probable Number MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

174

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MUSYA Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 NFMA National Forest Management Act NHEL Non-highly Erodible Land NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NNIS Noxious Nonnative Invasive Species NPB Net Public Benefit NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRA National Recreation Area NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRIS Natural Resource Inventory System NRMP Natural Resources Management Plan NWDA Nature Watch Demonstration Area NWIMS National Wetlands Inventory Mapping System NWSG Native Warm Season Grass OGRDA Oak-Grassland Restoration Demonstration Area PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive R8 Forest Service Region 8 RA Risk Assessment RFS Regional Forester Species RNA Research Natural Area ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROW Right-of-Ways SBR South Bison Range SCS Soil Conservation Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMZ Stream Management Zone SNA State Natural Area SO2 Sulfur dioxide SWCP Soils and Water Conservation Practices TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSP Total Suspended Particulates TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS US Fish & Wildlife Service WIN Watershed Improvement Needs Inventory WMA Wildlife Management Area VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

175 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

5.3 Glossary TERM DEFINITION

Alluvial Soil Soil or sediments deposited by a river or other running water, typically contains a variety of materials, including fine particles of silt and clay and larger particles of sand and gravel.

Archaeological Sites See Historic sites.

Best Management Practices A practice, or combination of practices, determined to be (BMP) the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing non-point source pollution to a level compatible with maintaining water quality.

Biological Assessment A “biological evaluation” conducted for major federal (BA) construction or planning projects requiring an environmental impact statement, in accordance with legal requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(C)). The purpose of the assessment and resulting document is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to affect an endangered, threatened, or proposed species.

Biological Diversity The diversity of life in all its forms (i.e., genetic, species, ecosystem) and all its levels of organization. Also termed biodiversity.

Biological Evaluation A documented Forest Service review of its programs or activities (BE) in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive species.

Birds of Conservation Breeding migratory and non-migratory birds of the United Concern (BCC) States and its territories that are of concern for proactive conservation actions and that without these actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The primary legal authority for BCC efforts is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980.

Bottomland The normal flood plain of a stream.

Community An assemblage of plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi that live in an environment and interact with one another; forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure, environmental relations, development, and functions.

Conservation The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of wildlife and of natural resources such as forests, soils, and water.

176

Conservation Tillage A method of planting which does not require disturbance of topsoil, resulting in less erosion.

Conventional Tillage A method of planting consisting of mechanically disturbing the soil in order to loosen soil, mix in fertilizer and seeds, and form planting beds or rows.

Cover Type Species or community of vegetation located in an area.

Crop Residue The vegetative material left after harvest of a crop.

Cultipack Seeder A mechanical device which tills, seeds, and packs the soil in one pass, limiting the amount of soil disturbance.

Cultural Resources The physical remains (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) and conceptual content or context (such as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events for native people) of an area which is useful in gaining knowledge about humans’ past. Cultural resources are nonrenewable.

Cultural Site The physical location of a cultural resource.

Desired Condition An expression of resource goals that have been set for a unit of land. It is written as a narrative description of the landscape as it will appear when the goals have been achieved. The condition also includes a description of physical and biological processes, the environmental setting, and the human experience.

Desired Nonnative Species A non-indigenous species to an area that has been approved to focus management due to their non-invasive and nonthreatening characteristics to native species.

Dispersed Recreation Recreation opportunities or use occurring away from developed sites, providing very little contact with Forest Service or volunteer staff.

Diversity See Biological diversity.

Dry Mesic Site Types A transitional site type, between mesic and dry site types. Dry- mesic site types are associated with mid and lower slopes less than 460 feet elevation.

Dry Site Type Representative of soils with conditions which are very limited or devoid of moisture.

Early Successional Habitat A vegetative condition typically characterized by low density to no tree canopy cover and an abundance of herbaceous and/or woody ground cover. This condition may include early- successional forests, maintained openings, pastures, balds, and open woodlands.

177 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Effects These include: (a) direct effects caused by an action and occur at the same time and place; (b) indirect effects caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable; (c) cumulative effects are an assessment of combined effects of other actions occurring in the project area. Effects and impacts as used in this document are synonymous.

Erosion The wearing away of land surface by action of wind, water, or gravity.

European Settlement This refers to non-American Indian settlement. European settlement began in 1790 for LBL.

Fallow Field A previously cultivated field that is not planted for one or more seasons to allow recovery of nutrients in the soil.

Facility-based Portion of overall EE program which utilizes components of Environmental Education highly developed facilities to assist in presentation of educational (EE) programs, activities, and messages.

Federally Listed Species Animals or plants formally added to federal lists of endangered or threatened wildlife or plants by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. In legal terms, also includes species formally proposed for addition to these lists.

Filter Strip Strips of grass, trees, and/or shrubs planted between water and cropland, situated between a potential, pollutant source area and a surface water body that receives run off. Filter strips provide water quality protection by reducing the amount of sediment, organic matter, and some nutrients and pesticides, in the run off at the edge of the field and before the run off enters the surface water body. They also provide localized erosion protection since the vegetation covers an area of soil that otherwise might have a high erosion potential.

Floodplains Lowland or relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal water including, at a minimum, that area subject to a 1% (100-year return period) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Although floodplains and wetlands fall within the riparian area, they are defined here separately as described in the Forest Service Manual.

Food Plots Open lands planted in crops deemed beneficial to a variety of wildlife species for food and cover.

Forage Food eaten by wild or domestic animals usually through browsing or grazing.

178

Forb Any herbaceous plant other than a grass or grass-like species growing in its native habitat (e.g., field, prairie, or meadow).

Forest An area managed for production of timber and other forest products, or maintained under woody vegetation for indirect benefits as protection of a watershed, recreation, or wildlife habitat.

Fungicide A substance used for killing or controlling growth of undesirable fungus on crops or other plants.

Game Species Any species of wildlife or fish for which hunting/fishing seasons and/or bag/creel limits have been prescribed, and which are normally harvested by hunters, trappers, and fishermen under State or Federal laws, codes, and regulations.

Geographic Information An information processing technology to input, store, System (GIS) manipulate, analyze, and display spatial resource data to support the decision-making processes of an organization. Generally, an electronic medium for processing map information, typically used with manual processes to affect specific decisions about land base and its resources.

Grassland Areas on which vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, and/or cryptogams (mosses, lichens, and ferns), provided these areas do not qualify as built-up land or cultivated cropland. Areas identified in the FEIS include currently existing maintained open lands, ecological restoration areas, old fields, hay fields, and utility and road ROWs.

Ground-nesting Birds A classification of birds that construct their nests on the ground.

Groundwater Water within the earth or geologic stratum that supplies wells and springs.

Gully Heads The narrow beginning of a gully.

Herbicide A substance used for killing or controlling the growth of undesirable plants.

Heritage Sites/Assets Remnants of past cultures that remind us of the centuries old relationship between people and the land (from National Heritage Strategy); property, plant, or equipment that are unique for one or more of the following reasons: (1) historical or natural significance; (2) cultural, educational, or artistic/aesthetic significance; or (3) significant architectural characteristics.

Historic Landscapes Industrial, agricultural, pastoral, or domestic landscapes that have evolved over many years from human alteration. They are commonly functional and often vernacular, and may not always be visually pleasing, often responding to specific functions or

179 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

topography, not formally planned or designed. They may be informal to the degree that they appear to be natural occurrences, or the spatial organization of built and natural elements may be quite traditional or formal. They are identifiable and can be mapped, either as point-specific features or enclaves within a larger landscape, as entire landscapes themselves, or as a combination of both.

Historic Period The time period from A.D. 1700 to within the past 50 years.

Historic Site Cultural sites more than 50 years old.

INFRA An integrated database for collection/storage/use of information about features, land units, facilities and utilities, accessibility and real property. For recreation management, INFRA holds information on operation and maintenance costs, recreation funding shortfalls, recreation use data, information on accessibility, and inventories of facilities. INFRA, as a trademarked software program, brings together Oracle, Arc Info, and Arc View GIS technology, and supplements recreation management systems.

Insecticide A substance used for killing undesirable pest insects.

Integrated Pest The comprehensive systems approach to achieving economical Management (IPM) pest control in an environmentally acceptable manner. The individual components of IPM in forestry include cultural, mechanical, manual, prescribed fire, biological, chemical, and regulatory means.

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows in a well defined channel during wet seasons of the year but not the entire year.

Interpretation Communication activities, messages, and programs designed to improve individuals understanding of natural and cultural resources.

Invasive Species A non-indigenous species introduced by human action that spreads through native habitats, out-competing native species and negatively impacting the native ecosystem.

Litter The uppermost layer of organic debris on the ground under a vegetative cover type, composed of freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetable material from foliage with small amounts of bark fragments, twigs, flowers, fruits, etc.

Locally Rare Species for which representation in LBL is a concern. Development of a locally rare species list is at the discretion of LBL and may be completed in cooperation with the state and other federal agencies, as well as other interested groups, organizations, or individuals.

180

Loess A fine-grained calcareous clay or silt held to be a deposit of wing-blown dust.

Management Indicator An animal or plant selected for use as a planning tool in Species (MIS) accordance with 1982 NFMA regulations (36 CFR 219.19). These species are used to help set objectives, analyze effects of alternatives, and monitor plan implementation. They are chosen because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management on selected biological components.

Mast Fruits, berries, or nuts. An important food source for many wildlife species. Hard mast includes fruit or nuts of oaks, beech, walnuts, and hickories. Soft mast includes fruits and berries of black gum, dogwood, viburnums, crataegus, grape, blackberries, and honeysuckle.

Mesic Site Type Moist site conditions with relatively productive soil types. See Section 3.2 of the FEIS for a full description of this site type.

Migrant Species An animal that shifts from one habitat to another whether by chance, as a normal phase of a life cycle, or as part of a population’s expansion.

National Register of The NRHP is the nation's official list of cultural resources Historic Places (NRHP) worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the US Department of the Interior.

Native Species Species normally indigenous to an area; not introduced by man.

Neotropical Migratory Birds that breed in the United States during summer and winter Birds (NMB) in Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean Basin.

Non-facility-based Method of interpretation in which targeted educational Environmental Education messages are delivered in sites unassociated with the highly developed educational facilities. Interpretive signs, trails and printed materials are examples of these methods.

Non-game Species Any species of wildlife or fish ordinarily not managed or otherwise controlled by hunting, fishing, or trapping regulations. Designation may vary by state.

181 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Nonnative Species Any species of plant or animal not historically indigenous to a given area or locale.

No-till Drill Seeder A mechanical device which cuts grooves into soil and drops seeds into them in one pass, limiting the amount of soil disturbance.

Open Land Land permanently maintained in a non-forested condition but not developed.

Perennial Stream A stream that carries water during 90 % or more of one year.

Pesticide A substance used for killing or controlling the growth of undesirable species, including plants, fungus, and insects.

Prehistoric The time period from AD 1000 to 1700.

Prescribed Fire The practice of using controlled fires to reduce or eliminate unincorporated organic matter of the forest floor, or low, undesirable vegetation (often referred to as controlled burning).

Rare Species Any native or once-native species of plant or wild animal which exists in small numbers, and has been determined to be in need of special management consideration and monitoring.

Regeneration The process by which young trees replace older trees, removed by harvest or disaster.

Region 8 The states that make up the Southern Region of the USDA Forest Service.

Regional Forester’s Species assigned to a list developed by the Regional Forester in Sensitive (RFS) Species coordination with the Forests in the Region. LBL is in Region 8. These species are those in need of special management to maintain viable populations.

Revegetation The re-establishment and development of a plant cover. This may take place naturally through the reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through the direct action of humans (e.g., forestation and range reseeding).

Riparian Pertaining to the bank of a river, lake, or other body of water.

Riparian Areas Areas with three-dimensional ecotones of interaction that include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the watercourse at a variable width.

182

Riparian Corridor An administrative zone applied to both sides of a stream or along side a pond, lake, wetland, seep, or spring. It is a fixed width by stream type that may fall within or beyond the true riparian area. (See Area Plan Standard 35)

Road A motor vehicle path more than 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a trail. It may be classed as a system or non- system road.

Scoping The process by which a federal agency identifies important issues and determines the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed action. Scoping is required by NEPA, and is an integral part of environmental analysis.

Sediment Solid mineral and organic material that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice.

Sedimentation The action or process of depositing sediment.

Seep A wet area where a seasonal high water table intersects with the ground surface. Seeps that meet the definition of a wetland are included in the riparian corridor.

Sensitive Species Species that are listed with states as needing special management.

Shrub A woody perennial plant smaller than a tree, usually having permanent stems originating from or near the ground.

Site Type The situation of a growing plant with respect to all environmental factors (as climate, soil, drainage, other plant and animal life) affecting growth.

Soil Productivity The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation.

Soil Survey A term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in laboratories; their description and classification; the mapping of kinds of soil; the interpretation of soils according to their adaptability for various crops, grasses, and trees; their behavior under use of treatment for plant production or for other purposes; and their productivity under different management systems.

Special-use Permit A permit issued to an individual, organization, or company for occupancy or use of Forest Service land for some special purpose.

183 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Species A class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name.

Species of Viability Concern These include federally-listed, Regional Forester’s Sensitive, Birds of Conservation Concern, and locally rare species and communities.

Spring A water source located where water begins to flow from the ground due to the intersection of the water table with the ground surface. Generally flows throughout the year. Springs that are the source of perennial or intermittent streams are included in the riparian corridor.

Standard Requirement that precludes or imposes limitations on resource management practices and uses, usually for resource protection, public safety, or addressing an issue.

State Listed Species Listed species formally added to state lists by appropriate state agencies. May or may not be federally listed or a Regional Forester’s Sensitive species.

Succession An orderly process of biotic community development that involves changes in species, structure, and community processes over time; it is reasonably directional and, therefore, predictable.

Threatened Species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Designated as a threatened species in the Federal Register by the Secretary of Interior.

Upland Land at higher elevation, in general, than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land above the lowlands along streams.

Vegetative Filter Strips See Filter Strip.

Viable Population Population of plants or animals that has estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area.

Watershed The entire area that contributes to a drainage or stream.

Weeds A plant species that is undesirable in its current location.

Wetland Geographic areas characteristically supporting hydrophytes, hydric (wet) soils, and some saturation or flooding during the growing season.

Wildlife All non-domesticated mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in a natural environment, including game species and non- game species. Animals, or their progeny (i.e., feral animals -

184

including horses, burros, and hogs), that once were domesticated, but escaped captivity, are not considered wildlife.

Wildlife Openings An administratively designated development constructed and maintained to improve wildlife habitat. Areas designated as managed wildlife openings may include cereal grain plantings, warm season grass plantings, legume plantings, old fields successional lands, or native herbaceous open lands.

Woodland A plant community in which trees are often small, characteristically with a greater proportion of their total height being crown more so than clear bole, and having trees spaced far enough apart that the canopies of adjacent trees usually do not touch, and with ground vegetation being mostly herbaceous, commonly grass.

Xeric Site Type Representative of extremely dry soil conditions and relatively poor soils. See Section 3.2 of the FEIS for a full description.

185 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

6.0 APPENDICES 6.1 Vegetation Resources Appendix Maps of the existing conditions (Figures 1 & 2), proposed action alternative, and the alternative to eliminate traditional row crops and substantially reduce pesticide use are available on the Internet at http://www.lbl.org/LRMPProjects.html.

Acreages in this appendix are estimates that may vary slightly upon implementation. Acreages in the body of this EA are rounded from these estimates.

Detailed Descriptions of Grassland Cover Community Types

Grassland cover types include structure types classified as maintained open lands, old fields, hay fields, road and utility ROWs. In the following paragraphs, each structure type is discussed in general terms LBL-wide and then specifically for the project area. Maps illustrating the distribution of grassland can be found in the appendix, and can be viewed in more detail on LBL’s website.

Maintained Open Lands Maintained open lands are maintained in early successional grasses and forbs. Maintained open lands do not receive frequent soil disturbance and therefore are classified as grasslands. They are located primarily along roadsides; within facility boundaries, and generally in areas where landscape, soil conditions, or other management considerations limit cultivation frequency. These open lands are established and maintained through occasional disking, mowing, burning, seeding, and/or herbicide application. They provide for species viability, wildlife viewing, conservation education, hunting, and scenic diversity. There are approximately 1,750 acres of grasslands LBL- wide categorized as maintained open lands, and can include native warm season grasses.

Project Area - There are approximately 700 acres of maintained open lands in the General Forest prescription area scattered across LBL that range in size from less than one acre to 22 acres, with an average size of one acre. Some of the maintained open lands along roadsides are primarily comprised of fescue due to ROW establishment. Fescue was historically planted in most of these areas because of its ability to form a dense sod and stabilize soils and its value as a forage grass. Others contain a variety of desirable species, as well as invasive species.

Maintained open lands along LBL’s major paved roads (adjoining the ROW) including The Trace, Fort Henry Road, Silver Trail, Mulberry Flat Road, and Highway 68/80 are mowed once per year in October. Deferring mowing until this time allows for vegetation diversity while providing wildlife habitat, scenic viewing opportunities, and desirable vegetation species to reseed. All other maintained open lands may be mowed annually or once every two to three years depending on location, woody species encroachment, and

186

needs for wildlife habitat diversity, visibility, and safety. Additionally, they may also be occasionally disked, burned, seeded, and/or treated with herbicides for exotic species.

Maintained Open Land - Warm Season Grass Restoration Project Area - Included in the group of maintained open land acreage in the Area Plan FEIS are those open lands that have been restored to native warm season grasses and forbs. There are currently about 550 acres classified in this category and most are located in contiguous blocks on the landscape. There are about 93 fields in warm season grasses and forbs; they range in size from < 1 to 34 acres with an average size of 5.6 acres. Plant species may include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii); little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium); Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans); side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula); Eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides); switchgrass (Panicum virgatum); purple-top (Triodia flava); and an array of forb species such as partridge pea (Cassia fasciculate), Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis) and numerous aster species.

“The grasses and forbs provide nesting, brood rearing, loafing, escape, and roosting cover. Native grasses provide a one-to-three foot ground cover that holds up throughout the winter, even during heavy snowfall or sleet. This cover has an insulating effect which is extremely important to most wildlife species. The growth pattern of native grasses provides a high percentage of bare ground-necessary for many birds without causing soil erosion problems. The bare areas provide dusting spots and ease of movement, thereby reducing the energy wildlife must spend in search of seed and pursuit of insects. Native grass plantings help concentrate insects, providing an important food source for wildlife; insects provide high protein young birds require.” (Missouri Conservation Commission 1980)

The establishment of warm season grasses has been attempted with and without the use of herbicides. Establishment with herbicides usually involves herbicide application prior to seeding with no-till drill, and one or more follow-up treatments in subsequent years. Without the use of herbicides, establishment has involved prescribed burning, mowing, and/or disking prior to using a no-till drill to plant the seed. Fields not burned were mowed, disked, and seeded with a cultipack seeder for good seed-to-soil contact. Warm season grass establishment without herbicides in 2006 met very limited success due to competition with invasive species (Project Record, Vegetation Resources Specialist Reports; Field Condition Inspections 2007: Field numbers 72, 78 and 79). The vegetation composition including invasive species inventoried in 2006 for warm season grass open lands are listed in the project record under Vegetation Resources Specialist Reports; 2006 Inventories.

Warm season grass fields are maintained primarily with the use of prescribed fire or periodic mowing prior to August 31. Mowing after this date is not recommended because it encourages cool season grass invasion from species such as fescue. Between June 1 and August 30, entire fields may be mowed, or they may be mowed or disked in strips. Mowing an entire field is not as desirable as prescribed burning or haying because heavy build up of dead plant material from mowing can suffocate new growth. Mowing

187 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

of warm season grass fields is done during the mid-summer months and prior to seed production to help control invasive species such as Johnson grass and Sericea lespedeza.

Strips may be mowed or disked on rotation in warm season grass open lands to provide open areas for wildlife species to forage on young vegetation and create diverse habitat conditions. The mowed or disked strips are long and linear and at least 15 feet wide. The strips follow the contour of the land and are separated by un-mowed or disked strips 2-3 times the width of the mowed or disked area. Where strips are disked the ground is disked 4-6 inches deep. Disking is done in such a manner that provides 40-70% bare soil equally distributed throughout the area of disturbance.

Cool and Warm Season Grass Hay Fields Hay fields are grasslands dominated by grasses and forbs that are annually mowed. Hay fields are established and maintained by mowing, burning, disking, seeding, fertilizing, and liming by local farmers, usually under special use permits. The majority of hay fields are in cool season grasses; however, some have been converted to native warm season grasses and forbs. The green forage growing in these hay fields is available for wildlife consumption year-round. Hay fields provide food and cover for wildlife, hay for LBL’s bison and elk herds, scenic diversity, wildlife viewing, and hunting, and have been maintained at a minimal cost to the Forest Service (cost of administering permits). Native grasses and forbs also provide for species viability and conservation education. There are approximately 1,530 acres of grasslands categorized as cool and warm season grass hay fields LBL-wide relative to the Area Plan. Grass is not cut from hay fields until after June 1 of each year in order to protect ground nesting birds and other wildlife species using these fields in early spring.

Project Area - There are total of 1,390 acres in cool and warm season grass hayfields. This includes about 227 cool season grass hay fields (1,140 acres) that range in size from 0.2 to 38 acres with an average size of 5 acres, and there are about 42 fields (250 acres) in warm season grass hay fields that range in size from 0.5 to 55 acres with an average size of 5.8 acres. Entire portions of all fields are mechanically disturbed (e.g. mowed) at least once every 2 years.

The recommended minimum height for cutting warm season grass is eight inches to provide preferred habitat for most grassland birds (Missouri Conservation Commission, 1980) and for reptiles and amphibians (Bailey et al. 2006). Prescribed fire is another tool used to manage warm season grass hay fields for removal of woody vegetation and controlling invasive species (fescue) and vegetation build up on the soil surface. There are increasing amounts of Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza and other exotic species in

188

many hay fields. The increasing amount of invasive species is due to non-use of herbicides in the fields over the past 7 years except where cool season grass hayfields were converted to warm season hayfields in 2005. Each year the cooperative farmers are required to provide the Forest Service with information on what pesticides have been applied to the acreage that they are farming. There are no records of pesticide application to cool grasses (Project Record Specialist Reports for Herbicide Use on Row Crops 1999- 2001 and Annual Pesticide Reports in FSEE et al. v. USFS). The pesticides used in the conversion of the cool season grass hayfields to warm season grass hayfields are filed in the project record under Vegetation Resources Specialist Reports; Open Lands Contracts 2005. A list of invasive species occurring within and around the perimeter of cool and warm season grass hayfields is in the project record under Vegetation Resources Specialist Reports; 2006 Inventories.

Old Fields Old fields are grasslands dominated by grasses and forbs, but do not meet the definition of native grasslands and are not regularly cut for hay. Old fields are representative of low level maintenance fields scattered across LBL. These areas are maintained primarily by mowing, low frequency disking, or burning on a 2-3 year cycle, and may include shrub species. This field type includes a variety of grass and forb species and is quickly invaded by woody species such as sumac, persimmon, sycamore, sassafras, and cedar on poor land capability sites as described in Section 3.2. Invasive species also become prevalent on these sites when the canopy is fairly open. A list of invasive species found to occur within old fields and around their perimeters in 2006 are in the project record under Vegetation Resources Specialist Reports; 2006 Field Inventories. Old fields provide for species viability, wildlife viewing, conservation education, hunting, and scenic diversity. The total number of old field acres for the project area is the same as LBL-wide acres. There are about 93 old fields (190 acres) that range in size from 0.2 acres to 12 acres with an average size of 2 acres. These acres differ considerably from the Area Plan as recent inventories have shown a number of old fields reverted to forest through lack of maintenance, and other acres were designated as core areas and no longer receive maintenance.

Road ROWs Management of the road ROWs is not part of this decision as no changes are planned, but road ROW’s are included in the Area Plan as part of the total grassland acres, and will be addressed in the cumulative effects analysis of this EA. The road ROWs are a grassland type that includes all open land within 16 feet of each roadside shoulder along major paved roads. ROWs are generally less than 16 feet to nearly non-existent on the narrower gravel or dirt surface roads. The road ROWs are maintained by mowing, primarily for visibility and safety. The frequency of mowing varies, with the main roads being mowed more frequently than roads which receive less use. The road ROWs along the major paved roads (which were identified under maintained open lands discussion) are mowed 2-4 times per year at a minimum height of 3 inches. There are approximately 1,500 acres of open lands classified as road ROWs on LBL.

189 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Utility ROWs Management of the utility ROWs is not part of this decision as no changes are planned, but is included in the Area Plan as part of the total grassland acres, and would be addressed in cumulative effects analysis in this EA. There are approximately 750 acres of utility ROW easements on LBL. Utility ROW easements are held and managed by utility companies for maintenance of electric utilities and underground gas pipelines on LBL. The utility ROW easements are maintained primarily by mowing on a 1-5year cycle. The gas utility ROWs are mowed annually, whereas the powerline ROWs are mowed less frequently. These open lands have a wide variety of vegetation species that include grasses and forbs, and an abundance of sapling trees and shrubs depending on frequency of mowing.

Detailed Descriptions of Cultivated Cover Community Types

Cultivated community types include wildlife plantings and croplands. In the following paragraphs, each type would be discussed specifically relative to the project area being considered in Alternatives 2 and 3. Cultivated lands will provide an especially important food source for wildlife in years like 2007 as both soft and hard mast (especially acorns) are scarce due to a late spring freeze followed by summer drought.

Wildlife Plantings Wildlife plantings are open lands planted annually or on a longer rotation to provide supplemental food and cover for wildlife, and wildlife viewing opportunities. These are generally small fields planted and maintained through contracts. There are approximately 1,460 acres in 513 fields classified as wildlife plantings across LBL, all of which are in the General Forest Prescription Area and considered as part of this project. The openings range in size from 0.2 to 22 acres. The average size opening is 3 acres. Those wildlife plantings less than one acre in size are located close to other fields that receive similar treatment.

Wildlife plantings are currently established using conventional tillage. Spring wildlife plantings are established annually between April 1 and May 1, whereas fall wildlife plantings are established between August 15 and September 30. Spring wildlife plantings provide wildlife food sources from spring through winter, and fall wildlife plantings provide a wildlife forage source throughout the year. Spring wildlife plantings are usually annual forages whereas fall wildlife plantings are generally perennials that would persist for about 3 years with maintenance, such as periodic mowing. Spring and fall plantings are often rotated among fields designated for wildlife plantings.

Spring wildlife plantings may be planted in single species or various mixtures that may contain plants such as milo, millet, iron-clay cowpeas, Korean lespedeza, corn, forage soybeans, sunflowers, clovers, or other desirable nonnative, non-invasive forage species. Past spring plantings through the 1999 planting season and under TVA management received herbicide applications. However, herbicides have not been used on wildlife plantings during the past 7 years because a determination was made that they were not covered by site-specific NEPA. The types of species established in spring wildlife

190

plantings have changed over the years due to competition from invasive species (Project Record, Vegetation Resources Specialist Report; Spring and Fall Wildlife Seed Varieties Planted).

In recent years, many spring wildlife plantings have failed to produce the desired grains and forage without the use of herbicides to help control invasive or other weed species. Many spring wildlife plantings have been 90% out-competed by invasive species, primarily Johnson grass, Sericea lespedeza, and foxtail species. Invasive species that occur within spring wildlife plantings have been recorded during field inspections when determining the success of the plantings and in the 2006 open lands inventories (project record, Vegetation Resources Specialist Reports: Non-Coop Open Land Contract Inspections 2001-2007 and 2006 Inventories).

Establishment of spring and fall wildlife plantings usually begins with mowing the field prior to tillage. Spring planting may involve annual disking, seeding, and application of lime and fertilizer. In 2006, fertilizer rates for spring wildlife plantings were 50 pounds each per acre of actual nitrogen, phosphate, and potash; and fall wildlife plantings received 100 pounds per acre of 9-23-30 fertilizer. To be successful, a single herbicide application needs to be made at the time of planting or shortly thereafter to spring wildlife plantings. Fall wildlife plantings can be successfully established without herbicides unless there is an abundance of exotic invasive species which need treatment.

Approximately every 3-5 years lime is applied to fields designated for wildlife plantings at a rate of 2 tons per acre to increase the pH of the soil. Open lands limed and disked in the fall can provide improved wildlife forage and cover the following year even if not planted. The new vegetation growth provides forage for deer and a place for species such as the eastern wild turkey to forage on insects that are associated with the new vegetation.

The combination of spring and fall wildlife plantings provide wildlife food and cover year-round, but especially during fall and winter months. Wildlife plantings also provide scenic diversity; enhance wildlife viewing, conservation education, and hunting opportunities.

Croplands Croplands are open lands cultivated for traditional row crops. Croplands on LBL are managed on a share-crop basis in a similar manner to croplands on national wildlife refuges (Project Record, Vegetation Resources in IDT Concerns). The Forest Service administers croplands by authorization of two special use permits, with a 20% share of

191 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

the crop made available for wildlife consumption. Croplands provide a supplemental food source for wildlife, increased recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, environmental education, and hunting, and maintain open land at a minimal cost to the Forest Service (cost of administering special use permits). Croplands will provide an especially important winter food source for wildlife in years like 2007 as acorns are scarce due to a late spring freeze and summer drought.

According to the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2700 (FSM 2722 Agriculture) it is appropriate to have agricultural permits for croplands on National Recreation Areas. Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 Chapter 10, section 12.32A directives and 36 CFR 251.54 has been followed and permits are consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and policies governing National Forest System lands, Federal law and with applicable State and local health and sanitation laws. Further, agricultural practices do support the LBL Mission and there are a number of state and federal agencies, local businesses, partner organizations, media, and educational facilities that have long endorsed these practices on LBL (Project Record, Vegetation in IDT Concerns).

There are approximately 2,640 acres on 335 cultivated fields classified as row crops on LBL. The fields range in size from 0.5 to 68 acres. The average size for a row crop field is 8 acres.

The cropland acres under permit have been managed to maintain or improve productivity of the soil for desired crops by applying fertilizer and lime. Soils tests are required to determine fertilizer and lime needs and have been done annually. Soil test results are provided in the project record under the Soils and Water Specialist Reports; Soils Analysis. Lime has been applied to cropland fields about every 4 years by the permit holders.

The application of approved pesticides on croplands is kept to the minimum required, and implemented according to standards in the Area Plan and as specified in the permit for each cooperative farmer. Examples of problematic species that occur in the croplands are: sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), pigweeds (Amaranthus spp), common morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), broadleaf signal grass (Urochloa platyphylla), burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus), crabgrass (Digitaria adscendens), copperleaf (Acalypha ostryifolia), and Mare’s tail or horseweed (Conyza canadensis).

192

Prior to harvest, the Forest Service evaluates the amount of wildlife depredation to standing crops, to determine how much and where to leave the balance of the 20% wildlife share. In some years of poor mast production, the Forest Service has bartered with permittees to leave a greater share (Project Record, Vegetation Resources Specialist Report; Mast Crop Production and Grain Purchase). The monitoring results of mast crop production in LBL, 1980 to 2006 is given in Appendix 6.4.1 Table A1.

• It is not native (i.e. alien) to the ecosystem under consideration; and • Its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Invasive species threaten the sustainability of our forest ecosystems regionally, nationally, and globally. They threaten natural diversity; habitat for fish, wildlife, native plants, soil stability, and ecosystem processes. The financial impact from invasive species infestation in the U.S. alone has been estimated at $138 billion per year in total economic damages and associated control costs. The goal of the U.S. Forest Service invasive species program is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species across all landscapes and ownerships. It is our intent to control invasive species where possible or necessary on LBL and to prevent introduction of new invasive species.

Invasive plant species may be dispersed by natural agents such as wind, water, wildlife, and intentionally or unintentionally by humans. Invasive species have been present on LBL since before LBL became a national recreation area. Open land habitat diversity on LBL has been adversely affected by invasive species and productivity and recreational benefits of open lands have been degraded with invasion of undesirable vegetation.

193 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

Reduction of invasive species in open lands (primarily fescue, Johnson grass, and Sericea lespedeza) increases the likelihood that desirable plant communities would dominate open land sites and successfully complete their life cycles. Removing invasive species eliminates competition for nutrients, space, and water, increasing the likelihood that desirable plants would be successful in producing normal amounts of foliage and seed.

Integrated pest management practices including mowing, disking, burning, and proper timing of planting can help to manage invasive species. Pesticide applications can be needed in addition to other IPM practices.

The 2006 LBL field inventories documented non-native invasive species along field borders, including the borders of riparian corridors. Sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle and Napalese browntop were noted along agriculture field edges that border riparian corridor areas. Removal of NNIS from open lands would reduce source material to the riparian corridors. Increasing widths of riparian corridors will promote forest habitat. Shade emanating from forest stands may reduce the occurrence of several NNIS, particularly those with high light requirements such as honeysuckle (Nyboer 1990). Sericea lespedeza and Napalese browntop are shade tolerant and would continue to thrive under forest canopy in riparian corridors (Ohlenbusch and Bidwell 2001, Tu 2000). These studies recommend integrated pest management practices including pesticides as control measures.

6.1.1 Table-A1

Appendix 6.1.1 Table-A1. Existing Cover Type Structure acres by site type considered in the Continued Maintenance of Open Lands on LBL Cover Type Site Type Acres and Structure Xeric Dry Dry- Mesic Alluvial Grand Mesic Total Grasslands 108 836 847 313 720 2824 Maintained Open 75 291 164 52 113 695 Land Cool and Warm 27 314 402 172 474 1389 Season Grass Hay fields Old fields 4 67 71 15 32 189 Warm Season 2 164 210 74 101 551 Grass and Forbs Cultivation 38 446 810 1004 1799 4097 Croplands 0 17 357 852 1412 2638 Wildlife Plantings 38 429 453 152 387 1459 Total Acres by 146 1282 1657 1317 2519 6921 Site Type

194

6.1.1 Table A2

Appendix 6.1.1 Table A2 – Nonnative Invasive species known to occur on Land Between The Lakes Note: This table is in Area Plan FEIS as Table 3.2.11A. Common Name Scientific Name Abelia Abelia grandiflora Common yarrow Achillea millefolium Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Mimosa Albizia julibrissim Wild garlic Allium vineale Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus Small carpgrass Arthraxon hispidus Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii Flowering quince Chaenomelis jabonica Crown vetch Coronilla varia Queen Ann’s lace Daucus carota Smooth crabgrass Digitaria ischaemum Hairy crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata Japanese siltgrass Eulalia viminea Climbing euonymus Euonymus fortunei Tall fescue Festuca elatior Yellowbells Forsythia suspensa Yellowbells Forsythia viridissima Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea Orange daylily Hemerocallis fulva Shrubby lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata Common lespedeza Lespedeza striata Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense European privet Ligustrum vulgare Bush honeysuckle Lonicera bella Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Nepal grass Microstegium vimineum Princess tree Paulownia tomentosa Beefsteak plant Perilla frutescens White pine Pinus strobis Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Smartweed Polygonum sp White poplar Populus alba Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Giant foxtail Setaria faberi Green bristlegrass Setaria viridis Johnson grass Sorghum halpense Bridal wreath Spiraea spp White clover Trifolium repens Large periwinkle Vinca major Common periwinkle Vinca minor Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis Cocklebur Xanthium commune

195 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

6.1.1 Table A3

Appendix 6.1.1 Table-A3. Combined list of invasive plant species associated with open areas; identified by: Region 8 Regional Forester, Kentucky and Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Councils and Special Use Permittees. RF1=Regional Forester's Category 1 Species, RF2=Regional Forester's Category 2 Species, KYSe=Kentucky Severe Threat, KYSi=Kentucky Significant Threat, TNSe=Tennessee Severe Threat, TNSi=Tennessee Significant Threat

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code AIAL Ailanthus altissima / Tree of RF1, KYSe, TNSe Low priority Disturbed soils, fields, heaven roadsides, fence rows, woodland edges, forest openings, and rocky areas. It thrives in poor soils and tolerates pollution. It is not found in wetlands or shaded areas.

AKQU Akebia quinata / Chocolate KYSi Not a priority (Found Shade and drought tolerant and vine near old homesite near can invade many types of North Info. Center) habitats. ALJU Albizia julibrissin / Silktree RF1, KYSi, TNSe Intermediate priority Disturbed areas, full sun, roadsides and open vacant lots in urban/suburban areas. It can become a serious problem along riparian areas, where it becomes established along scoured shores and where its seeds are easily transported in water. Wide range of soil conditions.

196

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code ALPE4 Alliaria petiolata / Garlic RF1, KYSe, TNSe Not presently known Most frequently in moist, shaded mustard from LBL soil of river floodplains, forests, roadsides, edges of woods, trails edges and forest openings, disturbed areas, associated with calcareous soils, does not tolerate high acidity. ALVI Allium vineale / Wild garlic RF2 Intermediate to high Turf, waste places, and fields priority either fallow or cultivated with small grains or hay fields, river flood plains. AMBR7 Ampelopsis RF2 Not presently known Forest edges, pond margins, brevipedunculata / from LBL stream banks, thickets, and Porcelainberry (Amur waste places, full sun to partial peppervine) shade, well drained soil. ARMI2 Arctium minus / Lesser KYSi Low priority Woodland edges, savannas, burdock (Common burdock) thickets, pastures, edges of fields, weedy meadows, roadsides, vacant lots, waste places, barnyards, and fence rows. ARVU Artemisia vulgaris / Mugwort TNSi Not a priority Railroads, edges of woods, (Common wormwood) roadsides, gardens, fields, prairie restorations, woodland thickets, waste places, and barnyards. ARHI3 Arthraxon hispidus / Small RF2, KYSi, TNSi Intermediate priority, Pastures, lawns, and open carpgrass roadsides ground. BETH Berberis thunbergii / RF1, KYSi, TNSi Not a priority Part sun to shade, woodland Japanese barberry edges, roadsides, fences, old fields.

197 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code BRAR5 Bromus arvensis (Syn. TNSi Intermediate priority Roadsides, fence row, Bromus japonicus) / Field (Difficult to tell these meadows, waste places, and brome (Japanese five species apart, cultivated fields. Well-drained bromegrass) prioritize all equally soil, low lands subject to except for BRIN2.) flooding, sloping gravelly soils. BRIN2 Bromus inermis / Smooth RF2, KYSe Low priority, roadsides Grassed waterways, field brome borders. BRRA2 Bromus racemosus (Syn. TNSi Intermediate priority Range lands, pastures, prairies, Bromus commutatus) / Bald fields, waste areas, eroded brome (Meadow brome) sites, and roadsides. BRSE Bromus secalinus / Rye TNSi Intermediate priority Rangelands, pastures, prairies, brome fields, waste areas, eroded sites, and roadsides. BRTE Bromus tectorum / Cheat TNSi Intermediate priority Range lands, pastures, prairies, grass (Thatch bromegrass) fields, waste areas, eroded sites, and roadsides. CANU4 Carduus nutans / Musk RF2, KYSe, TN Si Intermediate to High Disturbed areas, pastures, thistle (Nodding plumelss priority meadows, prairies, grassy thistle) balds, open areas, ditch banks. CEOR7 Celastrus orbiculatus / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Not presently known Forest edges, woodlands, early Oriental bittersweet from LBL succession fields, hedge rows, coastal areas and salt marsh edges, roadsides, old homesites, thickets, alluvial woods, open sunny sites and shade tolerant.

198

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code CESTM Centaurea stoebe L. ssp. RF2, KYSi, TNSi Low priority, roadsides Sunny habitats, dry gravelly Micranthos (Syn Centaurea soils, roads and railroads, waste bierbersteinii, Centaurea places, thickets, fence row, maculosa) / Spotted pastures, lake dunes, sandy knapweed ridges, and cultivated fields.

CIAR4 Cirsium arvense / Canadian RF2, KYSe, TNSi Not presently known Barrens, glades, meadows, thistle from LBL prairies, fields, pastures, waste places, disturbed upland areas, wet areas with fluctuating water levels such as stream bank sedge meadows and wet prairies, clay to gravely soils.

CIVU Cirsium vulgare / Bull thistle RF2, TNSi Low to Intermediate Recently or repeatedly disturbed priority areas such as pastures, overgrazed rangelands, recently burned forests, forest clear-cuts, roads, ditches, and fences, dry and wet soils. CLTE4 Clematis terniflora / Sweet TNSi Not a priority Roots in shade, foliage in the autumn virginsbower sun, thickets, wood edges, (Leatherleaf clematis) stream banks. COMA2 Conium maculatum / Poison KYSe, TNSi Low priority Edges of degraded wetlands hemlock and prairies; low-lying areas along small rivers, railroads, and roads; banks of drainage ditches, thickets, waste places, abandoned fields, pastures, woodland borders.

199 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code DACA6 Daucus carota / Queen KYSi, TNSi High priority Roadsides, railroad Anne's Lace (Wild Carrot) embankments, meadows, thickets, pastures, clearcuts, waste places, gardens, open fields. DIERV Diervilla (Syn. Lonicera x TNSe Low priority Shade intolerant, most often bella Zabel) / Bush occur forest edge, abandoned honeysuckle field, pasture, roadsides, and other open, upland habitat. Disturbed woodlands. Capable of invading bogs, fens, lakeshores, sandplains.

DIOP Dioscorea oppositifolia (Syn. RF1, KYSe, TNSe Intermediate to High Forests, stream sides, Dioscorea batatas) / priority, Thick woods roadsides, fence row, waste Chinese Yam edges places, old homesites. Rich alluvial soils along streams, seasonal creeks and rivers. Can tolerate semi-xeric sites with rocky soils, sun to part shade. DIFU2 Dipsacus fullonum (Syn. KYSi, TNSi Not a priority Mesic prairies (especially Dipsacus sylvestris) / cemetery prairies), degraded Fuller's teasel (Common grassy meadows, savannas, teasel) woodland borders, pastures and abandoned fields, roadsides and waste areas. DILA4 Dipsacus laciniatus / Cutleaf TNSi Not presently known Mesic cemetery prairies, teasel from LBL savannas, roadsides, weedy meadows along rivers, pastures, and waste areas.

200

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code ELAN Elaeagnus angustifolia / RF2 Intermediate to High Fields, open areas, grasslands, Russian olive priority (Taxonomy stream banks, lakeshores, between the three roadsides, sandy and bare species confusing, mineral soils. Seedlings tolerant consider all three of shade. equally) ELPU2 Elaeagnus pungens / RF2, TNSe Intermediate to High Variety of soils, full sun to light Thorny olive priority shade, drought tolerant, may invade grasslands and sparse woodlands. Disturbed areas, roadsides, pastures, fields. ELUM Elaeagnus umbellata / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Intermediate to High Variety of soils, full sun to light Autumn olive priority shade, drought tolerant, may invade grasslands and sparse woodlands. Disturbed areas, roadsides, pastures, fields. ELIN3 Eleusine indica / Goose KYSi Intermediate priority Typical weed of disturbed urban grass (Indian goosegrass) areas. Turf, pastures, waste places, gardens, roadsides, and fallow and cultivated fields.

ERCU2 Eragrostis curvula / RF2 Very low priority Any type of well-drained soil, Weeping lovegrass (Planted on road prefers sandy loam. banks) Grasslands. EUAL13 Euonymus alatus / Winged KYSe, TNSi Not presently known Shade tolerant, forests, coastal burningbush (winged from LBL scrublands and prairies. euonymus) EUFO5 Euonymus fortunei / Winter RF1, KYSe, TNSe Low priority Full sun to dense shade, natural creeper (Climbing forest openings resulting from euonymus) wind throw, insect defoliation or fire, vulnerable to invasion. Old homesites and adjoining forests.

201 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code GLHE2 Glechoma hederacea / KYSi Low priority Openings of floodplain forests, Ground ivy semi-shaded areas along rivers, utility clearances in woodland areas, cemeteries, lawns, and waste places, rich shaded areas by dwellings and fields.

HEHE Hedera helix /English ivy RF2, TNSe, KYSi Low priority Open forests, forest edges, fields, hedge rows, coastal areas, salt marsh edges, other upland areas where soil moisture is present. Shade tolerant but adapts to higher light levels with maturity. Avoids wet areas.

HEMA3 Hesperis matronalis / TNSi Not presently known Moist woodlands, woodland Dame's rocket from LBL edges, roadsides, and open areas. IPHE Ipomoea hederacea / Ivy- KYSi Low to Intermediate to Roadsides, waste places, turf, leafed morning glory High priority in pastures, gardens, fence row, Agronomic fields fallow and cultivated fields. IPPU2 Ipomoea purpurea / Purple KYSi Low to Intermediate to Roadsides, railroad morning glory (tall morning- High priority in embankments, gardens, turf, glory) Agronomic fields waste places, fence row, pastures, fallow and cultivated fields. KUST2 Kummerowia stipulacea RF2, KYSi Intermediate priority Waste places, roadsides, (Syn. Kummerowia Striata, grasslands, mountain slopes, Lespedeza stipulacea, stable or semi-stable sand Lespedeza striata) / Korean dunes. or Japanese clover

202

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code LEBI2 Lespedeza bicolor / Bicolor KYSi, TNSi Very high priority (If Does not tolerate poorly drained lespedeza (Shrub found recommended to sites. Forest openings into lespedeza) cut down and apply adjoining stands, shade tolerant, Round-up herbicide on spread encouraged by burning. the stump. Found near Bear Creek on Bluffs along Cumberland River. Check fields 1414, 1402, 1405, 1400, 1393, and 1384 for this species.)

LECU Lespedeza cuneata / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very High priority Open areas, new and older Sericea lespedeza (Chinese forest openings, dry upland lespedeza) woodlands to moist savannas, old fields, right-of-ways, and cities. Flood tolerant. LEVU Leucanthemum vulgare KYSi High priority Roadsides, fields, pastures, (Syn. Chrysanthemum waste places, clearcuts, and leucanthemum) / Ox-eye meadows. daisy LIJA Ligustrum japonicum / RF1, TNSi Intermediate to High Stream sides, fence rows, Japanese privet priority roadsides, and forest edges, old fields. LISI Ligustrum sinense / Chinese RF1, KYSe, TNSe Intermediate to High Grows best in mesic soils in privet priority abundant sunlight, but can tolerate part shade. Stream sides, fence rows, roadsides, and forest edges, old fields. LIVU Ligustrum vulgare / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Intermediate to High Stream sides, fence rows, European privet priority roadsides, and forest edges, old fields.

203 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code LOFR Lonicera fragrantissima / RF1, TNSe Very low priority Shade intolerant, most often Sweet breath of spring occur forest edge, abandoned field, pasture, roadsides, and other open, upland habitat. Disturbed woodlands. LOJA Lonicera japonica / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very high priority Most often occur forest edge, Japanese honeysuckle abandoned field, pasture, roadsides, and other open, upland habitat. Disturbed woodlands. LOMA6 Lonicera maackii / Amur RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very low priority Shade intolerant, most often honeysuckle occur forest edge, abandoned field, pasture, roadsides, and other open, upland habitat. Disturbed woodlands. LOMO2 Lonicera morrowii / Morrow's RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very low priority Shade-intolerant, most often honeysuckle occur forest edge, abandoned field, pasture, roadsides, and other open, upland habitat. Disturbed woodlands. Capable of invading bogs, fens, lakeshores, sandplains.

LOTA Lonicera tatarica / Tatarican RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very low priority Shade intolerant, most often honeysuckle occur forest edge, abandoned field, pasture, roadsides, and other open, upland habitat. Disturbed woodlands.

204

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code LYNU Lysimachia nummularia / TNSi Low priority Moist ground, seeps, fens, Moneywort, Creeping Jenny ditches, woodland borders, thickets, moist areas of black soil prairies, cemeteries, edges of lawns, roadsides. LYSA2 Lythrum salicaria / Purple RF1, KYSe, TNSe Not presently known Wetlands such as freshwater loosestrife from LBL wet meadows, tidal and non- tidal marshes, river and stream banks, pond edges, reservoirs, and ditches. MABE2 Mahonia beali / Beale's TNSi Not presently known Escaped cultivation, persistent barberry (Oregon grape) from LBL around old homesites. MEAZ Melia azedarach / RF2 Not presently known Roadsides, forest margins, open Chinaberry tree from LBL areas, clearings, and near dwellings. Tolerant of dry soil and part shade.

MEOF Melilotus officinalis (Syn. KYSe, TNSi High priority Limestone glades, thinly Melilotus alba) / Yellow wooded bluffs, prairies, weedy sweet clover, White sweet meadows, old fields, vacant lots, clover areas along roads and railroads, and waste areas. Invades prairies. Fire can enhance germ. rates and seedling establishment.

MEPI Menta piperata / Peppermint KYSi Low priority Shores, wet meadows, roadsides.

205 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code MIVI Microstegium vimineum / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very High priority Open to shady locations not Japanese stiltgrass, already occupied by other Nepalese browntop species, disturbed areas, moist soils. Streambanks, river bluffs, floodplains, emergent and forested wetlands, moist woodlands, early succession fields, uplands, thickets, roadside ditches,utility corridors, home lawns and gardens

MISI Miscanthus sinensis / RF2, TNSi, KYSe Not a priority (Old Full sun and moist rich soil that Chinese silver grass, Zebra homesites) drains well. Roadsides, forest grass, plume grass margins, and disturbed sites, disturbed areas that had been burned or cut. MOAL Morus alba / White mulberry KYSi Low priority Moist, well drained loamy soil, full sun, rare in disturbed forest communities. MODI4 Mosla dianthera / Minature KYSi Not presently known Wetlands. beefsteak from LBL MUKE Murdannia keisak / TNSi Not presently known Damp soil at the edge of Wartremoving herb (Asian from LBL freshwater tidal marshes, spiderwort) around ponds and along slow moving streams. NADO Nandina domestica / RF2, TNSi Not presently known Shade tolerant, forest canopies Heavenly Bamboo (Sacred from LBL and near forest edges, old bamboo) homesites, and floodplains in Florida. ORUM Ornithogalum umbellatum / KYSi Very high priority Poisonous. Roadsides, turf, Sleepydick (Star-of- gardens, fields, and pastures. Bethlehem)

206

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code PATO2 Paulownia tomentosa / KYSi, TNSe Intermediate priority Roadsides, stream banks, and Princess tree (Chinese disturbed habitats, including fire empress-tree) sites, forests defoliated by pests, and landslides, rocky cliffs and scoured riparian zones. PHAU7 Phragmites australis / KYSe, TNSe Not presently known Thrives in sunny wetland Common reed (Giant reed) from LBL habitats. Drier borders and elevated areas of brackish and freshwater marshes and along riverbanks and lakeshores. Prevelant in polluted or disturbed soils. Can grow in water up to 6 feet deep and in somewhat dry sites. Roadsides, ditches, open wetlands, riverbanks, lakeshores, dredged areas.

PITA Pinus taeda / Loblolly pine Not Ranked Intermediate to High Planted on LBL for erosion priority control and wildlife cover. POPR Poa pratensis / Bluegrass KYSi Intermediate priority Uplands and lowlands of tallgrass prairie and in the lowland of mixed grass prairies. Intolerant of drought, excessive flooding, high water table, or poorly drained soil. POCA49 Polygonum caespitosum / RF2, KYSi, TNSi Low priority Roadsides, wet-spots. Oriental lady's-thumb (Asiatic smartweed)

207 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code POCU6 Polygonum cuspidatum / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Low priority Can tolerate a variety of Japanese knotweed adverse conditions including full shade, found near water sources such as along streams and rivers, in low-lying areas, waste places, utility ROWs, and around old home sites. POPE10 Polygonum perfoliatum / RF2 Low priority (Woods) Prefers high light intensity and Mile-a-minute weed (Asiatic moist soil. Open space and tearthumb) disturbed areas, woodland edges, wetlands, streambanks, roadsides, uncultivated open fields, fence row. POAL7 Populus alba / White poplar KYSi, TNSi Low priority Full sun habitats such as fields, forest edges and wetland fringes. PUMO Pueraria montana / Kudzu RF1, KYSe, TNSe Low priority (not Forest edges, abandoned fields, spreading into open roadsides and disturbed areas fields) Intermediate where sunlight is abundant. priority according to E. Raikes. ROMU Rosa multiflora / Multiflora RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very high priority (High Old fields, pastures, prairies, rose occurance) roadsides and open woods. Full and partial sun with well-drained soils. SCPH Schedonorus phoenix (Syn. RF1, KYSe, TNSi Very high priority Fields, forest margins, Lolium arundinaceum, roadsides, ditches, railroad Festuca elatior var. tracks, forest openings, arundinacea) / Tall fescue savannas, and moist disturbed places.

208

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code SCPR4 Schedonorus pratensis TNSi Very high priority Meadows, roadsides, waste (Syn. Festuca pratensis) / places. Meadow fescue SEVA4 Securigera varia (Syn. RF2, KYSe, TNSi Low priority (Spreads Roadsides, open fields, gravel Coronilla varia) / Purple slowly, does not bars along streams, sunny open crownvetch produce seeds.) areas. SEFA Setaria faberi / Japanese KYSi, TNSi High priority Weedy meadows, degraded bristlegrass (Giant foxtail) savannas, gravel bars in rivers, banks of drainage canals, fallow fields, cropland. SEIT Setaria italica / Foxtail TNSi High priority Disturbed sites, roadsides, ditch bristlegrass (Foxtail-millet) banks, fields, pastures, cropland, orchards, vineyards, gardens. SEPU8 Setaria pumila / Yellow TNSi High priority Limestone glades, thinly foxtail wooded bluffs, prairies, weedy meadows, old fields, vacant lots, areas along roads and railroads, and waste areas. SEVI4 Setaria viridis / Green KYSi, TNSi High priority Disturbed sites, roadsides, ditch Bristlegrass (Green foxtail) banks, fields, pastures, cropland, orchards, vineyards, gardens. SOVI2 Solanum viarum / Tropical RF1, TNSe Not presently known Open semi-shaded areas such soda apple from LBL as pastures, ditch banks, roadsides, rec. areas, citrus groves, sugarcane fields, and wet areas of rangeland. Poorly drained and sandy soils, but cannot survive extremely wet soils.

209 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code SOHA Sorghum halepense / RF1, KYSe, TNSe Very high priority Crop fields, pastures, Johnsongrass abandoned fields, ROWs, forest edges, ditches, and wetlands.

SPJA Spiraea japonica / Japanese RF2, TNSe, KYSi Not a priority (Old Along streams and rivers, forest meadowsweet homesites) edges, roadsides, successional fields, and utlity ROWs.

STME2 Stellaria media / Chickweed KYSe Intermediate priority Woodland areas prone to flooding, thickets, cropland and fallow fields, lawns and gardens, nursery plots, areas next to buildings, and waste areas.

TOAR Torilis arvensis / Spreading TNSi Very low priority Thickets, woodland borders, hedge-parsley weedy meadows, areas along railroads and roadsides, gravelly areas along streams, and waste areas. Disturbed habitats preferred, including degraded prairies and woodlands that have been recently logged.

TUFA Tussilago farfara / Coltsfoot TNSi Not presently known Low-lying mesic areas including from LBL stream banks, moist field or pastures, roadsides, and disturbed areas. Can be found in drier sites and in poor soils. Intolerant of shade although it has invaded forests following fire.

210

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code VETH Verbascum thapsus / TNSi Low priority Roadsides, embankments, Common mullein pastures, fence row, waste places, woodland borders, and clear cuts. VEBR2 Verbena brasiliensis / RF1 Not presently known Marshes, hammocks, waste Brazilian vervain from LBL grounds, old fields, disturbed sites, roadsides, railroads. VISA Vicia sativa / Garden vetch TNSi Intermediate to High Waste ground, disturbed sites, priority in agronomic grassy fields, railroads, fields roadsides. VIMI2 Vinca minor / Common TNSi Low priority (Found Found around old homesite periwinkle around graveyards, plantings and scattered in open rarely spreading into to dense canopied forests. open fields) Usually requires part shade and ample moisture. WIFL Wisteria floribunda / RF2, TNSi Low priority Forest edges, roadsides, Japanese wisteria ditches, and ROWs. Full sun, but established vines will persist and reproduce in partial shade. Prefers loamy, deep, and well- drained soil. WISI Wisteria sinensis / Chinese RF2, TNSi Low priority Forest edges, roadsides, wisteria ditches, and ROWs. Full sun, but established vines will persist and reproduce in partial shade. Prefers loamy, deep, and well- drained soil.

211 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code AQUATIC PLANT SPECIES ALPH Alternanthera philoxeroides / RF2, TNSi Low to Intermediate Roots readily along waterways Alligatorweed priority (Not common in and then grows over the water LBL, does not make surface as an anchored floating seeds.) plant. It also grows terrestrially during dry periods. EGDE Egeria densa / Brazilian RF2 Not presently known Cool to warm freshwater ponds, waterweed from LBL lakes, reservoirs, and slowly flowing streams and sloughs. EICR Eichhornia crassipes / RF1 Very low priority (Does Ponds, sloughs, channels, Common water hyacinth not survive the winter) streams, lakes, other still or (Once found at Fenton) slow-moving water. Look for in ponds near or in open lands. HYVE3 Hydrilla verticillata / RF1, TNSi Not presently known Hydrilla is capable of infesting Waterthyme from LBL any freshwater aquatic system. MYAQ2 Myriophyllum aquaticum / TNSi Intermediate priority Typically in water to 1.5m deep. Parrot's feather, Water (Fergueson Springs Tolerates soft to very hard water milfoil near Energy Lake) and a pH range of 5.5 to 9.0. Does not tolerate brackish water. Requires high light conditions. Occurs in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, canals, and ditches. Usually lives in still or slow-moving water, but occasionally in faster-moving water of streams and rivers. MYSP2 Myriophyllum spicatum / RF2, TNSe Intermediate priority Altered waterways, fresh or Eurasian watermilfoil (Spike brackish water of fish ponds, watermilfoil) lakes, slow-moving streams, reservoirs, and canals.

212

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code NAOF Nasturtium officinale (Syn. KYSi, TNSi Low priority Running water, springs, brooks. Rorrippa nasturtium- aquaticum) / Water cress POCR3 Potamogetum crispus / TNSi Not a priority (Found in Commonly found in ponds, Curly pondweed the Tennessee River) lakes, canals, pools and slow moving water of rivers and streams. Grows well in sandy, loamy and clay soils. Prefers acid, neutral and basic soil. Not shade tolerant.

SPECIAL USE PERMITTEES IDENTIFIED INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

ACOS Acalypha ostryifolia / Farmer's Concern Low to Intermediate Roadsides, waste places, Copperleaf priority thickets, and fallow and cultivated fields. AMHY Amaranthus hybridus / Farmer's Concern Low to Intermediate Roadsides, waste places, Smooth Pigweed priority pastures, and fallow and cultivated fields. COCA Conyza canadensis / Mare's Farmer's Concern Low to Intermediate Farmer's, newly disturbed, and Tail priority fallow fields.

SEOB4 Senna obtusifolia / Farmer's Concern Low to Intermediate Abandoned croplands, forest Sicklepod priority edges and roads, other ROWs.

XANTH2 Xanthium / Cocklebur Farmer's Concern Low to Intermediate Roadsides, riverbanks, priority pastures, waste places, mist meadows, fence row, fallow and cultivated fields.

213 Environmental Assessment Continued Maintenance of Open Lands

NRCS Scientific Name Rank LBL Priority* Habitat Type Code * LBL Rank based on meeting between LBL staff and Dr. Edward W. Chester (Professor of Biology at Austin Peay State University, in Clarksville, Tennessee) on June 28, 2006. ).

Regional Forester's Weed Category and Kentucky and Tennessee State Threat Definitions

References Used from www.se-eppc.org/ky/list.htm : Regional Forester's List and Ranking Structure for Invasive Exotic Plant Species of Management Concern, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, May 18, 2001; Kentucky Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Exotic Plant List December 2000; and Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council's Invasive Exotic Pest Plants in Tennessee, 2004.

RF Category 1 Species: These are exotic plant species that are known to be invasive and persistent throughout all or most of their range within the Southern Region. They can spread into and persist in native plant communities and displace native plant species and therefore pose a demonstratable threat to the integrity of the natural plant communities in the Region. The use of Category 1 Species is prohibited on National Forest System Lands. Cooperators and Partners may not establish or encourage Category 1 species for any reason in projects that receive Forest Service funding except in the furtherance of projects,memorandum of understanding, and memorandum of agreement that were in effect on the date of issuance of the Regional Exotic Invasive Plant Species List, or as required for scientific studies designed to further knowledge about invasive species. Efforts to control Category 1 Species are encouraged where practicable. Proposals for exotic, invasive plant species control will receive the highest funding priority when they include Category 1 Species, particularly where native plant communities are threatened. Select among the Category 1 Species for the purposes of compliance with Contract Provisions that address "noxious" weeds (e.g., CT6.36, cf. 2430 Forest Products Director's letter of 18 December 2000).

RF Category 2 Species: These are exotic plant species that are suspected to be invasive or are known to be invasive in limited areas of the Southern Region. Category 2 Species will typically persist in the environment for long periods once established and may become invasive under favorable conditions. Plant species in Category 2 pose a significant risk to the integrity of natural plant communities throughout the Region or in parts of the Region. The establishment or encouragement of Category 2 Species is prohibited in areas where ecological conditions would favor invasiveness and is discouraged elsewhere. Projects that use Category 2 Species should document why no other (noninvasive exotic or native) species will serve the purpose and need. Cooperators and Partners are also discouraged from using Category 2 Species. The Forest botanist, plant ecologist, or Forest noxious weed coordinator (or Regional specialists) should be consulted for alternative native or non invasive exotic species that would serve the purpose and need of the project. Control efforts for Category 2 Species may or may not be necessary to achieve the management objectives of the planning area.

KY Severe Threat Definition: Exotic plant species which possess characteristics of invasive species and spread easily into native plant communities and displace native vegetation; includes species which are or could become widespread in Kentucky.

214

KY Significant Threat Definition: Exotic plant species which possess some invasive characteristics, but have less impact on native plant communities; may have the capacity to invade natural communities along disturbance corridors, or to spread from stands in disturbed areas, but have fewer characteristics of invasive species than those that are a severe threat in Kentucky.

TN Severe Threat Definition: Exotic plant species that possess characteristics of invasive species and spread easily into native plant communities and displace native vegetation.

TN Significant Threat Definition: Exotic plant species that possess characteristics of invasive species but are not presently considered to spread as easily into native plant communities as the Tennessee severe threat species.

215

6.1.2 Generalized Schedule for Corn and Soybean Establishment and Maintenance

Corn and soybeans are established using no-till alternately with conventional or conservation tillage. A generalized schedule of field preparation, establishment, and maintenance is given below for corn and soybeans in LBL.

Corn • March - April: Apply granular fertilizer (primarily phosphorous and potassium, small amount of nitrogen) according to soil test results. If using conventional tillage, incorporate into soil. Apply nitrogen in the form of liquid anhydrous ammonia injected into the soil, usually at about 150 total units of nitrogen per acre. • March - April: If no-till, apply herbicide to manage weed competition and plant corn. The type and amount of herbicide depends on the corn variety and weed species present. If conventional tillage, plant corn and delay herbicide application for about 4-6 weeks until needed. • May - August: Monitor crop for weed and invasive species problems and retreat if necessary. • September: Begin harvesting corn.

In average years, corn fields receive one or two herbicide applications.

Soybeans • April - May: Apply granular fertilizer (primarily phosphorous and potassium, small amount of nitrogen if included in the formulation) according to soil test results. If using conventional tillage, incorporate into the soil and plant soybeans. • April - May: If no-till, apply herbicide to manage weed competition and plant soybeans. The type and amount of herbicide depends on the soybean variety and weed species present. • May - September: Field inspections for weeds and apply herbicide if needed. • Late September - October: Harvest soybeans.

In average years, soybeans receive one to two herbicide applications.

6.1.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs)

1. Conventional tillage may be used in fields with slopes of 2% or less. Conservation tillage shall be used in fields with slopes greater than 2%.

2. Tillage, planting, and other farming operations shall follow contours or be across the predominant slope to reduce erosion and transport of sediment. Work shall not be done when conditions are too wet such that an unacceptable degree of rutting or other damage would result.

216

3. All farming practices should be done from the centerline of the field outward to facilitate wildlife escape out of the field as they move away from equipment.

4. Crop residue shall be maintained on the soil surface until 30 days prior to planting for conventional tillage. For conservation tillage, crop residues shall be maintained at minimum level of 30%. These requirements will enhance wildlife habitat and reduce soil erosion. Crop residues also will provide a valuable food source for wintering wildlife where winter browse is sparse.

5. Soil disturbance and mowing on grasslands categorized as maintained open lands shall be minimized from April through June to protect ground-nesting birds and mammals.

6. Vegetation in areas to be hayed shall be maintained at a minimum height of three inches after haying.

7. The productivity of cultivated fields shall be maintained by applying fertilizer and lime. Soil tests shall be conducted by a reputable soil testing laboratory to determine fertilizer and liming needs.

8. Only approved pesticides and application methods that comply with Area Plan standards shall be used.

9. All area Plan Standards that apply to open lands shall be followed in open land management activities.

6.1.4 Detailed Open Land Acreages

Detailed Open Land Acreages for Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, no open land acres in the project area would be maintained.

Detailed Open Land Acreages for Alternative 2 Proposed Action The overall open lands acres reclassified in this alternative, based on the estimates in Table VR-A1, are 1,403 acres. A description of each project area follows in Table VR-A1. The total cultivated open lands to be reclassified through expansion of riparian corridors and conversion to grasslands would be approximately 1,122 acres. The Area Plan, Goal 5, OBJ5i identifies 1,110 acres to be converted from cultivated land to grassland. Additionally, a total of 281 acres of grasslands would be reclassified with the expansion of riparian corridors.

217

Table VR-A1. Total Acres Reclassified with Implementation of Alternative 2

Acres of Reclassified Open Lands Cover/Structure Current To To Grassland To 68/80 Total Acres Total Type/Project Area Acres Riparian Type and 4-Lane Reclassified Acres Corridor Wetlands Road Remaining ROW Grand Total Acres: 6928* 432 940 31 1403** 5711

Cultivated Types 4097 356 747 19 1122 2975 Croplands/LBL-Wide 2638 215 306 19 540 2098 Wildlife Plantings/ 1459 141 441 582 877 LBL-Wide Grassland Types 2831 76 193 12 281 2736 Maintained Open 695 26 1 27 668 land/ LBL-Wide Highway 68/80 0* 0 186 186 0 4-lane corridor (New Acres) Cool & Warm Season 1389 45 11 56 1333 Grass Hay fields/ LBL-Wide Old Fields/ 189 0 0 189 LBL-Wide Warm Season Grass 551 5 5 546 (Restoration)/ LBL-Wide Non-Old Field 7 7 7 0 Grassland Types (<1 acre) reclassified to an Old Field Grassland Type/ LBL-Wide *Current Acres does not include 186 acres of current upland forest that would be cleared for the Hwy 68/80 expansion and be reclassified as grassland. **The grand total acres reclassified includes 432 acres of open lands in riparian corridors that would eventually grow up into forest and be lost as an open land type. Note: All acreage figures are estimates from geographical information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Actual acres may vary slightly upon implementation.

218

To develop the proposed action, the existing conditions of the open land community types and the riparian corridors were assessed through a GIS, field inventories, and nonirrigated LCC data. All open land types within the General Forest prescription were evaluated for applying the 50-foot and 75-foot intermittent and 100-foot perennial riparian corridors. The size of each open land corridor and the acreage allowed to mature into shrubs and trees within the corridors was determined based on this assessment. Where cultivated open lands were assessed, implementation of the 50-foot and 75-foot riparian corridors was based on the following: size, shape, and location of the open land, and if native grasses or other suitable vegetation could be maintained on a minimum of one-half acre. Cultivated open lands were reclassified to a grassland type if the size or location of the field would make it unsuitable for cultivation after implementation of the riparian corridor. Grassland types in Table VR-A1 remaining in openings that would be less than one acre may be reclassified and managed as old fields. The land capability of open lands was considered to determine suitability for cultivation practices. Nonirrigated LCC data for Kentucky and Tennessee were considered to make this determination (Appendix 6.2.1). Cultivated open land types in LBL would occur on Level 2 and 3 land capability classified open lands, which are suitable for cultivation. Open lands predominately classified in a Level 4 and above were not considered for cultivation and reclassified to a grassland cover type. The only cultivated lands that were reclassified to a grassland cover type based upon land capability class data included a small number of wildlife plantings scattered across LBL. Existing hay fields and old fields were not considered for reclassification to a cultivated open land type because these areas have already been found, through past management, to be better suited to a grassland type. In addition to the above steps, the spatial arrangement of open lands on the landscape was considered with regards to management, cost efficiency, and sustainability in the future, along with meeting LBL’s mission for recreation and EE. Consideration was also given to species of viability concern, opportunities for restoration of the canebrake rare community type, conversion of cultivated lands into warm season grasslands, and management for recreation demand species. A number of wildlife plantings were reclassified to become maintained open lands to reduce open lands management and access maintenance costs in the future, and to protect and enhance habitat for the Regional Forester’s sensitive species. The croplands in the Highway 68/80 corridor would become part of the four lane road corridor. These croplands would be removed from cultivated open lands acreage and converted to riparian corridors and maintained open lands or other grassland type. In the interim, these fields would remain in cultivation until the Highway 68/80 project work is initiated in those fields. The croplands in the southern OGRDA are projected to come out of cultivation and go into grassland types and wetlands. The grassland types would include native warm season grasses and a restored canebrake rare community type. In the interim, the croplands would remain in cultivation until the southern OGRDA project is initiated. Several access roads in the southern OGRDA are proposed under a separate NEPA process to be decommissioned due to poor road conditions. Wildlife plantings along these access roads would be removed from cultivation and reclassified as maintained open lands.

219

The croplands identified in the Brandon Spring Group Center area and adjacent to existing restored native warm season grasses would be converted to native warm season grasses, and the remaining acreage would be classified as maintained open land. Establishment of native warm season grasses and maintained open lands in this area would further expand potential habitat for birds of conservation concern and would contribute toward the Area Plan, Goal 5, OBJ5h and EE opportunities. For the Nature Watch Demonstration Areas (NWDA) designated in the Area Plan, cropland acres in the Barnes Hollow area would be reclassified to become grassland. The open lands adjacent to the South Welcome Station would be reclassified to become maintained open lands. These open lands would continue to be maintained as croplands until specific management action is implemented in the NWDA. Cool season grass hay fields across from the Brandon Spring Group Center entrance would be converted to native warm season grassland type. These fields may continue under cooperative management as hay fields. The total acres proposed for conversion to native warm season grasses in this alternative is approximately 292 acres. When combined with the existing 961 acres in warm season grasses LBL wide, the total acres that would be in native warm season grasses after implementing this alternative would be approximately 1,253 acres. This is within 10% of 1,350 acres projected to be in native warm season grasses in 10 years during implementation of the Area Plan FEIS. The projected acres that could remain in cultivation at the end of 10 years in the Area Plan FEIS are 2,974. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in approximately 2,975 acres in cultivation. Detailed Open land Acreages for Alternative 3 Eliminate Traditional Row-crops and Substantially Decrease Pesticide Use

Alternative 3 eliminates all cropland on LBL. A total of 3,501 acres would be reclassified for this alternative. For the 2,638 acres of cropland, approximately 215 acres would be converted to riparian corridors, and the remaining 2,404 acres would be converted into 1,530 acres of native warm season grasses, 769 acres of wildlife plantings, and 105 acres of other grassland/wetlands. The acres converted from cropland to warm season grasses would occur primarily on the larger sized open lands, and the acres converted to wildlife plantings would occur on the smaller sized open lands. A description of each project area follows in Table VR- A2.

220

Table VR-A2 Total Acres Reclassified with Implementation of Alternative 3

Acres of Reclassified Open lands To Grassland To Type/ To 68/80 Total Cover/Structure Current Riparian Total Acres Wetlands/ 4-Lane Acres Type/Project Area Acres Corridor Reclassified Wildlife Road ROW Remaining

Plantings Grand Total Acres: 6928* 432 3038 31 3501** 3613

Cultivated Types 4097 356 2845 19 3220 877 Croplands LBL-wide 2638 215 2404*** 19 2638 0

Wildlife Plantings 1459 141 441 582 877 LBL-Wide Grassland Types 2831 76 193 12 281 2736 Maintained Open land/ 695 26 1 27 668 LBL-Wide Forest/Highway 68/80 0* 0 186 186 0 4-lane cor. (New Acres) Cool & Warm Season 1389 45 11 56 1333 Grass Hay fields/ LBL-Wide Old Fields/ 189 0 0 189 LBL-Wide Warm Season Grass 551 5 5 546 (Restoration)/ LBL-Wide Non-Old Field 7 7 7 0 Grassland Types (<1 acre) reclassified to an Old Field Grassland Type/ LBL-Wide *Current Acres do not include 186 acres of current upland forest that would be cleared for the Hwy 68/80 expansion and be reclassified as grassland. **The grand total acreage reclassified includes 432 acres of open lands in riparian corridors that would eventually grow up into forest and be lost as an open land type. ***Approximately 1530 acres of cropland would be converted to grassland, 769 acres to wildlife plantings, and 105 acres to other grassland/wetland types. Note: All acreage figures are estimates from geographical information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Actual acres may vary slightly upon implementation.

The total acres proposed for conversion to native warm season grasses in this alternative exceeds the 1,350 acres projected to be established within the first 10 years of Area Plan implementation. The total acres of warm season grasses proposed in this alternative, when added to acres already established, achieves the maximum acres (2,600 acres) projected to be established over the next 50 years in the Area Plan FEIS. For cultivated land, this alternative

221

includes 1,646 acres to remain in wildlife plantings during the first 10 years, compared to 2,974 acres projected to remain in cultivation during the first 10 years in the Area Plan FEIS. The Area Plan FEIS projections include 2,784 acres to be in cultivation in 50 years. The Area Plan FEIS states an ecological optimum of zero for cultivation. This was not intended as an optimum for LBL given LBL’s mission as a National Recreation Area.

6.2 Soil and Water Resources

6.2.1 Land Capabilitiy Classes

For estimating average soil loss, soils were grouped into like Land Capability Classes (LCC). The acceptable soil loss (T factor) for soils located in the Land Between The Lakes ranges from 2 to 5. On average most LCC 2 soils have a T factor of 5 while LCC 3 and above have a T factor of 3.

“Capability classes” the broadest groups are designated by the numbers 1 through 8. The numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use.

The land capability classification of map units shows in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1961). The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management, (restrictions to avoid damage if they are used for row crops are found in the next category – Capability subclass). The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soil, nor do they include possible major reclamation projects.

Classes 1 through 4 are well suited for row crop cultivation. As class number increases the amount of BMPs needed to sustain the productivity of the soil and reduce soil erosion and other limitations increase and become much more restrictive. To ensure that LBL’s fields maintain compliance with the 1985 Food Security Act, only Class 2 and Class 3 fields would be cultivated. To ensure LBL’s wildlife plantings take advantage of the most productive and sustainable soils only Class 2 and Class 3 fields would be considered for cropland, class 4 currently in cropland would be converted. LBL has no Class1 row crop fields.

Class 1 soils have slight limitations that restrict their use. Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that restrict the choice of plants, or require moderate conservation practices. Class 3 soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, or require special conservation practices or both. Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, or require very careful management or both. (e.g: choice of plants for Class 4 land and above could include establishment of permanent vegetation such as cool or native warm season grasses.)

222

Class 5 soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, and restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or permanent wildlife habitat. Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cropland and restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or permanent wildlife habitat. Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cropland and restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or permanent wildlife habitat. Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, permanent wildlife habitat, watershed, or aesthetic purposes.

“Capability subclasses” are soil groups within one class. They are designated by adding a letter that shows that the main hazard is risk of erosion unless close growing plant cover is maintained; “w” shows water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage); “s” the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and “c,” used in only some parts of the U.S. shows the chief limitation is climate that is very cold or very dry.

Capability subclasses main hazard • e - erosion • w - wetness • s - shallow, droughty, or stony • c - climate

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ Cultivation* 2e 141.68 1.7 tons/acre/year Cultivation* 2s 173.73 0.52 tons/acre/year Cultivation* 2w 1920.58 0.52 tons/acre/year Cultivation* 3e 6.39 5.5 tons/acre/year Cultivation* 3w 11.06 0.59 tons/acre/year Cultivation* 4e 0 Cultivation* 4s 38.41 5.5 tons/acre/year Cultivation* 4w 0 Cultivation* 6e 0 Cultivation* 6s 0 Cultivation* 7e 0 Cultivation* 7s 0 Cultivation* 8s 0

223

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ Hay fields *WSG 2e 2.94 0.59 tons/acre/year Hay fields *WSG 2s 91.81 0.17 tons/acre/year Hay fields *WSG 2w 79.34 0.17 tons/acre/year Hay fields *WSG 3e 47.59 3.9 tons/acre/year Hay fields *WSG 3w 18.86 0.41 tons/acre/year Hay fields *WSG 4e 0 Hay fields *WSG 4s 0 Hay fields *WSG 4w 0 Hay fields *WSG 6e 0 Hay fields *WSG 6s 0 Hay fields *WSG 7e 0 Hay fields *WSG 7s 0 Hay fields *WSG 8s 0 * Warm Season Grass

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ Hay fields *CSG 2e 94.02 0.13 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 2s 45.89 0.04 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 2w 505.44 0.04 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 3e 286.79 0.43 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 3w 18.23 0.04 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 4e 40.46 0.73 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 4s 2.55 0.73 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 4w 13.59 0.04 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 6e 27.55 0.4 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 6s 0 Hay fields *CSG 7e 16.66 0.54 tons/acre/year Hay fields *CSG 7s 0 Hay fields *CSG 8s 0 * Cool Season Grass

224

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ *WSG & Forbs 2e 33.69 0.59 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 2s 17.96 0.17 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 2w 157.86 0.17 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 3e 221.34 3.9 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 3w 13.14 0.41 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 4e 8.34 3.17 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 4s 25.78 1.87 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 4w 0 *WSG & Forbs 6e 60.51 2.06 tons/acre/tear *WSG & Forbs 6s 0.44 2.06 tons/acre/tear *WSG & Forbs 7e 4.76 2.36 tons/acre/year *WSG & Forbs 7s 0 *WSG & Forbs 8s 0 * Warm Season Grass and Forbs

225

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ Wildlife 2e 88 1.2 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 2s 160.69 0.36 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 2w 503.82 0.36 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 3e 446.18 3.90 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 3w 4.40 0.41 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 4e 44.60 1.9 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 4s 33.86 3.90 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 4w 11.08 0.41 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 6e 2.35 2.1 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 6s 19.98 2.1 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 7e 1.29 4.9 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 7s 4.45 4.9 tons/acre/year Planting Wildlife 8s 0 Planting

226

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ Old Fields 2e 3.50 0.59 tons/acre/year Old Fields 2s 15.80 0.17 tons/acre/year Old Fields 2w 44.76 0.17 tons/acre/year Old Fields 3e 67.74 1.87 tons/acre/year Old Fields 3w 1.98 0.20 tons/acre/year Old Fields 4e 14.47 3.17 tons/acre/year Old Fields 4s 2.73 1.87 tons/acre/year Old Fields 4w 3.85 0.20 tons/acre/year Old Fields 6e 6.71 2.06 tons/acre/year Old Fields 6s 1.83 2.06 tons/acre/year Old Fields 7e 9.59 2.36 tons/acre/year Old Fields 7s 0 Old Fields 8s 0

227

Estimated Average Soil Loss

Structure LCC Total Acres Average Soil Loss (Land Use) and Sub-Class 1/ of LCC by LCC 2/ *Maintained 2e 59.16 0.59 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 2s 63.65 0.17 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 2w 93.16 0.17 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 3e 177.97 1.87 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 3w 39.29 0.20 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 4e 11.72 3.17 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 4s 1.10 1.87 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 4w 7.06 0.20 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 6e 79.29 2.06 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 6s 7.33 2.06 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 7e 48.48 2.36 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 7s 1.63 2.36 tons/acre/year Open lands *Maintained 8s 1.73 7.64 tons/acre/year Open lands *May Include Some Warm Season Grasses

1/ Information cited from: United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1961. Land capability classification, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. Web Site; Soil Data Mart Tabular Data Version Date: 07/15/2005

2/ Average Soil Loss Calculated Using: Predicting Soil Loss Using The Universal Soil Loss Equation, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Lexington, Kentucky May 1978 and Natural Resources Conservation Service, Field Office information on average soil erosion factors for Lyon and Trigg Counties, Kentucky and Stewart County, Tennessee.

228

6.3 Air Resources

6.3.1 Key Regulated Pollutants and Their Significance in Smoke

Fine Particulates (PM2.5)

Particulate is a term used to describe dispersed airborne solid and liquid particles which would remain in atmospheric suspension from a few seconds to several months. Particulates that remain suspended in the atmosphere are efficient light scatterers and therefore contribute to visibility impairment. Very small particles can travel great distances and contribute to regional haze problems. Regional haze can result from prescribed burning over multiple days and/or multiple owners utilizing the airshed over too short of a time period. Cumulative particulate load may be the result of prescribed burning only, or urban and industrial sources only, or it may be a combination of the two. The causes of regional haze are often difficult to identify. Total suspended particulates (TSP) include all suspended particulates, no matter the size. Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) describes particles small enough to enter the human respiratory system. Fires emit large amounts of fine particulate matter that can impact human health and impair visibility.

Particulate matter, alone or in combination with other pollutants, can constitute a health hazard. Particulates enter the body mainly via the respiratory system. Particulate matter may exert a toxic effect in one or more of the following ways:

1. The particle may be intrinsically toxic because of its chemical and/or physical characteristics.

2. The particle may interfere with one or more of the mechanisms which normally clear the respiratory tract.

3. The particle may act as a carrier of an absorbed toxic substance.

Medical studies have shown a solid relationship between increases in particulate concentrations and rises in the number of clinic and hospital visits for upper respiratory infections, cardiac diseases, bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia, and emphysema. Deaths of elderly persons afflicted with respiratory diseases and cardiac conditions also show an increase during periods when the concentration of particulate matter is unusually high for several days.

Some recent studies have indicated urban particulate matter may be more dangerous to human health than rural particulate. There is speculation urban pollution sources, like auto exhaust and industrial sources, may be more toxic than rural sources, such as dust or wood smoke. This theory has not yet been proven definitively.

There are few studies which evaluate the toxicity of forest fire smoke. Almost all investigations of the toxicity of smoke particulate matter in human populations have been

229

conducted with particulates associated with burning coal or fossil fuels where sulfur oxides and sulfates are the important constituents. However, these chemicals are not generated in a significant quantity by vegetation fires.

Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is emitted primarily from combustion of fuel containing sulfur; generally either coal or oil. Sulfur compounds are also emitted naturally by marine sources, soils and vegetation, volcanoes, and geothermal activity. Humans respond to sulfur dioxide exposure with an increase in airway resistance. Most individuals show a response to SO2 at concentrations of 5 ppm (parts per million) and above and certain sensitive individuals show slight effects at 1 to 2 ppm. Excess SO2 in the atmosphere also affects sensitive vegetation.

Sulfur dioxide can also contribute to reduction in visibility. Atmospheric haze is caused by the formation of various aerosols resulting from the photochemical reactions between SO2, particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide transforms into an acid when absorbed in cloud water and raindrops and can fall as acid rain.

Most forest fuels contain less than 0.2% sulfur, so sulfur oxides could be produced only in negligible quantities during prescribed fires and wildfires.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced by automobile exhaust and other incomplete combustion sources. Carbon monoxide is a poisonous inhalant that deprives the body tissues of necessary oxygen. Extreme exposure (>750 ppm) can cause death. Impaired time interval discrimination can occur when humans are exposed to concentrations as low as 10 to 15 ppm for 8 hours. Carbon monoxide exposure can also result in central nervous system effects such as impairment of visual acuity, brightness discrimination, and psychomotor functions. Symptoms include headache, fatigue, and drowsiness.

Large quantities of carbon monoxide are emitted from wildfire and prescribed fires. Carbon monoxide exposure from these sources can be significant for fire line workers, but CO dilutes very rapidly in the atmosphere and probably is not a concern to urban and rural areas even a short distance downwind. One study measured CO concentrations as high as 200 ppm close to flames, but observed the concentration was reduced to less than 10 ppm just 100 feet from the fire.

Ozone

Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds with oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. Volatile organic compounds originate from industrial processes, solvent use, and transportation. The origin of nitrogen oxides is discussed in another section. Ozone can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation, and chest constriction in humans at concentrations above 0.10 ppm.

230

On vegetation, ozone can cause visible injury, reduced photosynthetic capacity, increased respiration, premature leaf senescence, and reduced growth. Other effects include alteration of carbon allocation, greater susceptibility to environmental stress, changes in plant community composition, and loss of sensitive genotypes from a population.

Prescribed fires and wildfires emit volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) which can react with urban sources of nitrogen to form ozone. Elevated ozone levels have been measured at the top of smoke plumes. Elevated ozone in cities far downwind from wildfires have been attributed in part to wildfire emissions.

Nitrogen Dioxide

Oxides of nitrogen are formed in a combustion process when nitrogen in the air or in fuel combines with oxygen at elevated temperatures. Nitrogen dioxide acts as an acute irritant. Some increase in bronchitis in children has been observed at concentrations below 0.01 ppm. In combination with hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen react in the presence of sunlight to form photochemical smog or ozone. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs visible light and at a concentration of 0.25 ppm would cause appreciable reduction in visibility.

Formation of nitrogen oxides occur at temperatures not normally found in prescribed fires. Some oxides of nitrogen may be formed at lower temperatures in the presence of free radicals, and nitrogenous compounds in forest fuels are another possible source. Generally, wildland fire is considered an insignificant contributor of these emissions.

Lead

The principal source of lead emissions is the combustion of gasoline containing lead alkyl additives. Since use of leaded gasoline has decreased dramatically, lead air pollution is rarely a problem anymore.

Lead particles that have been deposited on vegetation over decades can become re-emitted if the vegetation is burned. This phenomenon was documented during chaparral burning which took place east of the Los Angeles basin.

231

6.4 Wildlife Resources

Appendix 6.4.1. Table A1. Oak Mast Surveys LBL-wide 1980-2006. Quality Year Sound Acorns1 Pounds per Acre Rating2 1980 28 Poor 1981 5 Poor 1982 12 Poor 1983 33 Poor 1984 24 Poor 1985 300 Medium 1986 167 Fair 1987 79 Fair 1988 79 Fair 1989 50 Poor 1990 95 Fair 1991 12 Poor 1992 61 Poor 1993 102 Fair 1994 170 Fair 1995 435 Good 1996 60 Poor 1997 191 Fair 1998 34 Poor 1999 93 Fair 2000 154 Fair 2001 107 Fair 2002 108 Fair 2003 73 Fair 2004 34 Poor 2005 147 Fair 2006 154 Fair 1Sound acorn: Intact acorns free from defect, decay, or damage. 2Quality and sound acorns pounds per acre are both estimated from a numerical rating based on acorns present in trees

232

6.5 Recreation and Environmental Education Resources No appendices are listed in this section 6.6 Heritage Resources

6.6.1 Prescribed Burn Heritage Compliance Process

Pre-burn Heritage Tasks

1. Use land maps to identify and visit unrecorded homesites because they are the most likely types of sites to contain features or structures that could be impacted by fire; e.g., masonry, wooden components. Assess for possible fire effects, flag, and protect as necessary. 2. Visit previously recorded sites. Assess for possible fire effects, flag, and protect as necessary. 3. Visit the cemeteries and ensure they are identified and protected. 4. Develop post-burn heritage tasks. 5. Submit pre-burn reports to appropriate SHPO for review prior to burn.

Post-burn Heritage Tasks

6. Record former homesites and features within the project area of potential effect (APE). 7. Monitor sites post-burn and complete condition assessments for all recorded sites. 8. Continue background research and interviews to develop historic context of the area and add it to LBL-wide historic context being developed. 9. Working with the Fire Management Officer, identify those areas with exposed ground surface and conduct post-burn walkover survey. 10. Record any sites found during post-burn survey or site recording. 11. Submit final report and site records to the appropriate SHPO.

6.6.2 Open Lands Heritage Survey Plan

Answering the question of whether or not heritage sites would be impacted by any of the alternatives to continue maintenance of open lands at LBL is exacerbated by the lack of reliable data. However, based on history, we suspect the same types of impacts have been happening at the same locations for many years. What we need to learn is whether there are sites within open lands and if so, how much impact, if any, has occurred and what can be done to protect sites in the future. Basically, the survey plan addresses the following issues:

233

• Are there sites within open land boundaries? o Inventory (survey) open lands o Record any new sites o Field visit known sites • Condition of sites and identification of impact agents if necessary o Site condition assessments and documentation • Do sites need to be protected from future impacts? o Site significance evaluation • Do significant sites need management plans? o For sites that are significant and eligible for listing on the National Register, and are found to be in poor condition or threatened, develop treatment/management plan • What can we learn about the past use of open land areas? o Continue to build relationships with former residents in order to understand their history and knowledge of the area o Relate what we learn from historic research to the public o Incorporate knowledge into project planning if possible

Table HR-A1, below, lists the current impact agent for each type of open land.

Table HR-A1. Open Land Types and Current Treatment Methods

Cultivated Cover Impact Types Wildlife plantings Burn, disk

Croplands Burn, till, no till drilling

Grassland Cover Infrequent Soil Types Disturbance

Maintained open lands Burn, and warm season grasses infrequent disking

Hay fields Burn

Old fields Burn

By far, the most likely impact agents and their concomittant site types are: • Prescribed burning and sites with wooden components, masonry, or other features or artifacts that could be impacted by moderate burning • Ground disturbance such as tilling and disking and prehistoric sites

234

Fortunately, LBL has already developed a phased approach for compliance with Section 106 of NHPA of 1966, as amended, for prescribed burn projects in consultation with the Kentucky and Tennessee SHPO’s (Appendix 6.6.1). Prescribed burn projects would be covered under a different NEPA decision, and Section 106 compliance would continue to be completed on a project by project basis for any proposed prescribed burns whether they are within open lands or General Forest areas. The plan also addresses two other events associated with LBL open lands likely to impact cultural resources: expansion of riparian corridors as required by new standards developed for the Area Plan (specifically those returning to tree and shrub riparian corridor) and old fields that have been regenerating and returning to tree and shrub successional stages. As with all other actions proposed for the Open Lands Survey Plan, surveying these locations offers the opportunity to learn a great deal about past land use in specific environments and locations as well as gather important site location data. The old fields are intriguing; what were old fields, where are they located and why, and what was their purpose? Surveying the riparian corridors that would revert to tree and shrub environments allows us to survey for historic homesites along streams, as well as search exposed stream banks for prehistoric sites. The survey plan outlined in the table below addresses the most effective as well as feasible means of prioritizing the steps necessary for addressing impacts to cultural resources from continuing open lands maintenance activities. The survey plan allows us to sort out some of the issues that are left in the wake of previous archaeological investigations because of a lack of cohesion and strategy. This survey plan is another step in the right direction: it builds our knowledge of the history of the people who lived here and locates any remaining material culture within open lands.

The value of the plan is that it can be implemented on a project by project basis during the usual Section 106 compliance process, as well as in fulfillment of the commitment to survey all open lands. Since this program would be on-going, there is an opportunity to try new methods, monitor results, gather data, and modify our methods as needed over the life of this program. Most importantly, the strategy needs to be timely, effective at identifying and protecting significant historic properties from impacts, and creative. The Open Lands Survey Plan would help us make progress towards a comprehensive, holistic, and systematic plan for identifying all heritage resources at LBL, and would enable us to integrate our knowledge and understanding of the past into LBL’s mission.

235

Table HR-A2. Open Lands Heritage Survey Plan

Open Lands Heritage Survey Plan Create GIS coverage for each field type including a field identification system Create GIS coverage for riparian areas that would convert to trees and shrubs Priority Action Purpose Project Area Time Accomplishment (Minimum) High Pre-Burn and Post-Burn Identify and protect sites at Identified during Annually Pre-Burn: all Surveys immediate risk, conduct prescribed burn areas survey under optimal surface planning Post-Burn: see visibility Burn compliance process High Known Cemetery Locate and protect Known Immediate Completed in Condition Assessment cemeteries at immediate risk Cemetery (FY07) 2007 locations High Recorded Site Locate and protect sites at Recorded site Immediate Completed in Condition Assessment immediate risk locations (FY07-08) 2008 Medium Site Evaluation Evaluate site significance for All identified site Following 2 per year eligibility for listing on the locations identificatio National Register n, recording, and condition assessment Medium Significant Sites For sites significant and Poor Condition Following 1 per year (Priority Assets) eligible for listing on the or Threatened site Management Plans National Register, and are Significant Site evaluation, found to be in poor condition Locations Annually or threatened, develop treatment/management plan Medium Walkover Survey Conduct surveys to identify, Tilled and Following 100 acres per record, and protect sites on disked fields, High year high probability impact fields Old fields, Priority, Shrub and tree Annually riparian corridors Medium Review Historic Determine past human use All open lands Following All surveyed fields Literature (maps, air High per year photos, and other Priority, field documentation) by field Medium Locate Former Determine past human use, All open lands Following All surveyed fields Residents and/or record history of former High per year Descendents residents and the land Priority, field by field Medium Education/Interpretation Disseminate land use history LBL-wide 2009 Plan completed Plan to LBL employees/public Low Survey Conduct surveys to identify, All highly Following 5 acres record, and protect sites on vegetated, no Medium low impact/low visibility fields ground Priority, disturbance Annually fields Annual Progress Report to Kentucky and Tennessee SHPO

236

6.7 Social and Economic Resources

6.7.1 The following tables show the average return to land, capital, and management per acre by crop type. These tables also are produced to show average farm expenses with normal farm practices. They do not take into account what LBL farmer’s unique differences in farming practices do to restrictions, layout of farms, and other variables.

237

TABLE 6.7.1-A1

CONTINUOUS CORN, CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE ESTIMATED ENTERPRISE COSTS AND RETURNS

Description AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL GROSS RETURNS PER ACRE Corn 120 Bu $2.30 $276.00

VARIABLE COSTS PER ACRE

Seed 0.3 Bag $95.00 $28.50 Seed Treatment Insecticide 1 Ac $7.00 $7.00 Fertilizer N(urea) 125 Lbs $0.31 $38.75 P205 50 Lbs $0.32 $16.00 K2O 50 Lbs $0.22 $11.00 AG Lime Limestone 0.5 Ton $23.00 $11.50 Weed Control Bicep II Magnum 2.1 Qt $10.00 $21.00

*Fuel and Oil 1 Ac $13.41 $13.41 *Repairs 1 Ac $14.96 $14.96 Drying 120 Bu $0.11 $13.20 Chas Land Rent 1 Ac $10.00 $10.00 Operating Capital 6 months $162.12 Ac 8.00% $6.48

TOTAL VARIABLE COST $191.80

RETURN ABOVE VARIABLE COST $84.20

BUDGETED FIXED COSTS/ACRE Depreciation 1 ac $24.59 $24.59 Machinery Interest Expenses & Equip. 1 ac $11.90 $11.90

TOTAL BUDGETED FIXED COST $36.49

RETURN TO OPERATOR LABOR, LAND, CAPITAL, AND MGT $47.71 Labor Expenses 0.8 hours $8.50 $6.80

RETURN TO LAND, CAPITAL, AND MANAGEMENT $40.91 Federal Subsidy (Direct Payments) $19.28 Total return to land, capital, and management with Federal Subsidy $60.19

per bu to cover variable costs bu per Break Even Price $1.60 at 120.0 acre Break Even Yield 83.4 Bu to cover variable costs at $2.30 per bu

238

TABLE 6.7.1-A2

SOYBEANS, NO-TILL, GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT, ROTATION FOLLOWING CORN ESTIMATED ENTERPRISE COSTS AND RETURNS

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL GROSS RETURNS PER ACRE Soybeans 40 bushel $5.90 $236.00

VARIABLE COSTS PER ACRE Seed 50 lbs $0.62 $31.00 Seed Treatment 0.83 bu $3.60 $2.99 Fertilizer P205 20 lbs $0.32 $6.40 K205 40 lbs $0.22 $8.80 2 Tons Every Lime 4 years 0.5 ton $23.00 $11.50 Weed Control Burndown 1.6 pt $2.84 $4.54 Pre-Emerge 1.6 pt $2.84 $4.54 Insecticide 1 ac $5.00 $5.00 Fungicide 1 ac $10.50 $10.50

Fuel and Oil 1 ac $7.92 $7.92 Repairs 1 ac $10.28 $10.28 Cash Land Rent 1 ac $10.00 $10.00 Operating Capital 6 months $103.48 dollars 8.0% $4.14

TOTAL VARIABLE COST $117.62

RETURN ABOVE VARIABLE COST $118.38

BUDGETED FIXED COSTS/ACRE Machinery Depreciation 1 ac $18.24 $18.24 Machinery Interest Expense & Equip. 1 ac $8.58 $8.58 TOTAL BUDGETED FIXED COST $26.82

RETURN TO OPERATOR LABOR, LAND, CAPITAL, AND MGT $91.56 Labor Expenses 0.5 hours $8.50 $4.25

RETURN TO LAND, CAPITAL, AND MANAGEMENT $87.31 Federal Subsidies (Direct Payments) $10.47 RETURN TO LAND, CAPITAL, AND MANAGEMENT w/ Federal Subsidies $97.78

per bu to cover variable bu per Break-Even Price $2.94 costs at 40 acre bu to cover variable Break-Even Yield 19.9 costs at $5.90 per bu

239

TABLE 6.7.1-A3

ALFALFA HAY, FOR CASH SALE, ESTABLISHED STAND ESTIMATED ENTERPRISE COSTS AND RETURNS

AMOUNT UNIT PRICE TOTAL GROSS RETURNS PER ACRE Mixed Grass Hay 2.5 bails $30.00 $75.00

VARIABLE COSTS PER ACRE Fuel and Oil 1 hours $5.62 $5.62 Repairs 1 acre $8.25 $8.25 Cash Land Rent 0 acre $0.00 $0.00 Hired Labor 1 hours $8.00 $8.00 Other (seed, additional supplies..etc) 0 acre $0.00 $0.00 (cheimicals, soil amendments, Custom Application fertilizer) 0 applications $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL VARIABLE COST $21.87

RETURN ABOVE VARIABLE COST $53.13

BUDGETED FIXED COSTS/ACRE Depreciation $9.72 Taxes and Insurance $0.00

TOTAL BUDGETED FIXED COST $9.72

RETURN TO OPERATOR LABOR, LAND, CAPITAL, AND MGT $43.41 Less Operator Labor 1 hours $10.00 $10.00 Federal Subsidy (Direct Payments) 0 acre $0.00 $0.00 RETURN TO LAND, CAPITAL, AND MANAGEMENT $33.41

per bail to cover variable bails per Break Even Price $8.75 costs at 2.5 acre bails to cover variable Break Even Yield 0.7 costs at $30.00 per bail

240

USDA Farm Service Agency

The tables below show the amount of revenue and guaranteed farm subsidies by alternative that could be generated for the local economy with the use of LBL’s agriculture program by alternative. Corn and soybean acres were configured by 50% occupancy of each crop by the acres that would be used for cropland.

TABLE 6.7.1-A4 Alternative 1

Crop Type Acres Revenue Farm Subsidies Corn $0 $0 $0 Soybeans $0 $0 $0 Hay $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue and Payments Generated for Local Economy Annually by Farming $0

TABLE 6.7.1-A5 *Alternative 2

Crop Type Acres Revenue Farm Subsidies Corn 1049 $91,588 $20,225 Soybeans 1049 $42,915 $10,983 **Wheat 0 0 $8000 ***Hay 2260 $72,884 $0 Total Revenue and Payments Generated for Local Economy Annually by Farming $245,595 *This table is figured based on maximal yield of 120 bushel/ acres (corn) and 40 bushels/acres (soybeans) and average expenditures. Does not include land layout, farming practices based on restrictions imposed by USDA Forest Service on LBL, wildlife damage, % of crops left for wildlife, and other variables. **Farmers are eligible for approximately $8,000 in wheat direct payments even though they may not plant. ***Hay contributions to local economy could increase depending on native warm season grass maintenance management. A total of 871 acres was added to hay contributions to demonstrate that change.

TABLE 6.7.1-A6 Alternative 3

Crop Type Acres Revenue Farm Subsidies Corn 0 $0 $0 Soybeans 0 $0 $0 *Hay 2312 $70,285 $0 Total Revenue and Payments Generated for Local Economy Annually by Farming $70,285 *Hay contributions to local economy could increase depending on native warm season grass maintenance management. A total of 923 was added to the already 1,389 acres designated for hay to demonstrate the change in native warm season grass maintenance.

241

The tables above do not include the variable expenses made in the community that would also contribute to the local economy. Variable expenses would include seed, fuel, fertilizer, lime, labor, and other expenses related directly to farming practices at LBL.

TABLE 6.7.1-A7 Variable Expenses

Alternative Approximate Variable Expenses Contribute to Local Economy 1 $0 2 $328,565 3 $50,498

TABLE 6.7.1-A8 Agriculture Program Total Local Economic Contribution

Alternative Amount (Revenue and Payments + Variable Expenses) 1 $0 2 $574,160 3 $120,783

The following tables show the total Forest Service cost for managing the open lands program at LBL by assigned land categories listed in the EA for each alternative. Cost is based annually.

TABLE 6.7.1-A9 Alternative 1

Treatment Type Acres FS Cost Average Per Acre Spring Wildlife Planting 0 $0 $0 First Mowing Clover Fields 0 $0 $0 Mow/Lime/Disk 0 $0 $0 General Fall Mowing 0 $0 $0 Woods to Woods 0 $0 $0 Maintenance Mowing Warm Season Grass 0 $0 $0 Establishment Fall Wildlife Plantings 0 $0 $0 Field Access Maintenance 0 $0 $0 *FS Management Cost 0 $10,000 NA Overall Cost $10,000

242

TABLE 6.7.1-A10 Alternative 2

Treatment Type Acres FS Average Per Cost Acre Spring Wildlife Planting 200 $35,000 $175 First Mowing Clover 200 $7,000 $35 Fields Mow/Lime/Disk 200 $34,000 $170 General Fall Mowing 600 $21,000 $35 Woods to Woods 465 $16,275 $35 Maintenance Mowing Warm Season Grass 30 $6,600 $220 Establishment Fall Wildlife Plantings 200 $38,800 $194 *Warm Season Grass 279 $4,185 $15 Maintenance Field Access NA $10,000 NA Maintenance **FS Management Cost NA $67,351 NA Overall Cost = $240,211 *Warm season grass maintenance is 1/3 of the assigned prescribed burn acres burned each year. This could change depending on management practice chosen. For example, grasses could be harvested by special use permit, leaving no cost to FS. ** Cost is based on 70% of one GS11 employee, 30% of a GS7 employee, and 10% of EA cost (EA cost amortized over 10 years).

243

TABLE 6.7.1-A11 Alternative 3

Treatment Type Acres FS Cost Average Per Acre Spring Wildlife Planting 400 $70,000 $175 First Mowing Clover 400 $14,000 $35 Fields Mow/Lime/Disk 400 $68,000 $170 General Fall Mowing 800 $28,000 $35 Woods to Wood Maint. 465 $16,275 $35 Mowing Warm Season Grass 162 $35,640 $220 Establishment Fall Wildlife Plantings 400 $77,600 $194 *Warm Season Grass 722 $10,830 $15 Maint Field Access NA $10,000 NA Maintenance **FS Management Cost NA $67,351 NA Overall Cost = $397,696 *Warm season grass maintenance estimated as 1/3 of the assigned prescribed burn acres burned each year. This could change depending on management practice chosen. For example, grasses could be harvested by special use permit, leaving no cost to FS. ** Cost is based on 70% of one GS11 employee, 30% of a G7 employee, and 10% of EA cost (EA cost amortized over 10 years).

Current contract cost and projected management by type of acres.

6.8 Prescribed Fire Resources 6.8.1 Prescribed Fire

Historically, much of LBL burned often. Estimated fire return intervals range from 1-3 years in grass-dominated areas prevalent before European contact, to 5-12 years in wooded systems with only the most mesic and barren areas being insulated from frequent fire. The entire area falls into Fire Regime 1 in the national hierarchy. This history of frequent fire is reported to be as old as 6,000 years and has played a significant role in the development of a regionally adapted flora and fauna that depends on the continuance of fire use for sustainability and health. Mathematically, these fire return intervals indicate that in purely ecological terms, prescribed fire should be used on up to 50,000 acres of LBL annually, an amount above our current capacity.

The factors limiting the implementation of a prescribed fire program are primarily logistical given public acceptance and support. Logistical problems include the availability of qualified

244 personnel and specialized fire equipment, availability of funds for implementation, and availability of time periods within predetermined weather and policy parameters, or windows in which to conduct burning. Of these, the most limiting is the window.

Many things affect the size of the burning window, but the primary constraint on window size is weather, or specifically the effect of weather on fuel available for combustion. As a general rule, if weather conditions are constant (dry, and windy) over a large area, open areas would dry to the point they are available for combustion faster than shaded areas. Connected to this premise is the more open a woodland is, the faster it would dry. The effect of this condition on the burning window is an increase of window length directly related to recent past fire history because fire removes or kills small shrubs and trees in the understory that shade fuel. So an area that has recently burned (within the last 3-5 years) would have a slightly longer window than an area with no recent fire history. An area with a recent history of several fires would have a longer window still.

The current window is approximately parallel to the number of acres burned annually with qualified personnel available, and occurs on about 14-20 days (an estimate) in the months of March and April. It is anticipated the number of acres burned annually would gradually increase, with an increase in window length and availability of qualified personnel, as funding is not expected to be a limiting factor with respect to prescribed fire implementation.

Prescribed fire is an appropriate tool for management of a portion of open lands on LBL. Prescribed fire is used for many purposes. First and foremost for open land management purposes, fire is used as a necessary ecological disturbance to maintain open conditions by removing wood encroachment. Fire is also used as a form of site preparation prior to chemical and mechanical treatments of other kinds.

A traditional prescribed fire in open lands would begin by disking or plowing a control line around the margin of an opening. Fire managers then consider the dryness of fuels and winds and develop an ignition strategy that is intended to meet the expectations of open lands managers with respect to fire effects. These weather prescriptions are the basis of the phrase “prescribed fire”, with the combined product being more than simply igniting the fire with the intention of keeping it within the predetermined boundary.

A prescription may be written for weather parameters that would lead to a simple backing fire with very low flame length and spread which would only remove a couple of years of grass chaff. A prescription may also be written for intense fire which would remove all of the dead grass material and top-kill most of the small saplings that begin to grow in open lands a few years after a disturbance.

Due to the intense fire behaviors that occur when open land fuels are burned, controlling these prescribed fires can be very challenging for fire managers. In general the larger the burning block, the easier it is for managers to ignite the fire while maintaining control lines because ignition personnel have more reaction time and multiple crews can be used, firing in sequence, thereby using fire to contain fire.

245

Flame length is a measurement taken from the base of the flame, at the fuel level, to the tips of the average flame. In open lands, which are typically a tall grass fuel model, flame lengths averaging 10 feet may exceed 40 feet. This intense flaming is necessary to maintain open lands but also creates many control risks by lofting embers across control lines and heating fuels across those lines by radiation.

Conducting a prescribed fire on small patches of open lands is a difficult proposition for fire managers primarily because of the potential for high flame intensities and difficulty to control.

All fires intentionally set on Federal property for resource management purposes must be managed by an on-site Burn Boss and have an approved Burn Plan. In addition, fires must be staffed by appropriately qualified personnel. It takes several years of training and experience to meet the basic qualification standard for participating in prescribed burning and several more years of experience and more training to become a Burn Boss. So the effect to a prescribed fire program is there is not a limitless supply of qualified personnel.

Actual ignition of a prescribed fire is at least moderately complicated even in its simplest form. Ignition begins by reviewing weather forecasts and taking on-site weather observations. Weather parameters must be met before proceeding to the test-fire stage. A test-fire is a small fire within the burn unit set in a manner that it can be controlled if not burning as needed or desired. If the test fire shows objectives would be met and the fire can be controlled, he/she would proceed with igniting the entire block.

Staffing, weather parameters, necessary equipment, and other pertinent information for a particular burn unit is outlined in the Burn Plan for that unit.

These steps must be taken whether a burn unit is 2 acres or 4,000 acres. Staffing levels, ignition methods, and qualifications would of course vary, but the procedure would always remain the same.

After ignition, a prescribed fire would progress to the monitoring and mop-up stage. During this time, personnel would be engaged in searching for containment risks such as flaming snags or heavy concentrations of fuel adjacent to firelines that may cause an ignition outside of the burn unit. The rule of thumb is all fires should be monitored until the risk of escape is gone. In pure grass fuels this could take only a few minutes. In woody fuels monitoring would usually continue until the relative humidity increases to the point that active flaming stops and the probability of ignition outside the unit is functionally gone. Relative humidity in this region typically rises to 80% (a safe measure at which to leave a fire without monitors) several hours after nightfall. So a fire set at noon in woody fuel must be staffed until roughly 9:00 in the evening to be safe.

Monitoring a prescribed fire becomes much more logistically difficult if there is no wheeled access to the burn unit. If personnel can monitor the fire from a vehicle, logistic concerns and

246 personnel drain are greatly reduced. Therefore, using roadways as prescribed fire control lines is very efficient from several viewpoints.

Use of existing roads as control lines and increasing the relative size of burn blocks allows fire managers to accomplish more needed burning with the same personnel and equipment in the same weather window at a reduced cost, while maximizing acres treated. Larger blocks are much more efficient than small blocks.

Large burning blocks (1,500 acres or more) also allow managers to consider the use of helicopters to ignite the fire. Air crews use a hopper feed machine to rapidly inject glycol into small plastic spheres which contain a granular form of potassium permanganate. The spheres then fall to the ground and ignite about 15 seconds later. When spread across a burn unit these small fires begin to burn together for a very effective ignition of a large area in a small period of time.

Aerial ignition crews can accomplish up to 1,000 acres of ignition an hour, under a standard prescription, at a cost of approximately $9/acre. Ground crews can accomplish approximately 250 acres in the same hour at an average cost of $30/acre.

An alternative strategy for conducting prescribed fire in small open lands is to ignite several small blocks simultaneously without constructing control lines. These small blocks would be enveloped in a larger wooded block with control lines and would be ignited under atmospheric conditions which would not allow fire to spread far beyond the edges of the open lands. An example of this method would be to ignite the open land shown in Figure 1 late in the afternoon when the forest leaf litter is too wet or moist to carry fire. The resultant fire would consume dry grass and herb matter in the open land and die-out as it enters the forest. Flames may spread a little beyond the boundary of open lands but Fire Managers would have prepared for this in advance.

247

Figure 1. An example of the distribution of open land to be burned in large blocks.

LEGEND

Cross Roads Burn Block Open Land Maintained with Fire

248

This method could be accomplished by either surface or aerial ignition, although depending on the relative size of the burns aerial ignition is generally the most cost effective method.

Burning would be accomplished on a rotational basis to meet the needs of resource managers. An average of every third burn may be allowed to cover most of the large burn block, burning both forest litter and open lands.

Figure 2 below shows a map of potential large blocks on LBL where this type of prescribed fire may be applied under both Alternatives 2 and 3. The total acreage in large burn blocks is 38,523 acres. If placed on a 3-year rotation in any given year prescribed fire may be applied to roughly 1/3 of this acreage or approximately 13,000 acres. However, each block delineated in Figure 2 is different with a specific acreage of open lands which are the targets for burning. Table 1 below outlines the approximate acres targeted in each large block under Alternatives 2 and 3. Following the data in Table 1 with the principle of burning approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the open land acres with the large blocks every year the annual target for aerial open lands burning would range between approximately 790 to 1,150 acres per year.

When combined with the concept of allowing the entire block to burn every 2 to 3 burns, the annual burning in large blocks would be an average of approximately 7,600 acres per year.

Table 6.8.1-A1. Burn Block Acres and Target Open Land Acres by Large Burn Block

Total Alt 2 Target Acres Alt 3 Target Acres Block Name Acres Burned Burned Cross Roads 6,563 267 267 Willow Bay 375 20 20 Canal Area 423 78 78 NNWDA 2,945 204 204 Crooked Creek OGRDA 4,769 253 253 Bacon Creek 7,116 436 436 Prior OGRDA 5,117 237 237 Area 13 10,726 625 625 Tharpe Bottoms 74 58 58 SNWDA 415 0 131 Totals 38,523 2,178 2,309

249

Figure 2. Map of large burn blocks containing open land acres targeted for maintenance by fire.

Crossroads

Canal Area

Willow Bay NNWDA

Crooked Creek OGDA

Bacon Creek

Prior OGDA

Area 13 Tharpe Bottoms

SNWDA

250

6.9 Pesticides Risk Analysis Several pesticide products were evaluated for use in open lands. As a result of the evaluation, some products met plan standards as originally proposed, some met plan standards at reduced application rates, some met standards with additional risk management measures, and other were removed from consideration or deferred to a later date for review.

251

6.9 Table A1

Appendix 6.9 Table A1. List of Pesticides Approved for Use in the Continued Maintenance of Open Lands on LBL Grass Lands

Trade Active Applications Max. Max. Main Target Pests** Additional Risk Management Name* Ingredient /year application seasonal Measures*** rate/acre use/acre 2, 4D Amine 2, 4-Dichloro- 1 1 pt. 1 pt. Pre- and post-emergent; Post fields to preclude human 4 phenoxyacetic broadleaf weeds and woody foraging until risk subsides. acid 47.3% vegetation Inform permittees of health or safety concerns arising in backpack or ground spray applications Institute rapid cleanup of any spill potentially affecting water Avoid application within 6 hrs of rainfall Arsenal imazapyr 28.7% 1 6 pts. 6 pts. Post-emergent; Woody Institute rapid cleanup of any spill vegetation; Pine (Pinus spp.), potentially affecting water sumac (Rhus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), willow (Salix spp.) Escort XP metsulfuron 1 to 2 4 oz. 4 oz Post-emergent; Woody Institute rapid cleanup of any spill methyl 60% vegetation: Blackberry potentially affecting water (Rubus spp.), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) Garlon 3A triclopyr 44.4% 1 1.5 qts. 1.5 qts. Post-emergent; Woody None vegetation and legumes; Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

252

Grass Lands

Trade Active Applications Max. Max. Main Target Pests** Additional Risk Management Name* Ingredient /year application seasonal Measures*** rate/acre use/acre Garlon 4 triclopyr 61.6% 1 1 qt. 1 qt. Post-emergent; Woody Institute rapid cleanup of any spill vegetation and legumes; potentially affecting water Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), lespedeza spp. Habitat imazapyr 28.7% 1 6 pts. 6 pts. Post-emergent; Woody Institute rapid cleanup of any spill vegetation; Pine (Pinus spp.), potentially affecting water sumac (Rhus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), willow (Salix spp.) Plateau imazapic 23.6% 1 12 oz. 12 oz. Post-emergent; Broadleaves Institute rapid cleanup of any spill and some grasses; Cocklebur potentially affecting water (Xanthium strumarium), fescue (Festuca arundinacea) RoundUp glyphosate 48.8% 1 to 3 44 fl. oz. 4.1 qts. Post-emergent; Cocklebur None Original, (Xanthium strumarium), RoundUp common morning glory Weathermax, (Ipomoea purpurea), pigweed etc. spp. (Amaranthus spp.), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), broadleaf signalgrass (Urochloa platyphylla), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and crabgrass (Digitaria adscendens)

253

Grass Lands

Trade Active Applications Max. Max. Main Target Pests** Additional Risk Management Name* Ingredient /year application seasonal Measures*** rate/acre use/acre Select 2EC, clethodim 26.4% 1 to 2 8 fl. oz. 16 fl. oz. Post-emergent; Crabgrass Inform permittees of health or Select Max (2EC) 32 fl. oz (Digitaria adscendens), safety concerns arising from use 16 oz (S Johnson grass (Sorghum Close ponds affected by an Max) halepense), signal grass accidental spill to fishing by (Urochloa platyphylla) posting until risk subsides.

Velpar L hexazinone 25% 1 to 2 6 qts. 6 qts. Post-emergent; Hardwoods Post fields to preclude human such as, American elm foraging until risk subsides. (Ulmus americana), oaks spp. Institute rapid cleanup of any spill (Quercus spp.), and sumac potentially affecting water (Rhus glabra) * There may be similar products with different trade names for these active ingredients ** List of target pests is not all inclusive *** If Price’s potato bean is located within 300 feet of herbicide or fungicide application areas, survey information for Price’s potato bean will be current for the same year applications are made. If Price’s potato bean is located within 100 feet of the planned application areas, the Kentucky Field Office of the FWS will be contacted prior to application.

254

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre 2, 4D Amine 4 2, 4-Dichloro- 1 1 pt. 1 pt. Pre- and post-emergent; Post fields to preclude human phenoxyacetic acid Sicklepod (Senna foraging until risk susides. 47.3% obtusifolia), cocklebur Inform permittees of health or (Xanthium strumarium), safety concerns arising in and pigweeds (Amaranthus backpack or ground spray spp) applications Institute rapid cleanup of any spill potentially affecting water Avoid application within 6 hrs of rainfall Accent nicosulfuron 75% no more than 2 1.33 oz. 1.33 oz. Post-emergent; Morning None glory (Ipomoea purpurea), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), broadleaf signal grass (Urochloa platyphylla), and burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus) Banvel dicamba 48.2% no more than 2 1 pt. 1.5 pts. Pre- and post-emergent; Institute rapid cleanup of any Common morning glory spill potentially affecting water (Ipomoea purpurea), Post warning signs and notify burcucumber (Sicyos visitors of water contamination angulatus), and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)

255

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre Callisto mesotrione 40% 1 3 fl. oz. 3 fl. oz. Pre- and post-emergent; Institute rapid cleanup of any Common morning glory spill potentially affecting water (Ipomoea purpurea), Post warning signs and notify Johnson grass (Sorghum visitors of water contamination halepense), broadleaf until risk subsides. signal grass (Urochloa Avoid application within 48 platyphylla), burcucumber hours of rainfall (Sicyos angulatus), and Avoid direct spray of small cocklebur (Xanthium mammals strumarium) Camix S-metolachlor 1 1.6 qt 1.6 qt. Pre- and post-emergent; Close ponds affected by an 36.8%; Mesotrione Common morning glory accidental spill to fishing until 3.68% (Ipomoea purpurea), risk subsides. Johnson grass (Sorghum Avoid direct spray of small halepense), broadleaf mammals signal grass (Urochloa platyphylla), and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) Celebrity Plus dicamba 46.6% 1 4.1 oz 4.1 oz. Post-emergent; Morning None diflufenzopyr glory (Ipomoea purpurea), 18.1% Johnson grass (Sorghum nicosulfuron halepense), broadleaf 10.6% signal grass (Urochloa platyphylla), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus)

256

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre Clarity dicamba 56.8% no more than 2 1 pt. 1.5 pts. Pre- and post-emergent; Institute rapid cleanup of any Burcucumber (Sicyos spill potentially affecting water angulatus), common Post warning signs and notify cocklebur (Xanthium visitors of water contamination strumarium), common until risk subsides. morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), pigweed spp. (Amaranthus spp.) Classic chlorimuron ethyl 1 0.5 oz. 0.5 oz. Post-emergent; Sicklepod None 25% (Senna obtusifolia) Distinct diflufenzopyr 2 3 oz. 6 oz. Pre- and post-emergent; Close ponds affected by an 21.4%; dicamba Common morning glory accidental spill to fishing until 55% (Ipomoea purpurea), risk subsides. burcucumber (Sicyos Avoid direct spray of small angulatus), and cocklebur mammals (Xanthium strumarium) Dual II S-metolachlor 1 2 pt. 2 pt. Pre- and post-emergent; Close ponds affected by an Magnum 82.4% Johnson grass (Sorghum accidental spill to fishing until halepense), broadleaf risk susides signalgrass (Urochloa Avoid direct spray of small platyphylla), pigweed mammals (Amaranthus spp.)

257

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre Extreme imazethapyr 1.8%; 1 3 pts. 3 pts. Pre- and post-emergent; None glyphosate 22% Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), common morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), pigweed spp. (Amaranthus spp.), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), broadleaf signalgrass (Urochloa platyphylla), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and crabgrass (Digitaria adscendens) Fusilade DX Fluazifop-P-butyl 1 to 2 8 oz 16 oz. Post-emergent; Signal Inform permittees of health or 24.5% grass (Urochloa safety concerns arising from platyphylla), Johnson grass use (Sorghum halepense), and Avoid direct spray of small volunteer RoundUp Ready mammals corn Harmony thifensulfuron- 1 0.6 oz. 0.6 oz. Post-emergent; Pigweed None Extra XP methyl 50%; spp. (Amaranthus spp.), tribenuron-methyl cocklebur (Xanthium 25% strumarium)

258

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre Lightning imazethapyr 1 1.28 oz. 1.28 oz. Post-emergent; Cocklebur None 52.5%; imazapyr (Xanthium strumarium), 17.5% morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), pigweed spp. (Amaranthus spp.), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), broadleaf signalgrass (Urochloa platyphylla) Round-Up® glyphosate 48.8% 1 to 3 44 fl. oz. 4.1 qts. Pre- and post-emergent; None Original, Cocklebur (Xanthium Round-Up® strumarium), common Weathermax, morning glory (Ipomoea etc. purpurea), pigweed spp. (Amaranthus spp.), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), broadleaf signalgrass (Urochloa platyphylla), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and crabgrass (Digitaria adscendens)

259

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre Select 2EC, clethodim 26.4% 1 to 2 8 fl. oz. (2EC) 16 fl. oz. Post-emergent; Crabgrass Inform permittees of health or Select Max 16 oz (S Max) 32 fl. oz (Digitaria adscendens), safety concerns arising from Johnson grass (Sorghum use halepense), signal grass Close ponds affected by an (Urochloa platyphylla), accidental spill to fishing until and volunteer RoundUp risk subsides. Ready corn

Fungicide Applications/year Max. Max. seasonal MainTarget Pests** application use/acre Additional Mitigations: rate/acre Folicur 3.6 tebuconazole 2 4 fl. oz. 8 fl. oz. Post-emergent; Asian None 38.7% soybean rust (Phakospora pachyrhizi) -- emergency treatment only Headline pyraclostrobin 2 6 fl. oz. 12 fl. oz. Post-emergent; Asian Apply only with Forest Service 23.6% soybean rust (Phakospora permission when infection pachyrhizi) -- emergency with Asian soybean rust is treatment only imminent (likely after mid- June) Avoid direct spray of small mammals Close ponds affected by an accidental spill to fishing until risk subsides.

260

Cultivated Land

Trade Name* Active Ingredient Applications Max. Max. seasonal Main Target Pests** Additional Risk /year Application use/acre Management Measures*** Rate/Acre Headline SBR pyraclostrobin 1 7.8 fl. oz. 7.8 fl. oz. Post-emergent; Asian Apply only with Forest Service 23.6% soybean rust (Phakospora permission when infection tebuconazole pachyrhizi) -- emergency with Asian soybean rust is 38.7% treatment only imminent (likely after mid- (co-pack) June) Avoid direct spray of small mammals Close ponds affected by an accidental spill to fishing until risk subsides. * There may be similar products with different trade names for these active ingredients ** List of target pests is not all inclusive ***If Price’s potato bean is located within 300 feet of herbicide or fungicide application areas, survey information for Price’s potato bean will be current for the same year applications are made. If Price’s potato bean is located within 100 feet of the planned application areas, the Kentucky Field Office of the FWS would be contacted prior to application.

261 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

6.9.1 Proposed Use of Pesticides in the Management of Open Lands on LBL

While IPM, the use of an appropriate varied selection of non-chemical and chemical tools to achieve the desired future condition on a landscape, is the mandated strategy for managing lands under Forest Service stewardship, the Area Plan requires a close look at all pesticide use, and Area Plan Standard 23 states an HQ of <1.0 be achieved or additional risk management must be undertaken to reduce unacceptable risks to acceptable levels, or an alternative method of treatment must be used. The risk assessment of each chemical considers multiple factors including human and wildlife toxicology, and in many scenerios ecological considerations such as volatilization, potential for leaching, and overland hydrological transport and potential effects of their environmental processes as they might affect aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and humans. The Forest Service is fully aware of the potential confounding effects of inert ingredients and surfactants when considering potential toxicological or environmental effects of applied pesticides. SERA and the BLM risk assessments used include extensive review of the literature relating to the products being evaluated and include the effects reported from the use of formulated and field mixed products as part of that review. Further, where that data was available in summary form for formulated products of the other products (not reviewed by SERA or the BLM) it is included and the effects are considered.

Originally, 29 pesticide products containing 25 active ingredients (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) were submitted to be evaluated for use (Mistretta 2007). One additional product was added later. It was determined that a scoping task would be undertaken to determine if readily identifiable potential risks from the use of each of these pesticides was acceptable under the unit standard, or if further study of some or all of the chemicals was needed.

Web-published risk assessments were used to analyze project effects from the active ingredients 2,4-D amine, dicamba, glyphosate, hexazinone, imazapic, imazapyr, metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr.

For the others, science reviews and summaries were located and a database was built to evaluate the HQs of meaningful operational and accidental scenarios. Sources, such as the EPA’s IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) data and its TREDs (Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decisions) and Fact Sheets, FAO reviews and summary papers, reports of the European Commission’s Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, papers from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority, publications of California’s EPA related to the toxicology and ecotoxicology of these chemicals, TOXNET and EXTOXNET papers, and a limited number of papers from open literature were combed for data. An Excel spreadsheet was prepared to display the data located for these chemicals (project record).

262

Whenever management proposals are made which include pesticide application data gaps exist. These gaps include incomplete or unavailable information relating to our knowledge of their physiological behavior in humans and in wildlife, and their environmental fate. A process described by the Council of Environmental Quality has been followed in this EA to determine if data gaps identified are felt to be significant. An evaluation of potential significant risks is presented in the process record along with a full listing of the available relevant toxicity data found in the scientific record. Data gaps are clearly shown in the data tables supporting this risk analysis (empty data cells). The Forest Service does not assume significance where data is lacking but rather uses a weight-of-evidence estimate to indicate potential problems and their significance that are associated with the use of specific chemicals within a variety of scenarios. Ultimately, after analysis, an overall agency estimate of the significance of these gaps is presented in the analysis paper and is summarized in this EA.

Based on ambiguous carcinogenicity laboratory study results, acetochlor was dropped from further consideration at this time. Although summary toxicological data for this chemical are relatively complete, no further consideration would be given to its use pending resolution of the ambiguity of data relative to its potential carcinogenicity. In addition, further review of chlorasulam methyl, fosamine ammonium, and prometon were deferred to an unspecified future time based on poor availability of summary data. Clethodim and tebuconazole were later reentered into the analysis when data sufficient to support this analysis of risk were located.

The remaining chemicals were analyzed using the method previously employed to evaluate several insecticides for mosquito control on the Wambaugh Ranger District, Francis Marion Sumter National Forest in South Carolina. Based in the methodology employed by SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates) for risk assessing pesticides for the Forest Service, this method utilizes a reduced data set to gain an indication of problem areas (if any) requiring further study, while the HQs generated for the scenarios, if acceptable, allow compliance with LBL’s Area Plan Standard 23.

Data isolated from summaries of science relating to the pesticides being reviewed are presented in Mistretta (2007). The actual processing of numbers and computation of HQs is done in an Excel workbook which is part of the project record, should a more detailed review of the process be desired. Summaries of the HQs generated for each chemical are in Mistretta (2007). This data is interpreted in the Results and Discussion section of that document under appropriate active ingredient or formulated product name. In some cases, reanalysis information (generally at a lower rate of application) follows the original maximum-label-rate discussions.

Area Plan Standard 23 is a clear statement of a safety standard to be achieved by Forest Service employees and the public, and for direct and indirect environmental effects from the proper use of a pesticidal product when used in LBL management activities.

Several accident scenarios are evaluated for each pesticide requested for use. Accidents, by their very nature, pose unacceptable risks to people, wildlife, and the environment,

263 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

generally well in excess of any use scenario postulated (Mistretta 2007, project record). Achieving an HQ of <1.0 is not required for accidents. Rapid response to reduce possible effects of an accident is required. The magnitude of the HQ computed in accident scenarios can be taken as an indication of the need for caution when handling a specific pesticide and also the degree of urgency for personnel and site clean-up, possibly even site remediation should an accident actually occur (both the Forest Service and contract applicators have emergency spill plans in place to deal with accidental spills). Thus evaluation of the potential effect of drinking water accidentally contaminated by a spill is not required to meet the HQ <1.0 standard, while in the chronic scenario in which a small mammal eats contaminated vegetation, the standard must be met or additional risk management applied. In this case risk management is a natural one for the herbicides evaluated below because vegetation would wilt and become unpalatable within 7-10 days following application, which is an insufficient time period for a chronic (long-term) scenario to take effect.

Based on this review each product requested falls into one of five categories: Acceptable (at or below a specified proposed rate of use); Acceptable (at or below the proposed rates of use – extra risk management measures required); Not Governed by Area Plan Standard 23 (fungicides); Unacceptable Risk (at the proposed rates of use); and Deferred for later analysis.

Ten of the formulated products requested for use meet the standard in all cases including the accident scenarios valuated. These active ingredients and formulated products may be approved at or below the use-rate requested (Table PR-A1) without further analysis or additional risk management beyond that already in place.

264

PR-A1 Chemicals Acceptable for Use in LBL’s Open Lands Program (under Standard 23) without Additional Risk Management Measures.

Acceptable at or below the proposed rates of use ai = active ingredient ac = acre ae = acid equivilents Product Active ingredient Proposed use rate Accent® nicosulfuron 1.33 ozs /ac (0.083 lbs ai/ac) dicamba + 4.1 oz/ac (0.119 lb ae/ac dicamba + Celebrity Plus® diflufenzopyr + 0.046 lb ae/ac diflufenzopyr + 0.027 lb nicosulfuron) ai/ac nicosulfuron) Classic® chlorimuron ethyl 0.5 oz/ac (0.125 ai/ac) Extreme® glyphosate + 3 pts./ac (0.75 lbs ai/ac glyphosate + imazethapyr 0.064 lbs ae/ac imazethapyr) Garlon® 3A triclopyr amine 1.0 qt/ac (1.0 lb ae/ac) then reevaluated at 1.66 qt/ac (1.25 lb ae/ac) Garlon® 4 triclopyr ester 1 qt/ac (1 lb ae/ac) Harmony Extra XP thifensulfuron methyl + 0.6 fl oz/ac (0.018 lb ai/ac tribenuron methyl thifensulfuron methyl + 0.090 lb ai/ac tribenuron methyl) Lightning® imazapyr + 1.28 fl oz/ac (0.014 lb ae imazapyr/ac) imazethapyr Roundup Original® glyphosate 44 fl oz/ac (1.375 lbs ai/ac = 1.03 lb ae/ac) Roundup glyphosate 44 fl oz /ac(1.89 lb ai/ac = 1.4 lb ae/ac) Weathermax®

Eighteen of the requested formulated products (Table PR-A2) are approved for use at or below use rates proposed, but with a strong caveat each of these chemicals has one or more accident or operational scenarios which failed to achieve the operational standard. Additional measures would be incorporated to preclude potential damaging effects to visiting humans, wildlife, or environmental health. Appropriate measures such as simply closing contaminated waters to fishermen or closing treated areas to foragers would be sufficient to preclude some of the projected negative effects. Taking care to avoid directly spraying small mammals found on-site by following Agricultural BMP’s would avoid another of the common scenarios which have been identified as potentially damaging. And finally, informing permittee workers of the need for proper hygiene in the event of an accident would help prevent other accident scenarios.

265 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

Table PR-A2. Chemicals Acceptable for use in LBL’s Open Lands Program (under Standard 23) with Extra Preparedness Required to Manage Accident Scenarios.

Acceptable At or Below Proposed Rates of Use with Additional Risk Management Measures of Operational or Accident Scenarios Noted (in parentheses) is Required ai = active ingredient ac = acre ae = acid equivilents

Product AI Proposed Use Rate Accident Scenarios of Special Concern Arsenal® imazapyr 6 pts (1.5 lb ae/ac) Accidental • Spill into water – Habitat® - sensitive species of fish (Measure 6) - damage to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - damage to sensitive species of algae (Measure 6) Banvel® dicamba 1 pt (0.5 lb ae/ac) Operational • Small bird eating contaminated insects acute exposure, 100% of diet. (Measure 8). Accidental • Spill into water – - child drinking contaminated water (Measure 4) - damage to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - damage to sensitive species of algae (Measure 6) Callisto® mesotrione 7.7 fl oz (0.241 lb Operational ai/ac) • Small mammal eating contaminated vegetation – acute systemic and reproductive scenarios Accidental • Spill into water - child drinking contaminated water (Measure 4) - subsistence fishermen (Measure 2) • Directly spraying a small mammal – acute scenario (Measure 5)

266

Product AI Proposed Use Rate Accident Scenarios of Special Concern Callisto® mesotrione 3 fl oz (0.094 lb Operational ai/ac) • Small mammal eating contaminated vegetation – reproductive scenario (Measure 7) Accidental • Spill into water - child drinking contaminated water (Measure 4) • Directly spraying a small mammal -100% absorption in 24 hr (both systemic & reproductive) scenarios (Measure 5)

Camix® mesotrione + 2.4 qt/ac (0.0.198 lbs Operational s- ai//ac mesotrione + • Worker – ground spray metolachlor 2.0 lbs ai/ac s- application metolachlor) • Consumption of contaminated vegetation - small mammal acute systemic and reproductive scenarios Accidental • Spill into water - Consumption of contaminated fish - general and subsistence scenarios (Measure 2) • Direct spray of small mammal - systemic & reproductive scenarios (Measure 5) Camix® mesotrione + 1.6 qt/ac (0.013 lbs Accidental s- ai//ac mesotrione + • Spill into water metolachlor 1.32 lbs ai/ac s- - consumption of contaminated metolachlor) fish recreational and subsistence fishermen (Measure 2) • Directly spraying a small mammal – acute – scenario (Measure 5)

267 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

Product AI Proposed Use Rate Accident Scenarios of Special Concern Clarity® dicamba 64 fl oz/ac Clarity® Operational (2.0 lb ae/ac) • Female forager eating (Reduced Rate contaminated foraged vegetation Below) – acute (Measure 3) • Large bird eating contaminated grass • Small bird eating contaminated insects100% of diet. Accidental - • Spill into water – - child drinking contaminated water (Measure 4) - Contaminated water effects to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - Contaminated water effects - sensitive species of algae (Measure 6) Clarity® dicamba 1 pt (0.5 lb ae/ac) Operational • Small bird eating contaminated insects acute exposure, 100% of diet. (Measure 8). Accidental • Spill into water – - child drinking contaminated water (Measure 4) - damage to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - damage to sensitive species of algae (Measure 6) Classic® chlorimuron 0.5 oz/ac (0.12 lbs Operational ethyl ai/ac) • Small mammal eating contaminated vegetation – reproductive scenario (Measure 7)

268

Product AI Proposed Use Rate Accident Scenarios of Special Concern 2,4-D 2,4-D amine 1 pt/ac (0.5 lbs ae/ac) Operational Amine 4® • Female forager eating contaminated foraged vegetation –acute and chronic scenarios (Measure 3) • Worker risk - backpack sprayer (Measure 1) - mechanical application (Measure 1) Accidental • Worker wearing contaminated gloves for 1 hour (Measure 1) • Spill into water - Child consuming contaminated water (Measure 4) - damage to both sensitive and tolerant aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) Distinct® dicamba + 6 oz/ac (0.188 lb ae Accidental diflubenzuron 0.075 dicamba + lb ae • Consumption of contaminated diflufenzopyr) fish –subsistence fisherman then reevaluated at (Measure 2) 3 oz/ac (0.0938 lb ae • Direct spraying of small mammals dicamba + 0.0375 lb assuming first order absorption ae diflufenzopyr) acute systemic (Measure 5) Dual II s-metolachlor 2.5 pt/ac (2.3875 lb Accidental Magnum® ai/ac) • Consumption of contaminated fish then reevaluated at – general and subsistence 2.0 pts/ac (1.91 lbs fisherman (Measure 2) ai/ac) • Direct spraying of small mammals 100% absorption in 24 hrs. reproductive scenario (Measure 5) Escort® XP metsulfuron 4 oz ai/ac (0.15 lb Accidental methyl ai/ac) • Spill into water – - damage to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - damage to sensitive and tolerant species of algae (Measure 6)

269 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

Product AI Proposed Use Rate Accident Scenarios of Special Concern Fusilade® fluazifop-P- 8 fl oz/ac (0.125 lb Accidental DX butyl ai/ac) • Worker wears contaminated gloves for 1 hr. (Measure 1) • Direct spray of small mammal - Systemic effects scenario (Measure 5) Habitat® ------see Arsenal® above Plateau® imazapic 12 fl oz/ac (0.188 lb Accidental ae/ac) • Spill into water – - damage to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - damage to algae (Measure 6) Select® 2EC clethodim 8 oz/ac (0.125 lb Accidental ai/ac) • Worker - immersion of hand - 1 min (Measure 1) - wears contaminated gloves for 1 hr (Measure 1) • Consumption of contaminated fish - Subsistence population (Measure 2) Select® Max clethodim 16 fl oz/ac (0.125 Accidental ai/ac) • Worker - Immersion of hand – 1 min (Measure 1) - Wearing contamin. gloves -1 hr (Measure 1) • Consumption of contaminated fish - Subsistence population (Measure 2) Valor® flumioxazin 3 ozs flumioxazin Accidental (0.1875 lb ai/ac • Spill into water - subsistence fishermen (Measure 2) - recreational fishermen (Measure 2) • Direct spray of small mammalSystemic and reproductive effects scenarios (Measure 5)

270

Product AI Proposed Use Rate Accident Scenarios of Special Concern Velpar® L hexazinone 2 lb ai/ac Operational • Adult female consuming contaminated foraged vegetation (Measure 3) Accidental • Spill into water – - damage to aquatic macrophytes (Measure 6) - damage to sensitive and to tolerant species of algae (Measure 6) Warrior® lamda- 3.2 fl oz (0.025 lb Accidental cyhalothrin ai/ac) • Spill into water - subsistence fishermen (Measure 2) - recreational fishermen (Measure 2)

Asian Soybean Rust (ASBR) was discovered in the U.S. in November 2004, and first showed up on soybeans in Kentucky in October 2006. The disease poses potentially devestating losses in soybean yields (Skillman 2006). Three fungicidal products proposed for use on LBL for treatment of ASBR do not come under Standard 23 (Table PR-A3). Analysis of these products was performed to allow adequate risk disclosure under NEPA. All but the scenario in which a small mammal eats contaminated vegetation have HQs of <1. However, both the systemic and reproductive HQs in this scenario exceed 1.0. In addition 3 accident scenarios exceed an HQ of 1 (though all are <10): both the systemic and reproductive analyses in the scenarios evaluating the potential effects from direct spray of a small mammal and consumption of contaminated fish by a subsistence fisherman, also have HQs which exceed 1.0. Using only after mid- June, when most small mammals have completed their annual reproductive cycle, would go a long way to reduce the risk for effects to small mammals. Also, the appropriate actions for Measure 7 would be applied for each of the accident scenarios, and Measure 2 for consumption of contaminated fish. Recognizing these products are proposed for use only should Asian soybean rust pose an imminent threat to soybeans, limited use after mid-June would be permitted. Because Asian Soybean Rust is a new threat, it is uncertain how frequently treatment may be needed. Even though ASBR was found in Kentucky in October of 2006, it was late enough in the season that it posed no threat to soybeans and no treatment was recommended. Also no treatment was needed in 2007.

271 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

Both Kentucky and Tennessee agricultural extension services provide ASBR hotlines for growers to monitor this threat. Authorization to treat soybeans on LBL for ASBR will be based on current recommendations from the respective state agricultural extension services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Table PR-A3 Chemicals Proposed for Use in LBL’s Open Lands Program Not Regulated by Standard 23, Subject to Administrative Decision on a “for Emergency Use Only” Basis. Area Supervisor would Make a Decision for Use Based on Imminent Threat of Asian Soybean Rust.

Approval Subject to Administrative Decision (not subject to Standard #23) Product Active Proposed Use Scenarios of Special Concern Ingredient Rate Headline® pyraclostrobin 6 fl oz/ac (0.098 Operational lb ai/ac) • Chronic consumption of treated vegetation by a small mammal - systemic effects (Measure 7) Accidental • Consumption of contaminated fish - subsistence fisherman (Measure 2) • Direct spraying of small mammals - reproductive scenario (Measure 5) Headline® pyraclostrobin 12 fl oz/ac Operational (0.196 lb ai/ac) • Chronic consumption of treated vegetation by a small mammal - systemic effects (Measure 7) Accidental • Consumption of contaminated fish - subsistence fisherman (Measure 2) • Direct spraying of small mammals - both systemic and reproductive scenarios (Measure 5) Headline® SBR pyraclostrobin + 7.8 fl oz (0.127 Operational tebuconazole lb ai • Chronic consumption of treated pyraclostrobin/ac vegetation by a small mammal - + 0.22 lb ai systemic effects (Measure 7) tebuconazole/ac) Accidental • Consumption of contaminated fish - subsistence fisherman (Measure 2) • Direct spraying of small mammals - both systemic and reproductive scenarios (Measure 5) Folicur® tebuconazole 4 fl. oz (0.1125 None lb ai)/ac

272

Four herbicide formulations were initially proposed for use at a rate of application which proved to be higher than acceptable. The original rates (maximum label rates) are listed below in Table PR-A4. Reanalysis at lower rates is displayed earlier.

Table PR-A4. Summary of the Chemicals or Rates of Application Proposed for Use in LBL’s Open Lands Program Which are Unacceptable Based on Area Plan Standard 23.

Chemicals Posing Unacceptable Risk (at the proposed rates of use) Active Ingredient Product Proposed Use Rate Reason Camix® mesotrione + 2.4 qts/ac (0.198 lbs Excessive risk s-metolachlor ai//ac mesotrione + 2.0 lbs ai/ac s- metolachlor) – Note – later request at lower rate is reported above 2,4-D amine 4® 2,4-D amine 3 pts per acre (1.5 lbs Excessive risk in ae/ac) several operational scenarios Garlon 3A triclopyr 3 gal/ac (9 lbs ae/ac) Excessive risk in amine several operational scenarios Garlon 4 triclopyr ester 8 qt/ac (8 lbs ae/ac) Excessive risk in several operational scenarios

And finally, six formulations were dropped pending future review if either desired or if sufficient data can be located to allow risk assessment. They are presented below in Table PR-A5.

Table PR-A5. Summary of Chemicals Not Evaluated, with Reason.

Request for Use of a Chemical or a Formulation of a Chemical Dropped (Sufficient data presented or available to allow future evaluation if desired) Product Active Ingredient Proposed Use rate Harness® acetochlor no rate stipulated Pursuit® imazethapyr 4 fl oz/ac (0.625 lb ae/ac) Velpar® DF hexazinone 0.9 lb ai/ac Deferred – Insufficient summary data located Product Active Ingredient Proposed Use Rate First Rate® chlorasulam methyl 0.3 oz/ac Krenite® fosamine ammonium 2 gal/ac (label info) Pramitol® prometon No application rate requested

273 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

When pesticides are applied as described in this action, little impact to the environment would occur. As required by Area Plan Standard 23, additional risk management measures are incorporated to reduce risks from accidents or other concerns indicated by HQ >1.0. These measures include BMPs, safety procedures, visitor notification, and policy and law.

Measures 2, 4, and 6 are related measures taken after an accidental spill. The measure to protect public health during spraying or after an accidental spill is to post appropriate signage on a case by case basis. Measures 5, 7, and 8 pertain to risk to mammals or birds, and these risks are minimal when BMPs are followed. Section 3.4 has a discussion of pesticide effects to wildlife and indicates risk is minimal for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Measure 1: While the Forest Service does not prescribe health and safety standards for non Forest Service employees, permittees would be informed of health or safety concerns arising in the worker scenarios relevant to the applications proposed.

Measure 2: Close ponds affected by spill to fishing for at least 1 half-life of the chemical potentially contaminating the pond.

Measure 3: Preclude humans from collecting vegetation for consumption in treated fields where this may potentially occur until the risk subsides.

Measure 4: Post warning signs and notify campers or other visitors of any accidental water contamination and, thereby, preclude children from drinking quantities of concern of contaminated water.

Measure 5: Apply herbicides where risk of small mammal foraging is low; i.e., disked fields or fields with limited cover, or when risk of small mammal reproduction is low. Applying herbicides when reproduction is limited or not occurring among potentially affected small mammal populations (those with a single annual reproductive cycle) avoids dosing reproductive individuals and reduces risk to zero. BMPs should be followed to reduce risk to wildlife. Following the BMPs will encourage wildlife to escape from the fields as they move away from the equipment. There are no threatened, endangered, or Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species small mammals on LBL. Individual small mammals with multiple reproductive cycles, (i.e., mice and voles) may be adversely affected, but populations would not be affected.

Measure 6: Institute rapid cleanup of any accidental spill potentially affecting water to reduce potential high concentrations in water. Preplanning should be done in such a manner that workers are fully trained in spill response, and have spill kits containing materials necessary to preclude incursion of spilled materials into water. Both the Forest Service and contract applicators have emergency spill plans in place to deal with accidental spills.

274

Measure 7: Avoidance of the scenario in which a small mammal eats contaminated vegetation is a natural one for herbicides evaluated. Vegetation would wilt and become unpalatable within 7-10 days following application, which is an insufficient time period for a chronic (long-term) scenario to take effect. For fungicides the vegetation would not wilt; therefore, avoid spraying until after mid-June when most small mammals have completed their reproductive cycle. Individual small mammals with multiple reproductive cycles, i.e. mice and voles, may be adversely affected, but populations will not be affected.

Measure 8: Acute exposure of small birds eating contaminated insects as 100% of their diet. This potential effect is only a concern with 1 herbicide (dicamba). Additional risk management was taken by lowering the application rate so the HQ<1.0 will be achieved if the exposure is 70% or less of the diet. Behavior and observation indicates this will be the case, achieving an HQ<1.0

These measures are reflected in the tables of acceptability presented above.

Cumulative effects - Three of the four boundaries of LBL are water; to the west is Kentucky Lake and to the north and east Lake Barkley. The southern boundary is the only part of LBL abutting private lands. In addition, LBL is 100% land managed by the Forest Service; there are no inholders. The benefit of these facts is, since the Tennessee Valley Authority management followed by the Forest Service’s management have maintained careful records of pesticide use (both their own and permitted uses), a clear picture of the pesticide use history of LBL is available.

Review of all pesticide use from 1999 through 2006 (project record), including applications for ticks, mosquitoes and biting flies in recreation sites and trails, shows only one persistent chemical (half life of greater than ½ year) in use during that period. Paraquat dichloride was applied as either Gramoxone Max or as Gramoxone Extra until 2005. Total use for 2005 was 223 pounds. (Since the summer of 2005 this chemical has not been used and proposed uses of it should be denied pending review.) Of approximately 30 chemicals used on LBL (full listing in the project record) this is the only one with any potential to remain in place at the present time, and residual should be less than one quarter of the actual amount applied during 2005. No interactions (synergisms) of concern are reported for it. Additionally, no residual problems are reported with pesticides currently proposed for use and no interactions (synergisms) of concern are reported for them.

Fertilizer affects were not considered in the analysis of potential risk from pesticide use because no synergistic effects, either between or among the pesticides evaluated, or between/among them and other chemicals potentially in the environment, were found reported in the science reviewed. Thus no cumulative effects of currently proposed uses of pesticides from interaction with pesticides historically applied or proposed to be applied are expected to occur.

275 [Project Title] Environmental Assessment DRAFT TEMPLATE

A second possible way in which cumulative effects might occur is the situation where a permittee alternates chemicals on a single site. (Note that multiple applications of a single chemical have been incorporated in the analysis of risk presented.) None of the evaluated products are reported to interact synergistically with each other. Thus, potential for this effect is considered to be additive in the same manner as for multiple chemical formulated products. Remember this simple additive model generates the worst-case estimate of risk, since between the time of the first and second chemical application the chemical first applied would degrade and dissipate to some degree, so there would be a reduction of risk from it.

No unmanageable cumulative effects are anticipated from changes in chemicals used in an IPM scheme on any of these managed open lands.

6.9.2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for LBL Open Lands

IPM is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common sense practices. IPM programs use current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm

1. Target pests would be accurately identified so appropriate control decisions can be made.

2. Prevention would be used as a first line of pest control. Using cultural methods where feasible, such as conservation tillage, crop rotation, and prescribed fire, would help break pest cycles.

3. Mechanical controls, such as bushogging and soil disturbance, may also be employed when effective.

4. Biological controls would be considered.

5. Pesticides would be used when above methods are not effective or practical.

6.10 Maps

(See following pages)

276

277

278

279

280

281

282