Environmental Assessment in Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Other Relevant Federal and State Laws and Regulations

United States Environmental Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service

October 2011 EAST NOTTELY FOREST HEALTH and RESTORATION PROJECT

Blue Ridge Ranger District, Chattahoochee National Forest Union County, Georgia

For More Information Contact: Alice Brown 2042 Highway 515 W Blairsville, GA 30512 706-745-6928

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 3 Proposed Action ...... 5 Decision Framework ...... 8 Public Involvement ...... 8 Issues…………………………………………………………………………………...8 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action...... 9 Alternative A – No Action ...... 9 Alternative B - Proposed Action…………………………….…………………………9 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives………………………………………………10 Comparison of Alternatives ...... … 10 Alternatives Considered but not Fully Developed……………………………………11 Environmental Consequences ...... 11 Biological Factors ...... 11 Major Forest Communities ...... 14 Mesic Deciduous Forests ...... 15 Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest ...... 17 Oak and Oak-Pine Forests ...... 19 Pine and Pine-Oak Forests…………………………………………………………….22 Mixed Woodlands, Savannahs, and Grasslands………………………………………25 Successional Habitats ...... 26 Old Growth……………………………………………………………………………29 Forest Interior Birds…………………………………………………………………..30 Permanent Openings, Old Fields, Rights of Way, Improved Pasture…………….…..33 Special Habitat Attributes…………………………………………………………….34 Riparian Habitat………...…………………………………………………………….34 Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood……………………………………………………..36 Viability Concern Species…………………………………………………………….38 Demand Species ...... 41 White-tailed Deer ...... 41 Black Bear…………………………………………………………………………….43 Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, & Locally Rare Species ...... 45 Non-Native Invasive Plant Species ...... 52 Climate Change/Carbon Sequestration……………………………………………….56 Social/Economic Factors ...... 58 Recreation ...... 58 Visual Quality ...... 59 Cultural Resources……………………………………………………………………62 Physical Factors………………………………………………………………………...63 Soils ...... 63 Water ...... 72

i Consulted Agencies & Persons ...... 76 References……………………………………………………………………………….77 Appendix A - Timber Sale Financial Analysis ...... 82 Appendix B - Standard Mitigation Measures for Herbicide Use ...... 83 Appendix C - Results of the Risk Assessment ...... 86 Appendix D - Emergency Spill Plan ...... 90 Appendix E - Monitoring Plan ...... 94 Appendix F - Response to Comments ………………………..……………………. ..97 Appendix G - Response to Draft EA ...... 99 Appendix H - Project Area Maps……………………………………………………111

ii Introduction

Document Structure The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Blue Ridge Ranger District office in Blairsville, Georgia.

Background The analysis area is comprised of Compartments 410, 411, 412 and 415 and is located just to the north of Blairsville, Georgia (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

2 East Nottely EA

Purpose and Need for Action The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan), approved in 2004, made broad decisions regarding allocation of land and measures necessary to manage National Forest resources. The Plan establishes direction for the resource management practices; levels of habitat production, protection, and management for all National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest boundaries. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources could be provided from these lands now and in the future (desired future condition). The Plan further allocates land into Management Prescriptions (MRx). A MRx is a selected grouping of National Forest lands with similar land and resource characteristics and similar management goals. MRx’s provide a more specific set of goals and objectives, which help lead to the forests overall desired future condition (DFC). The four compartments that comprise the East Nottely Forest Health and Restoration analysis area are assigned to MRx 7.E.1 - Dispersed Recreation Areas with MRx 11 - Riparian Corridors embedded within. MRx 7.E.1. emphasizes the improvement of settings for non-formal outdoor recreation in a manner that protects and restores the health, diversity and productivity of the watersheds. This may be accomplished through silvicultural activities such as prescribed burning; mechanical and chemical vegetation control; two-aged, and even-aged silvicultural methods. This prescription is aimed at managing and restoring landscape vegetative community patterns to their ecological potential while providing suitable to optimal habitats to support populations of the plant and animal species associated with these communities. The desired future condition in MRx 7.E.1. is an intermediate mix of forest successional stages. Mid- and late-successional forests are common, but up to 4 percent of forested land is in early- successional forest conditions. Early-successional forest may be created by two-aged management prescription. Existing old fields and openings for wildlife are present and may be maintained. Creation of new openings may occur. Native species are emphasized when establishing and maintaining wildlife openings. Some openings provide permanent shrub/sapling habitats as a result of longer maintenance cycle. Management Prescription (MRx) 11 emphasis is to manage and retain, restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions of the associate aquatic, riparian, and upland components within the corridor, which is embedded in MRx 7.E.1. The Plan describes the standards for management activities/practices that would lead to the desired future condition of the management prescription 7.E.1. Where MRx 7.E.1. is silent on specific goals, objectives and standards the forest wide goals, objectives and standards should be applied. Goals, objectives, and standards were developed for the forest and each MRx to permit management activities that would lead an area toward its desired future condition. Thus comparison of these goals, objectives, and standards with the existing conditions identifies those areas where efforts should be focused and management activities should take place. The following are the goals and objectives that the East Nottely Forest Health and Restoration proposal is designed to address: Plan Goal 2 – A diversity of habitat would be provided for the full range of native and other desired species. Sufficient amounts of interior or late-successional habitat as well as early

3 East Nottely EA successional habitat would be provided to meet needs of all successional communities. Early successional habitat would be well distributed in all forest types, elevations, aspects, and slopes including riparian corridors.

Plan Goal 3 – Enhance, restore, manage and create habitats as required for wildlife and plant communities, including disturbance-dependent forest types.

Plan Goal 3, objective 3.6 – Within the first 10 years of Plan implementation restore oak or oak- pine forests on 1,250 acres on the Chattahoochee.

Plan Goal 3, objective 3.7 – To maintain existing oak and oak-pine forests; reduce stem density on 5,500 acres on the Chattahoochee.

Plan Goal 4 – Maintain and restore natural communities in amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species within the planning area.

Plan Goal 8 – Contribute to maintenance or restoration of native tree species whose role in forest ecosystems: (a) has been reduced by past land use; or (b) is threatened by insects and disease, fire exclusion, forest succession, or other factors.

Plan Goal 12 – Minimize adverse effects of invasive native and nonnative species. Control such species where feasible and necessary to protect national forest resources.

MRx Objective 7.E.1. 1-01 Manage forest successional stages to maintain a minimum of 75 percent of forested acres in mid- to late-successional forest, including old growth; a minimum of 50 percent of forested acres in late-successional forest including old growth; and up to 4 percent in early-successional forest. Table A displays the differences between the desired future condition and the existing condition of the acreage within MRx 7.E.1 in relation to Objective 7.E.1. 1-01 (there are approximately 55,890 acres of MRx 7.E.1on the Blue Ridge Ranger District). There are approximately 1,839 acres of MRx 7.E.1. in the East Nottely Forest Health and Restoration project area. As indicated in the table there is currently a lack of early successional habitat. There are also opportunities not listed in the table for the accomplishment of other Plan objectives. The difference between desired future condition and existing conditions provide opportunities for management activities that can lead this area toward the desired future condition.

4 East Nottely EA

Table A. Comparison of Selected Objectives by Condition for 7.E.1. Objectives/Standard Desired Existing Proposed Action Maintain a minimum of 41,918 acres 21,664 acres 592 acres 75% of forested acres in mid to late successional forest including old growth (age 41 + years) Maintain a minimum of 27,945 acres 34,202 acres 454 acres 50% of forested acres in late successional forest including old growth (age 81 +) Maintain up to 4% of 2,236 acres 0 acres 25 acres forested acres in early successional forest (age 0- 10) Note: Total forested acres in MRx 7.E.1. on the Blue Ridge Ranger District = approximately 55,890 from GIS dated 09/2010 The following summarizes the purpose and need of the proposed action in this area. Improve forest health in over-crowded and fire-excluded stands to lower the risk of insect and disease infestation (particularly southern pine beetle) and reduce susceptibility to damaging wildfire. Restore and/or maintain native pine-hardwood forest types in areas that have been impacted by past southern pine beetle infestations and/or white pine conversion. Restore and/or maintain native oak and oak-pine forest types in areas that have been impacted by past southern pine beetle infestations and/or in areas with high amounts of fire intolerant species such as maple, sweet gum, and Virginia pine. Restore a prescribed burning regime to improve wildlife habitat and forest health. Improve wildlife habitat by renovating existing permanent wildlife openings. Control of non-native invasive species competing with native vegetation. Improve watershed conditions and manage forest visitor access.

Proposed Action

The Blue Ridge Ranger District is proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need (See Appendix G for maps). The definition of Basal Area (BA) is useful for the narrative that follows. Basal area is a unit of measure that foresters use to describe the density of trees within a stand. It is defined as the total horizontal cross-sectional area of all the tree stems per acre, measured at breast height (4.5 feet above ground level) and expressed as square feet per acre (sq.ft./acre).

5 East Nottely EA

Silvicultural Treatments – Proposed Activities 1) Restoration of native Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest Restore/maintain native ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat via approximately 25 acres of two-aged regeneration harvest and 12 acres of selective harvest. The average leave basal area would be 0-20 sq.ft./acre in the two-aged regeneration cut retaining healthy and well formed oaks and shortleaf. Post harvest site preparation treatments in the two-aged regeneration cut would include herbicide site preparation with triclopyr (ester), prescribed burning, and mechanical site preparation via drum chopping. Artificial regeneration would occur after site preparation by hand planting desirable oaks and shortleaf pine on an approximate spacing of 15’ x 15’, or approximately 194 trees per acre. Hand planting activity would occur in the dormant season. Approximately 29 acres of herbicide release using glyphosate would be applied between year one and year four after planting. This acreage includes the 25 acres of two-aged regeneration as well as 4 acres in compartment 412, stand 16 which has previously been planted under another decision. The 12 acres of selective cutting would retain the healthy and well formed oak/hickory species and shortleaf pine while removing all white pine. Oaks would only be removed where the BA exceeds 60 sq.ft./acre or if they pose a hazard to improvements or private property. All the proposed activities above exist on upland sites that support ―dry to mesic oak forest‖ or ―dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests‖. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Table B.

Table B. Compartment/Stand Acreage Treatment Reforestation 412/15 4 Two-Aged Hand planting, Regeneration herbicide site prep, 411/20 & 42 21 Cut prescribed burning, and mechanical site preparation with 2nd or 3rd year herbicide release. 412/24 2 Selective Not applicable Cut 410/38 10

412/16 4 Herbicide Not applicable Release

2) Commercial thinning for forest health and wildlife habitat enhancement Improve forest health and wildlife habitat by conducting first thinnings on approximately 665 acres of immature pine stands and mixed hardwood/pine stands and intermediate thinning of approximately 339 acres of pine, mixed oak/pine and pine/oak stands. Thinning would reduce the potential of catastrophic losses of wildlife habitat from Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) epidemics and wildfire. The stands proposed for thinning are overstocked. Stands would be selectively thinned to an average BA of 60 sq.ft. per acre

6 East Nottely EA

which would lead to improved health, growth and quality in the residual stand. Activities would occur in the stands listed in Table C.

Table C. Compartment/Stand Acreage Treatment 412/03-05,10,13,17, 137 1st Thinning 18,22,23 411/03,04,07,07,09 163 1st Thinning 12,14,26,35,36 410/01,02,04,06,10,13,14 316 1st Thinning 18,20-26,30-32,39 415/03-07,09,11,12 112 1st Thinning 412/14 16 Intermediate Thinning 412/19 7 Intermediate Thinning 412/20 16 Intermediate Thinning 412/21 8 Intermediate Thinning 411/5 11 Intermediate Thinning 411/18 11 Intermediate Thinning 411/19 54 Intermediate Thinning 411/21 9 Intermediate Thinning 411/21 13 Intermediate Thinning 411/28 12 Intermediate Thinning 411/44 16 Intermediate Thinning 410/03 20 Intermediate Thinning 410/05 23 Intermediate Thinning 410/07 11 Intermediate Thinning 410/11 16 Intermediate Thinning 410/12 11 Intermediate Thinning 410/17 21 Intermediate Thinning 415/01 11 Intermediate Thinning 415/02 11 Intermediate Thinning 415/10 46 Intermediate Thinning TOTAL 1071

Additional Wildlife Habitat Improvements – Proposed Activities 1) Renovating approximately 11 acres of existing wildlife openings Renovating activities consist of herbicide control of invasive weeds, mowing, fertilizing, and sowing to native grasses and forbs (4 acres) or desirable non-native cool season species such as clover (7 acres). 2) Control non-native invasive species Non-native invasive species in the project area would be treated with herbicide under an existing Decision Notice (on file, dated 01/08/2009).

7 East Nottely EA

Fire Management – Proposed Activities 1) Prescribed Burning Implement a prescribed burning regime for the entire project area (1,839 acres) through a series of dormant and growing season burns to benefit wildlife habitat and vegetation management objectives. The prescribed burning would utilize roads, streams, and trails for fire lines when practicable. Sections of constructed line (handline and dozer line) would be used where there are no existing features to contain the prescribed burns. The burning regime (seasonality and interval) would be guided by District and Forest-wide prescribed burn monitoring efforts to ensure that desired conditions are being met.

Facilities, Roads and Access – Proposed Activities 1) Reconstruct 1.0 miles of Forest System Road 116 Forest System Road 116 would be reconstructed using US Forest Service Engineering Standards and Georgia Best Management Practices. Work would consist of widening curves, spot placing gravel, brushing, minor re-shaping, upgrading culverts, replacing gates and cleaning and constructing dips and other drainage structures to improve overall drainage. 2) Rehabilitate and close unauthorized (non-system) roads within the project area Approximately 2.5 miles of unauthorized roads would be rehabilitated to restore proper drainage and vegetation and then closed to motorized use through gates and/or earthen berms. This work would be accomplished with heavy equipment such as a dozer and/or excavator.

Decision Framework The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action, or another alternative in order to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposal.

Public Involvement Scoping, to solicit the issues and concerns related to the Proposed Action, started on June 30, 2010. Letters were mailed to approximately 67 interested and affected agencies, organizations, individuals and adjacent landowners. See the Consultation and Coordination section of this document for a listing of the interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted. These letters informed recipients of the Proposed Action and requested their input. The proposal has been listed in the Chattahoochee National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions since July 2007.

Issues The Forest Service response to comments received from the public, other agencies and organizations is disclosed in Appendix F.

8 East Nottely EA

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the East Nottely Forest Health and Restoration Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered in detail. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

Alternative A No Action Under No Action, Alternative B would not be implemented.

Alternative B The Proposed Action Following is a summary of the proposal that was scoped to the public. A more detailed account of the proposed activities is presented in the previous chapter. In this alternative the Blue Ridge Ranger District is proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need (See Appendix G for maps). Improve forest health and wildlife habitat through approximately 728 acres of first thinning and approximately 343 acres of intermediate thinning in pine, oak-pine and pine/oak stands. Restore/maintain native ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat through approximately 25 acres of two-aged regeneration harvest. Site preparation after harvest would consist of herbicide application, prescribed burning, and mechanical drum chopping. Hand planting would take place in the winter with a subsequent herbicide release one to three years after planting. Restore/maintain native ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat via manually applied herbicide release in a 4 acre stand that was planted in the early 1990’s to mixed oak. This area will not be prescribed burned; current dozer line is already established. Restore/maintain native ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat through a selective cut of approximately 12 acres removing white pine and retaining shortleaf pine and mast producing species. Implement a prescribed burning regime for the entire project area (1,839 acres) through a series of dormant and growing season burns to benefit wildlife habitat and vegetation management objectives. Renovate and maintain approximately 11 acres of existing wildlife openings. Obliterate unauthorized roads for approximately 2.5 miles by restoring to proper drainage and vegetation thus closing from motorized use with earthen berms and or rocks.

9 East Nottely EA

Approximately 1.0 mile of road reconstruction on Forest System Road #116 would be completed to improve access, drainage and safety. Construct approximately 3.0 miles of temporary use roads to access harvest units. Temporary use roads would be closed and stabilized following completion of the project.

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives The Plan contains Forest Wide and Management Prescription specific standards that mitigate adverse effects to all resources. These standards are part of all action alternatives.

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

Table D. Comparison of Alternatives ACTIVITY UNITS ALT. A ALT. B

VEGETATION Thinning (1st & Intermediate) Acres 0 1,071 Two-aged Regeneration cut Acres 0 25 Selective Cut Acres 0 12 Site Preparation – Herbicide Acres 0 25 prescribed burning Acres 0 25 drum chopping Acres 0 25 Artificial Regeneration– oak/pine planting Acres 0 25 Seedling release-chemical Acres 0 29 TRANSPORTATION

Reconstruct Roads Miles 0 1.0 Rehabilitation of Unauthorized Roads Miles 0 2.5 Temporary Rd Construction Miles 0 3.0 WILDLIFE Renovation of Wildlife Openings Acres 0 11 PRESCRIBED BURNING Dormant and/or growing season burning Acres 0 1,839

10 East Nottely EA

Alternatives Considered but not Fully Developed The interdisciplinary team and responsible official considered one other alternative; namely to eliminate the use of herbicides from the proposed action. This was based on comments from Georgia Forest Watch requesting that herbicides ―be used judiciously and sparingly, if at all". However, herbicide usage is critical to the purpose and need of this project including native ecosystem restoration objectives and control of non-native invasive species. In addition, the prescriptions and mitigations set forth in the proposed action (Alternative B) fully incorporate the judicious use of herbicides. For these reasons, this alternative was dropped from further study.

CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected analysis area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

The lands of the East Nottely Forest Health and Restoration Project area are made up of 14 acquisition tracts or portions of tracts. The largest portion of the project area is a portion of approximately 1,655 acres that was acquired from the Tennessee Valley Authority transferred to the Chattahoochee National Forest in 1958. Remaining tracts were purchased from Hiawassee Land Company (currently known as Bowater), and private individuals.

Biological Factors

This section discloses effects to biological elements of the environment expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. The biological environment includes the diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat components, and individual species of concern or interest. Analysis of effects to these elements is organized in this document following the framework used during forest planning (Forest Plan and FEIS). Use of this framework is designed to ensure comprehensive consideration of effects to the biological environment. Elements in this framework are listed in Table E, where they are assessed for their relevance to this project. Only those relevant to the project are analyzed further in this document.

Table E. Elements of the biological environment, derived from forest plan analysis, their relevance to the East Nottely project, and whether they would be further analyzed in this document. Biological Element Analyzed Relevance to this Project Further? (Potential Effects of Concern) MAJOR FOREST COMMUNITIES

11 East Nottely EA

Mesic Deciduous Forests Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives could change structure in existing mesic deciduous forest, also potentially affecting habitat abundance for associated species. Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives Forests would change structure in existing white pine stands, also potentially affecting habitat abundance for associated species. Oak and Oak-Pine Forests Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives would change structure in existing oak and oak-pine forests, also potentially affecting habitat abundance for associated species. Pine and Pine-Oak Forests Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives would change structure in existing pine and pine-oak forests, also potentially affecting habitat abundance for associated species. Mixed Woodlands, Savannas, and Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives Grasslands would begin the development of woodland conditions that currently are limited the area. RARE COMMUNITIES Wetlands No Surveys of affected areas indicate no wetlands are present. Glades and Barrens No Surveys of affected areas indicate no glades or barrens are present Canebrakes No Surveys of affected areas indicate no canebrakes are present Caves and Mines No Surveys of affected areas indicate no caves or mines are present Table Mountain Pine No Surveys of affected areas indicate no table mountain pine forests are present Rock Outcrops and Cliffs No Surveys of affected areas indicate no rock outcrops or cliffs are present High Elevation Balds No Surveys of affected areas indicate no high elevation balds are present Basic Mesic Forests No Surveys of affected areas indicate no basic mesic forests are present SUCCESSIONAL STAGE HABITATS Successional Forests Yes Proposed activities under some of the alternatives could change the abundance of the various forest successional stages. High-Elevation, Early No All of the project area is under 2000 feet elevation. Successional Forests Old Growth Yes There is no existing old growth in the project, but harvest and prescribed burning under some of the alternative could affect future old growth Forest Interior Birds Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives could change habitat conditions for interior forest birds Permanent Openings, Old Fields, Yes Proposed management under some of the alternatives could Rights-of Way, Improved change the condition of the existing permanent openings and Pastures power-line ROW, also potentially affecting habitat abundance for associated species. SPECIAL HABITAT ATTRIBUTES Riparian Habitats Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives would change structure in forested riparian habitats, also potentially affecting habitat abundance for associated species

12 East Nottely EA

Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Yes Prescribed burning and reforestation treatments under some alternatives may also result in both loss and creation of snags. Changes in snag density would potentially affect abundance and quality of habitat for snag-dependent species. Aquatic Habitats Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives could affect aquatic habitat conditions THREATENED, Yes Some PETS and Locally Rare species are present or ENDANGERED, SENSITIVE potentially present in affected areas. See section on these AND LOCALLY RARE species for details on which of these species are relevant. SPECIES DEMAND SPECIES Black Bear Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives would affect the amount of hard and soft mast for this species, potentially affecting population levels. White-tailed Deer Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning under some alternatives would affect the amount of browse and cover for this species, potentially affecting population levels. .

The Forest Plan identifies 15 management indicator species (MIS), to help indicate effects of management on some elements of this framework. A subset of these MIS is analyzed further in this analysis because their populations or habitats may be affected by the project (Table F). For those species that also were MIS in the original 1985 Forest Plan (e.g. Acadian flycatcher, pileated woodpecker, white-tailed deer, black bear), much of the Forest-wide population and habitat data was compiled and analyzed previously (USDA Forest Service 2003). Most of the MIS in the Forest Plan are birds that are monitored annually through the Forest’s breeding bird surveys (USDA Forest Service 2004c). In addition, La Sorte et al. (2007) have recently completed an analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992- 2004), which included the MIS bird species. Population trends for all of the current MIS are summarized in the Management Indicator Species Population Trend Report for the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006).

Table F. Forest-level management indicator species, their purpose, whether they are selected for project- level analysis, and reasons for their selection or non-selection, East Nottely Project Analyzed Relevance to this Project Species Name Purpose Further? (Potential Effects of Concern) Prairie Warbler To help indicate the effects of Yes Prairie warblers occur in the vicinity of management on early the project and management actions successional forests may affect the availability of early successional forest Ovenbird To help indicate the effects of Yes Ovenbirds occur in the vicinity of the management on Forest project and management actions may Interiors (Chattahoochee NF) affect the forest interior habitat

Pileated Woodpecker To help indicate effects of Yes Pileated woodpeckers occur in the management on snags. vicinity of the project and management actions may affect the availability of snags. Scarlet Tanager To help indicate the effects of Yes Scarlet tanagers occur in the vicinity of management on Oak Forest the project and management actions may affect the structure of oak forests

13 East Nottely EA

Hooded Warbler To help indicate the effects of Yes Hooded warblers occur in the vicinity management on mid -late of the project and management actions successional mesic deciduous may affect the structure of mid-late forest successional mesic deciduous forests Chestnut-sided Warbler To help indicate the effects of No All of the project area is under 2000 management on high feet elevation and chestnut-sided elevation early-successional warblers do not occur in the vicinity of Forests the project area. Pine Warbler To help indicate the effects of Yes Pine warblers occur in the vicinity of management on Pine, Pine- the project and management actions Oak Forest may affect the structure of pine forests. Acadian Flycatcher To help indicate the effects of Yes Acadian flycatchers occur in the management on Mid-Late vicinity of the project and management Successional Riparian actions may affect the structure of Habitats forested riparian habitats. Field Sparrow To help indicate the effects of Yes Field sparrows occur in the vicinity of management on woodland, the project and management actions savanna and grassland may affect the availability of woodland communities conditions.

Smooth Coneflower To help indicate effects of No On the Chattahoochee NF, smooth management on recovery of coneflower is known only to occur on this endangered species. the Chattooga Ranger District in Habersham and Stephens Counties. Black bear To help indicate effects of Yes Tree harvest and prescribed burning management on supplying under some alternatives would affect public demand for bear the amount of hard and soft mast for hunting and viewing. this species, potentially affecting population levels. White-tailed Deer To help indicate effects of Yes Tree harvest, prescribed burning and management on supplying permanent opening management under public demand for deer some alternatives would affect the hunting and viewing. amount of browse and cover for this species, potentially affecting population levels.

MAJOR FOREST COMMUNITIES

Table G shows the existing forest type distribution for the East Nottely Analysis Area.

Table G. Forest Type Acres Percent 03 (White Pine) 284 15.4 10 (White Pine-Upland Hardwood) 115 6.3 12 (Shortleaf Pine-Oak) 111 6.0 13 (Loblolly Pine-Hardwood) 76 4.1 16 (Virginia Pine-Oak) 36 2.0 31 (Loblolly Pine) 86 4.7 32 (Shortleaf Pine) 262 14.2

14 East Nottely EA

33 (Virginia Pine) 3 0.2 42 Upland Hardwoods-White Pine 215 11.7 44 (Southern Red Oak-Yellow Pine) 52 2.8 47 (White Oak-Black Oak-Yellow Pine) 94 5.1 53 (White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory) 396 21.5 54 (White Oak) 5 0.3 56 (Yellow Poplar-White Oak-Northern Red Oak) 70 3.8 Total Forested Acres 1805 98.2 Non-Forested (Perm Openings, ROW) 34 1.8 TOTALS 1839

Element: Mesic Deciduous Forests

Measure: Measure would consist of species composition, successional stage, and forest structure in the effected timber stands and effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

Bounds of Analysis – Spatial: The spatial bound of the analysis area is Compartments 410, 411, 412, and 415 on the eastern side of Lake Nottely, total acres is 1839 acres. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation

Existing Conditions:

This forest community consists of cove hardwoods which may include yellow poplar, white oak, northern red oak, basswood and ash (Forest Type 56 - Yellow Poplar-White Oak-Northern Red Oak) and the more mesic portions of the upland hardwood stands (Forest Type 53- White Oak- Red Oak-Hickory). Cove hardwood forests exist in 3 stands with a total of 70 acres of the analysis area, primarily in the coves and north and east facing-slopes. This represents approximately 4% of the analysis area. These 3 stands all are approximately 50 years of age. Understory development is limited in many of these closed canopies, mid-successional stands. There are approximately 400 acres of upland hardwood stands in the analysis area but only a small portion of these stands are located on mesic sites (north aspect, riparian corridor). The majority is located on more xeric sites and is included in the discussion of oak and oak-pine communities below.

The Forest Plan identified the hooded warbler as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management on species associated with mature mesic deciduous forests. Hooded warblers are found in mixed hardwood forests of beech, maple, hickory and oaks with dense undergrowth (DeGraaf et al 1991). They nest in the understory of deciduous forests, and a dense shrub layer and scant ground cover are important (NatureServe 2009). Mature forests with a structurally diverse understory and midstory layer are favored. They typically inhabit mature forests containing canopy gaps (La Sorte et al 2007). The hooded warbler is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and has been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Given the availability of mature mesic deciduous forest habitat, population levels likely are low to moderate.

15 East Nottely EA

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects - This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to mature mesic deciduous forest habitat are expected. Existing habitat conditions for the hooded warbler and other species that utilize mature mesic deciduous habitats would be maintained. Through time, the amount of mature mesic deciduous habitat would increase as the portions containing young forests mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the hooded warbler and other species that utilize mature mesic deciduous habitats.

Cumulative Effects - Mature mesic hardwood forests are relatively uncommon on the East Nottely project area but are abundant on the Forest as a whole. The Forest Plan has an objective to increase the structural diversity in mature mesic deciduous forests and the quantity and quality of these forests and populations of hooded warblers and associated species are expected to increase through the implementation of the Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), there is strong evidence suggesting that hooded warblers have decreased on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). However this analysis indicates that hooded warbler populations have increased on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability of mature mesic deciduous forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to mature mesic deciduous habitat and associated species such as hooded warblers are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: In this alternative, thinning would occur in approximately 8 acres (Compartment 412/stand 21) of the 70 acres of mesic deciduous hardwoods in the analysis area. This closed-canopy, mid-successional stand would be thinned to an average BA of 60 sq.ft./acre, retaining healthy and well formed mast-producing hardwoods and shortleaf pine. As a result of the canopy reduction, this stand would develop a relative dense understory, increasing its habitat suitability for hooded warblers and other shrub-nesting birds. Prescribed burning (both dormant and growing season) would occur throughout the project area, including the mesic deciduous hardwood stands. However, due to the moist conditions of these sites and the expected firing patterns, there would be little impact to these sites from prescribed burning. No herbicide use is proposed for any of the mesic deciduous stands.

There would be no direct effects of the selective herbicide application for site preparation and release on hooded warblers or other associated bird species. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: Mature mesic hardwood forests are relatively uncommon on the East Nottely Area but are abundant on the Forest as a whole. The Forest Plan has an objective to increase the structural diversity in mature mesic deciduous forests and the quantity and quality of these forests and populations of hooded warblers and associated species are expected to increase

16 East Nottely EA through the implementation of the Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), there is strong evidence suggesting that hooded warblers have decreased on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). However this analysis indicates that hooded warbler populations have increased on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

This alternative would have a positive effect on mesic hardwood forest by creating canopy gaps that would enhance structural diversity. There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability of mature mesic deciduous forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to mature mesic deciduous habitat and associated species such as hooded warblers are expected.

Element: Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest

Existing Conditions:

This forest community on the project area consists mainly of white pine plantations and stands with white pine as a major component (Forest Types 03- White Pine and 10 – White Pine- Upland Hardwoods). There are approximately 400 acres of white pine forest types in the analysis area (approximately 22%). Most of these acres are in plantations less than 50 years of age. These plantations have a very dense canopy that limits the amount of sunlight to reaching the forest floor. As a result herbaceous growth is limited under these stands as is the natural regeneration of more desirable species such as oak or shortleaf pine. There are only 2 stands that are greater than 60 years-of age. Although scattered hemlocks are present, there are no hemlock stands in the project area.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to white pine forest habitat are expected. Through time, the white pine plantations would continue to grow at a slow rate each year due their overstocked condition. There would be little if any chance for oak or shortleaf pine to become established in these areas. The older white pines would continue to produce seed and would expand into the surrounding hardwood stands.

Cumulative Effects: The acreage of white pine forests in the Southern Appalachians have increased substantially in the last 30 years, largely due to increases in pine plantations and

17 East Nottely EA upland encroachment of white pine in hardwood stands due to fire exclusion (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The Forest Plan has objectives to restore oak and oak-pine forest on sites currently occupied by pine plantations and to maintain oak and oak-pine stands through thinning and prescribed burning. The implementation of the plan likely would reduce these white pine communities to a more natural distribution on the landscape over time. No progress toward meeting plan objectives related to the management of white pine communities would be made on the East Nottely area under the no-action alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: In this alternative, timber harvest treatments would occur in approximately 350 acres of the 400 acres of white pine forests in the analysis area. Approximately 225 acres would be thinned. Many of these stands are mid-successional pine plantations that would be thinned to an average BA of 60sq.ft./acre. This thinning would redistribute growth among the residual trees and lessen the susceptibility to insect and disease attacks. The other stands to be thinned are mixed white pine hardwood stands, in which the white pine is targeted for removal, retaining healthy and well formed mast producing hardwoods and shortleaf pine as residuals. If there are no other species to leave, white pine would be left to meet the targeted BA. The opening of the canopy of these stands also would promote the development of a woody and herbaceous understory layer as well as a larger hardwood component in the future stands.

Approximately 25 acres of white pine stands would receive a two-aged regeneration cut and 12 acres are planned for selection harvest. In these stands, the white pine component would be removed leaving a residual canopy of oaks and shortleaf pine. The basal area in the stands to be regenerated would be reduced to 20 BA or less, to permit the planting and establishment of oak, shortleaf pine, and if available, American chestnut seedlings. The areas would be site prepared using prescribed burning, herbicides, and mechanical methods. The selective cut is going to retain the healthy and well formed oak/hickory species and shortleaf while removing all white pine. There would be some oaks that would be removed where the BA exceeds 60 sq.ft./acre in the selective cut. The selection harvest would be maintained with prescribed burning.

Approximately 90 acres of young white pine plantations would be thinned to an average BA of 60sq.ft./acre with a timber harvest treatment which involves the removal of whole trees of non- merchantable size. As with the thinning of the older stands, the opening of these dense stands would improve understory conditions and assist in the development of a more diverse mixture of hardwoods and pines in these stands.

All of the white pine stands in the project area would be periodically prescribed burned using both dormant and growing season burns. Burning would decrease the amount of white pine regeneration, and favor the establishment of oak and shortleaf pine seedlings. The periodic prescribed burning also would reduce the encroachment of white pine into adjacent hardwood stands.

18 East Nottely EA

With the implementation of this alternative, the white pine component will be reduced over much of the project area. White pine would still be a dominant tree in the area but many stands would begin to develop a greater component of oaks and shortleaf pine.

Cumulative Effects: The acreage of white pine forests in the Southern Appalachians have increased substantially in the last 30 years, largely due to increases in pine plantations and upland encroachment of white pine in hardwood stands due to fire exclusion (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The Forest Plan has objectives to restore oak and oak-pine forest on sites currently occupied by pine plantations and to maintain oak and oak-pine stands through thinning and prescribed burning. The implementation of the plan likely would reduce these white pine communities to a more natural distribution on the landscape over time. The thinning and burning in this alternative would assist in meeting plan objectives related to the management of white pine communities.

Element: Oak and Oak-Pine Forests

Existing Conditions:

In the analysis area, this forest community consists of upland hardwood forest of white oak, northern red oak, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, black oak and various hickories (Forest Types 53- White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory and 54- White Oak) as well as mixed oak- pine forests (Forest Types 42 –Upland Hardwood-White Pine, 44- Southern Red Oak-Yellow Pine, and 47- White Oak-Black Oak- Yellow Pine). There are approximately 760 acres of oak and oak- pine stands in the analysis area. This represents over 40% of the analysis area. Nearly 80 percent of these stands are in mid- to-late successional conditions and are capable of mast production. Approximately 45% of theses oak stands are in late successional conditions (greater than 80 years-of-age).

The Forest Plan identified the Scarlet Tanager as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management on species associated with mature upland oak communities. The scarlet tanager is most abundant in mature, upland deciduous forests (Hamel 1992). It is most common in areas with a relatively closed canopy, a dense understory with a high diversity of shrubs, and limited ground cover (NatureServe 2009). Over half of the East Nottely area consists of mature upland hardwood forests. The scarlet tanager is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and has been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Given the availability of mature upland oak forest habitat, population levels likely are moderate.

19 East Nottely EA

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to oak and oak-pine forest habitat are expected. Existing habitat conditions for the scarlet tanager and other species that utilize mature oak habitats would be maintained. Through time, the amount of mature oak forest habitat would increase as the portions containing young forests mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the scarlet tanager and other species that utilize these habitats. However, with no-action, shade-tolerant white pine seedlings may become established in some of the mature oak stands, reducing the oak component in the future.

Cumulative Effects: Mature oak forests are abundant on the East Nottely area and Forest as a whole. The availability of older oak stands and populations of scarlet tanagers and associated species are expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), scarlet tanager populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). However this analysis indicates that scarlet tanager populations have increased on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely that would affect the availability of mature oak forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to mature upland oak habitat and associated species such as scarlet tanagers are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: In this alternative, thinning would occur in approximately 355 acres of the 760 acres of oak forests in the analysis area. These stands are mixed oak- white pine stands, in which the white pine would be removed, leaving mast producing hardwoods and shortleaf pine as residuals to an average BA of 60sq.ft./acre. White pine would be retained if there are no other species to leave to meet the targeted BA. The opening of the canopy of these stands also would promote the development of a woody and herbaceous understory layer as well as a larger hardwood component in the future stands. Encroaching white pine also would be selectively removed from an approximately 12 acre oak stand in Compartment 412, leaving a residual stand of oak and other mast-producing trees.

Approximately 185 acres of young hardwood regeneration areas would be thinned to 60 BA through a thinning which involves the removal of whole trees of non-merchantable size. In addition, a 22 acre mixed oak-yellow pine regeneration area would receive a stand improvement treatment to release oak and shortleaf pines from competition. As with the thinning of the older stands, the opening of these dense stands would improve understory conditions and assist in the development of a more diverse mixture of hardwoods and pines in these stands. Some of these stands contain older residual hardwoods that would be retained.

All of the oak stands in the project area would be periodically prescribed burned using both dormant and growing season burns. Burning would favor the establishment of oak and shortleaf

20 East Nottely EA pine seedlings and decrease the amount of white pine regeneration. The periodic prescribed burning also would reduce the encroachment of white pine into adjacent hardwood stands.

As discussed above, in most of the oak stands, white pine would be targeted for removal with the larger oaks and hickories favored for retention. Although some mature mast producing oaks would be cut and removed from these sites, the expansion of the crowns of the remaining trees would largely offset any reduction in oak mast production, especially on the lower slopes. Crown size has a strong influence on oak mast production (Greenberg 2000). Although some mature oaks would be cut under this alternative, the impacts to the availability of acorns for mast consuming species would be negligible. Mature oak stands comprise nearly a third of the analysis area and the availability of oak mast would remain high. Through time, mast capability would increase in the younger stands in the analysis area as they mature.

The thinning of oak and oak-pine stands in this alternative should create favorable habitat conditions for scarlet tanagers and associated species. These stands would develop a relative dense understory, increasing its habitat suitability. Through time, the amount of mature oak forest habitat would increase as forests in the analysis area mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the scarlet tanagers and other species that utilize mature oak and oak-pine forest habitats.

There would be no direct effects of the selective herbicide application for site preparation and release on scarlet tanager or other associated bird species. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: Although some mature oaks would be cut under this alternative, the impacts to the availability of acorns for mast consuming species would be negligible. Mature mast producing stands are abundant on the East Nottely area and Forest as a whole. Mast producing stands (>40 years-old) comprise nearly a third of the analysis area. There are nearly 200,000 acres of mast producing stands on the Blue Ridge Ranger District (64% of the forested acres) and over 400,000 acres on the Chattahoochee National Forest (56% of forested acres). Projects such as this may reduce mast-capability in a much localized area but the availability of mast would remain abundant on the Forest. Acorn availability is expected to increase with the implementation the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a).

Oak forests also are common on adjacent private lands. However some of these forests are currently being lost to residential development or other land uses. Additionally, on other private forests, the lack of active management (especially prescribed fire) is resulting in the loss of oak dominance (USDA Forest Service 2004a). As a result, oak mast availability in many private forests likely is declining. However, given the current and expected future mast capability on the Chattahoochee National Forest, the availability of acorns is expected to remain adequate to meet the needs of mast dependent species.

Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992- 2004), scarlet tanager populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). However this analysis indicates that scarlet tanager populations

21 East Nottely EA have increased on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period. The availability of older oak stands and populations of scarlet tanagers and associated species are expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a).

Element: Pine and Pine-Oak Forests

Existing Conditions:

This forest community consists of yellow pine stands where 70% or greater of the dominant trees are yellow pine (Forest Types 31- Loblolly Pine, 32- Shortleaf Pine, and 33- Virginia Pine) or pine-oak stands where yellow pine makes up 51% to 69% of the dominant trees (Forest Types 12 – Shortleaf Pine-Oak, 13- Loblolly Pine-Hardwood, and 16- Virginia Pine-Oak). There are approximately 575 acres of pine and pine-oak stands in the analysis area. This represents approximately 32% of the analysis area. Due to past impacts of southern pine beetle outbreaks, most of the pine stands in the project area are relatively young. Over 60 percent of these stands are less than 40 years of age and over 50% are 20 years of age or less. Only 23% of these pine stands are in late successional conditions (greater than 80 years-of-age).

The Forest Plan identified the pine warbler as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management on species associated with yellow pine and pine-oak forests. The pine warbler uses mid to late successional pine forests throughout the year (Hamel 1992). It occurs in both open pine woodlands and dense pine plantations, but seldom uses hardwood stands. The highest numbers seem to occur where pure stands of pine are found. It is less abundant as the proportion of hardwood tree species increases (NatureServe 2009). The pine warbler is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and has been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Mid to late successional pine and pine-oak forest habitat are very limited on the project area and therefore, population levels of pine warblers likely are low to moderate.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to pine and pine-oak forest habitat are expected. Existing habitat conditions for

22 East Nottely EA the pine warblers and other species that utilize mature pine would be maintained. Through time, the existing young pine stand would mature, providing additional habitat for pine warblers and species that utilize mature pine forests. However, with no-action, lack of prescribed burning may limit shortleaf pine regeneration. In addition, future attacks from southern pine beetle and encroachment from white pines and hardwoods would result in a reduced pine component in the future.

Cumulative Effect: Shortleaf pine stands would decline in the surrounding area because of the increase in urbanization and a lack of prescribed burning on private lands. Private ownership in the surrounding area is made up of individually owned small blocks that cannot be feasibly burned. Residential development in the urban interface would continue to remove portions of remaining shortleaf pine in the area. Southern Pine Beetle mortality on private lands has also reduced the shortleaf component in adjacent areas. Mature pine forests are somewhat limited on the East Nottely area but are abundant on the Forest as a whole. The availability of older pine stands on the Forest has increased over the last few decades. However, recent outbreaks of Southern Pine beetle have reduced the availability of these habitats on some portions of the Forest.

The availability of older pine stands and populations of pine warblers and associated species are expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), pine warbler populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that pine warbler populations also have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

At the project level, through time, the existing young pine stand would mature, providing additional habitat for pine warblers and species that utilize mature pine forests. However, with no-action, lack of prescribed burning may limit shortleaf pine regeneration. In addition, future attacks from southern pine beetle and encroachment from white pines and hardwoods would result in a reduced pine component in the future. There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability of mature pine forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to pine and pine-oak forest habitat and associated species such as pine warblers are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: In this alternative, thinning would occur on approximately 390 acres of the 575 acres of pine forests in the analysis area. Many of these stands are mid- successional pine plantations that would be thinned to an average BA of 60 sq/ft./acre. This thinning would redistribute growth among the residual trees and lessen the susceptibility to insect and disease attacks. The other stands to be thinned are mixed yellow pine hardwood stands, in which the loblolly and white pine are targeted for removal, leaving mast producing hardwoods and shortleaf pine as residuals. Loblolly and white pine would be retained to meet the 60 BA if no preferred species exist. The opening of the canopy of these stands also would promote the development of a woody and herbaceous understory layer as well as a larger hardwood component in the future stands.

23 East Nottely EA

Approximately 245 acres of young yellow pine plantations would be thinned to 60 BA through a timber sale which involves the removal of whole trees of non-merchantable size. As with the thinning of the older stands, the opening of these dense stands would improve understory conditions and assist in the development of a more diverse mixture of hardwoods and pines in these stands.

All of the yellow pine stands in the project area would be periodically prescribed burned using both dormant and growing season burns. Burning in conjunction with the thinning would favor the establishment of shortleaf pine seedlings and decrease the amount of white pine regeneration. The thinning also would increase vigor in the remaining trees and increase their resistance to southern pine beetle attack. These activities also would result in improved habitat conditions for the pine warbler and species that utilize mature pine forests. However, because of the limited quantity of pine habitat in the analysis area, pine warblers would continue to be uncommon.

There would be no direct effects of the herbicide application on pine warblers or other songbirds that utilize mature pine forests. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: Shortleaf pine stands would decline in the surrounding area because of the increase in urbanization and a lack of prescribed burning on private lands. Private ownership in the surrounding area is made up of individually owned small blocks that cannot be feasibly burned. Residential development in the urban interface would continue to remove portions of remaining shortleaf pine in the area. Southern Pine Beetle mortality on private lands has also reduced the shortleaf component in adjacent areas. Mature pine forests are somewhat limited on the East Nottely area but are abundant on the Forest as a whole. The availability of older pine stands on the Forest has increased over the last few decades. However, recent outbreaks of Southern Pine beetle have reduced the availability of these habitats on some portions of the Forest.

At the project level, the proposed thinning will reduce the threat of Southern Pine to the existing yellow pine stands and along with prescribed burning will favor the establishment of shortleaf pine. There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability of mature pine forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to pine and pine-oak forest habitat and associated species such as pine warblers are expected.

24 East Nottely EA

Element - Mixed Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands

Measure: Measure would consist of species composition, age and stem density (basal area) in the affected timber stands and effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities. Bounds of Analysis –Spatial: The spatial bound of the analysis area is Compartments 410, 411, 412, and 415 on the eastern side of Lake Nottely, total acres is 1839 acres. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation

Existing Conditions:

Woodlands, grasslands, and savannahs were once a frequent occurrence across the southeastern landscape on xeric ridge-tops and south-facing slopes (USDA Forest Service 2004a). These fire- maintained communities were characterized by sparse tree cover and a well-developed, herbaceous understory. At the present time there are not any woodland or savanna forest communities in the project area. There are currently 7 acres of grasslands that are maintained as permanent wildlife openings (see Permanent Openings Section). The Forest Plan identifies the field sparrow to help indicate the effects of management on species associated with woodland, savanna, and grassland communities. It is associated with scattered saplings or shrubs in tall weedy or herbaceous cover (Hamel 1992). Field sparrows are relatively uncommon on the Blue Ridge Ranger District, although they have been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Given the lack of woodland, grassland, and savanna habitat, population levels likely are very low.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and habitat conditions for field sparrows and other species associated with woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats would remain extremely limited.

Cumulative Effects: There is some open grassland in the surrounding area in the form of pastures. Some of these are being converted into residential areas further reducing grasslands in the area. Woodland, grassland, and savanna habitat is extremely limited in the East Nottely project area and the Forest as a whole. An approximately 400 acre area of shortleaf pine–oak woodland is planned in the Davenport Mountain Stewardship project on the west side of Lake Nottely. This project is currently under a stewardship timber sale contract and should be completed in the next two to three years. Across the Forest, the availability of these habitats is expected to increase with the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The plan has an objective of restoring 10,000 acres of open woodlands, savannahs, and grasslands on the Chattahoochee within the first 10 years of plan implementation (Objective 3.4). This would result in enhanced habitat conditions for field sparrows and other species associated with woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats. However, at the project-level the no-action alternative will not result in any improved habitat conditions for this suite of species.

25 East Nottely EA

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects: The proposed thinning and prescribed burning under this alternative would begin the development of some woodland conditions in the existing closed canopy stands. The residual basal areas of these stands (60BA) is higher than would be expected in true woodlands but the thinning and burning would help promote a more well developed herbaceous understory in these stands. This would result in enhanced habitat conditions for field sparrows and other species associated with woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats.

There would be no direct effects of the herbicide application on field sparrows or other grassland birds. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: There is some open grassland in the surrounding area in the form of pastures. Some of these are being converted into residential areas further reducing grasslands in the area. Woodland, grassland, and savanna habitat is extremely limited in the East Nottely project area and the Forest as a whole. An approximately 400 acre area of shortleaf pine–oak woodland is planned in the Davenport Mountain Stewardship project on the west side of Lake Nottely. This project is currently under a stewardship timber sale contract and should be completed in the next two to three years. Across the Forest, the availability of these habitats is expected to increase with the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The plan has an objective of restoring 10,000 acres of open woodlands, savannahs, and grasslands on the Chattahoochee within the first 10 years of plan implementation (Objective 3.4). At the project-level, the proposed thinning and burning in this alternative would result in enhanced habitat conditions for field sparrows and other species associated with woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats.

Element - Successional Habitats

Measure: Measure would consist of changes in age class distribution in the project area and effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

Existing Conditions:

The current age class distribution is listed in Table H. There currently are no stands less than 10 year of age in the project area. Approximately 44 percent is in the sapling/pole stage (11-40 years old), approximately 30 percent is mid successional (41-80 years old), and 24 percent is late successional (80+ years of age). The remaining 2 percent is non-forested.

The Forest Plan identified the prairie warbler as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management on species associated with early successional forests. Prairie warblers are shrub

26 East Nottely EA land nesting birds found in suitable habitats throughout the Southern Appalachians, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain (Hamel 1992). Prairie warblers require dense forest regeneration or open shrubby conditions in a forest setting. Near optimal habitat conditions are characterized by regeneration, thinned areas or patchy openings 10 acres or more in size (Nature Serve 2004). Populations respond favorably to conditions created 3 to 10 years following regeneration in larger forest patches (Lancia et al. 2000). Prairie warblers occur through the Forest. The prairie warbler is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and has been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Prairie warbler populations likely are low on the East Nottely area due to the limited availability of early successional habitats. Because the mid and late successional forest habitats support more divergent communities depending on their composition, management indicator species for these habitats are identified and analyzed under the individual major forest community sections above.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct changes to the distribution of successional habitats are expected. Through time, the amount of early successional habitat would decrease as these young forests mature. This should result in a reduction in the habitat availability for the prairie warbler and other species that utilize early successional habitats. Habitat for species associated with mid and late successional species would increase over time.

Cumulative Effects: Early successional habitats are limited on the East Nottely area. This habitat is somewhat more common on the Forest as a whole but has declined recently due to a reduction in forest management activities. The availability of early successional habitat on the Forest is expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Bird survey data suggests that prairie warbler populations have been relatively stable on the Forest during the last decade (USDA Forest Service 2006). Populations are expected to increase on the Forest through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely project area that would affect the availability of early successional forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to early successional forest habitat and associated species such as prairie warblers are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Three stands, totaling 25 acres are proposed for a two-aged regeneration cut under this alternative. In addition, 2 stands totaling 12 acres would receive a selection cut. Both treatments would create early successional forest conditions which would provide improved habitat conditions for the prairie warbler and other species associated with early successional conditions. However, the total treatment acres would comprise only approximately 2 percent of the project area and early successional forest habitat would still be limited in the project area.

There would be no direct effects of the herbicide application on prairie warblers or other early successional species. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming

27 East Nottely EA

contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: Early successional habitats are limited on the East Nottely area. This habitat is somewhat more common on the Forest as a whole but has declined recently due to a reduction in forest management activities. The availability of early successional habitat on the Forest is expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Bird survey data suggests that prairie warbler populations have been relatively stable on the Forest during the last decade USDA Forest Service 2006). Populations are expected to increase on the Forest through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely that would affect the availability of early successional forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to early successional forest habitat and associated species such as prairie warblers are expected.

Table H. Current Age Class Distribution for the East Nottely Project Area.

Age Class Comp. 410 Comp. 411 Comp. 412 Comp. 415 Total

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

0-10 years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11-20 15 2.4 116 16.8 71 21.8 21 10.1 223 12.1

21-30 137 22.5 64 9.3 97 29.8 60 28.8 358 19.5

31-40 140 22.8 55 8.0 23 7.1 12 5.8 230 12.5

41-50 60 9.7 88 12.8 88 27.0 8 4.8 247 13.4

51-60 0 0 15 2.2 8 2.5 46 22.2 69 3.8

61-70 48 7.8 48 7.0 0 0 26 12.5 122 6.6

71-80 49 8.0 39 5.7 10 3.1 16 7.7 114 6.2

81-90 21 3.4 91 13.2 0 0 0 0 112 6.1

91-100 137 22.2 15 2.2 25 7.7 0 0 177 9.6

101-110+ 0 0 142 20.6 0 0 11 5.3 153 8.3

Total Forested 609 98.9 674 97.8 322 98.8 206 99.5 1805 98.2

Non-Forested 9 1.5 16 2.3 4 1.2 5 2.4 34 1.8

TOTALS 616 689 326 208 1839

28 East Nottely EA

Element - Old Growth

Measure: Effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

Bounds of Analysis: The spatial bound of the analysis area is the three 6-level HUC watersheds in which the project area is located, totaling 8,190 acres. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation

Existing Conditions: There are no stands in the project area that meet the minimum age for potential old growth based on the Region 8 Old-Growth Guidance (USDA Forest Service 1997). The oldest stands are 108- 110 years-of -age.

The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chattahoochee National Forest states that in watersheds with more than 1000 acres of National Forest land, at least 5 percent of each 6th level HUC would be identified as small blocks of future old-growth and would be managed to protect their old-growth characteristics during the Plan cycle (FW-044). The East Nottely project area is located in three 6th level HUC’s. The northern most is the Dooley Creek-Nottely River Watershed which contains 429 acres of National Forest land, 322 of which are in the project area. This is located north of Nottely Dam in Compartment 412. The second watershed is the Ivylog Creek watershed which includes portions of Compartments 410 and 411. It contains 3,828 acres of National Forest land, 524 of which are in the project area. The third watershed is the Nottely Lake watershed which includes the remainder of the area surrounding Lake Nottely. It contains 3,933 acres of National Forest lands, 990 of which are in the project area.

Based on the national forest acreage in the watershed, the Forest Plan requires that approximately 191 acres of small block old growth be designated in the Ivylog Creek Watershed (3828 acres X 5% = 191 acres). For this watershed, two areas have been identified as small blocks of future old growth. They include stands 21, 25 and 31 in Compartment 359.south of the Rocky Top Road (FS 819), and stands 13, 14, 16, and 17 in Compartment 360, south of Gumlog Mountain. Both blocks are approximately 100 acres in size and contain stands that are at or near minimum old-growth age.

The designation of approximately 197 acres of small block old-growth is required in the Nottely Lake Watershed (3933 acres X 5% = 197 acres). A block of 91 acres has already been designated in the western portion of the watershed as part of the Davenport Mountain project. The balance would be made up by the designation of an approximately 125 acre block south of Rocky Top Mountain. This includes stands 2, 4, 12, 16, and 17 in Compartment 359. Because the Dooley Creek- Nottely River Watershed contains less than 1,000 acres of National Forest lands, there is no requirement to designate small blocks of future old-growth in that watershed.

29 East Nottely EA

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct effects to potential old-growth habitats are expected. With no action, through time some of the older stands would reach minimum old growth age and begin to develop old-growth conditions.

Cumulative Effects: Little, if any old growth forest exists on private lands surrounding East Nottely. There are no stands in the East Nottely project area that meet the minimum age for potential old growth and no treatments are planned in the stands identified as future old growth. On the Forest, there are approximately 45,000 acres of possible old-growth (USDA Forest Service 2004a Table 3-83). These are stands that meet the minimum age for potential old growth. In addition, the Forest Plan allocates approximately 169,000 acres of the Chattahoochee NF to old-growth and old-growth compatible management prescriptions (USDA Forest Service 2004a Table 3-85). This is approximately 23 percent of the Forest acres. There are no activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability or development of old-growth forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to old-growth habitat are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: There are no stands in the project area that currently meet minimum age requirements for potential old growth based on the R8 Old Growth Guidance. No treatments are planned in the stands identified as future old growth. These stands would be managed to protect their old-growth characteristics during the Plan cycle. Through time, some of the older stands would reach minimum old growth age and begin to develop old-growth conditions.

Element - Forest Interior Birds

Measure: Effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

30 East Nottely EA

Existing Conditions:

Forest interior birds are associated with contiguous blocks of mature forests. They avoid forest edges during nesting and can be sensitive to forest fragmentation. The project area is comprised of several tracts on the east side of Lake Nottely, ranging in size from 125 acres to over 500 acres. Although not as large as in the more central portion of the Forest, these tracts provide relatively large block of contiguous forested habitat and therefore provide suitable habitat for forest interior birds. The surrounding private lands are a mixture of forest land, pastures, and residential development.

The Forest Plan identified the ovenbird as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management on species associated with interior forest habitats on the Chattahoochee National Forest. Ovenbirds are strongly associated with mature forest interior habitats (Hamel 1992, Crawford et al. 1981). They generally breed in closed canopy deciduous or mixed forests with limited understory. The availability of older hardwood stands on the Forest has increased over the last few decades. The ovenbird is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and has been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Given the availability of interior forest habitat, population levels likely are low to moderate.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to interior forest habitat are expected. Through time, the amount of interior forest habitat would increase as the Forest matures. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the ovenbird and other species that utilize interior forest habitats.

Cumulative Effects: Landscape-scale habitat patterns influence the effects of forest fragmentation. Forest-level analysis indicates that the great majority of the Chattahoochee National Forest occurs within a landscape that is more than 70 percent forested (USDA Forest Service 2004a). In these forest-dominated landscapes, edge effects are not expected to significantly influence productivity of interior forest species. The East Nottely area and surrounding National Forest lands provides an abundance of interior forest habitat and these habitats are common on the Forest as a whole. The availability of interior forest conditions and populations of ovenbirds and associated species are expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), ovenbird populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that ovenbird populations also have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

Additional residential development may decrease the availability of contiguous forest habitat on private lands. However, there are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely project

31 East Nottely EA area that would affect the availability of interior forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to interior forest habitat and associated species such as ovenbird are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: The treatments proposed under this alternative include thinning, two- aged regeneration and selection harvest, prescribed burning, herbicide application, watershed restoration, invasive species control, and wildlife opening development. None of these treatments would substantially impact the availability of interior forest habitat. The greatest degree of canopy opening would occur with 37 acres of the 2-aged regeneration and selection harvest treatments. This comprises approximately 1 percent of the project area. All of these stands are located at or near the property boundary, adjacent to residential areas roads or power-line rights-of-way. As a result, the openings created by these treatments would not result in any appreciable fragmentation of the interior portions of these forested tracts.

The thinning of both the pine plantations and hardwood stands would result in an opening of the canopy in these stands. However, most of the openings created by these treatments would be small and a continuous forest canopy would be maintained over the majority of the area. Similarly, prescribed burning would not result in appreciable changes to interior forest conditions. Wildlife opening development activities would be restricted to the existing permanent openings and no new permanent openings would be created. Therefore, habitat conditions and populations of interior forest species such as the ovenbird would be maintained with the implementation of this alternative. Through time, the amount of mature interior forest habitat would increase as forests in the area mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the ovenbird and other species that utilize mature interior forest habitats.

There would be no direct effects of the herbicide application on ovenbirds or other forest interior birds. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: While the East Nottely area provides moderate levels of interior forest habitat; these habitats are abundant on the Forest as a whole. The availability of interior forest conditions and populations of ovenbird and associated species are expected to increase through the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), ovenbird populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that ovenbird populations also have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

Additional residential development may decrease the availability of contiguous forest habitat on private lands. However, there are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely project area that would affect the availability of interior forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to interior forest habitat and associated species such as ovenbird are expected.

32 East Nottely EA

Element - Permanent Openings, Old Fields, Rights-of Way, Improved Pastures

Measure: Effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

Existing Conditions:

There are 2 existing permanent openings in the East Nottely project area totaling approximately 7 acres. These fields are managed by periodic bush hogging, seeding, and fertilizing and contain a mixture of clover, orchard grass, fescue, and annual weeds. These openings provide multiple wildlife benefits such as forage for deer, brood-rearing habitat for species such as turkey and grouse, and nesting and foraging habitat for grassland species such as the field sparrow and bobwhite quail. The fields that are dominated by fescue provide very limited wildlife benefit due to its poor quality and low palatability. There also is an approximately 4 acre opening in Compartment 410 that is currently covered in kudzu. In addition there are approximately 23 acres of power-line rights-of-way in the project area. These are managed through periodic mowing and saw-down by TVA and BRMEMC personnel. Adjacent private lands are a mixture of forest land, open land, and residential development. The open lands include unimproved pastures and residential lawns and provide limited wildlife benefits.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Current management of the existing wildlife openings through bush hogging and seeding and the existing rights-of-way through periodic mowing/saw down would continue under this alternative and no changes in habitat conditions are expected.

Cumulative Effects: There currently are approximately 324 acres of maintained Rights-of- Way on the Chattahoochee National Forest, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Although they provide some limited wildlife benefits, these typically are managed by third parties for purposes other than to provide wildlife habitat. There are approximately 1,300 acres of permanent openings on the Chattahoochee National Forest that are managed by US Forest Service and Georgia Department of Natural Resources personnel specifically to provide high quality wildlife habitat. Openings on adjacent private lands are not maintained in high quality habitat conditions. Many of the existing open lands on private land have recently been lost to residential development and this trend is expected to continue in the future.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: The wildlife opening renovation treatments proposed under this alternative would result in improved habitat conditions in these existing fields. The activities proposed, including selective herbicide application would facilitate the control of fescue and

33 East Nottely EA poor quality species and allow for the establishment of clover and other desirable cool season species. In addition, the approximately 4 acre kudzu patch would be established in a native herbaceous understory dominated by native warm season grasses following the control of the kudzu.

The establishment of desirable cool season and warm season species would result in improved habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife species associated with open habitats. Permanent openings containing clover and other high quality cool season species are heavily utilized by game species such as deer (Kammermeyer et al. 1993), turkeys (Healey and Nenno 1983), ruffed grouse (Dimmick et al. 1996) and a number of non-game species of birds and mammals (Parker et al. 1992). There also would be wildlife benefits from the fields established in native warm season grasses. These grasses provide nesting, brood-rearing, and roosting habitat for quail and other grassland species (Dimmick et al 2002).

The proposed activities would have minimal impacts to the habitat conditions within the existing ROW. Of the activities proposed in this alternative, only prescribed burning would have any impact on the habitat conditions within the existing Rights-of-Way (ROW). For those portions of the ROW within the burning unit, the periodic prescribed burning would result in a reduction in the size and to some degree, quantity of woody stems and an increase in herbaceous cover.

Cumulative Effects: There currently are approximately 1,300 acres of permanent openings on the Chattahoochee National Forest, which represents less than 0.2 percent of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The renovation of unproductive wildlife openings using herbicides, such as proposed in this project, is underway on a portion of these openings through past activities of both Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Forest Service personnel. These activities would provide opportunities to convert these fields into more productive cool season grasses as well as native warm season grasses. Private lands would continue to provide most of the open habitats. However, openings on adjacent private lands are not maintained in high quality habitat conditions. Many of the existing open lands on private land have recently been lost to residential development and this trend is expected to continue in the future.

Element - Special Habitat Attributes – Riparian Habitat

Measure - Effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

Existing Conditions:

Much of the riparian area on the larger streams in the project area (Nottely River, Chastain Branch, Ivylog Creek, and Reese Creek) have been impacted by the creation of Nottely Lake and have been greatly altered. These riparian areas are inundated for much of the year and are devoid of any significant vegetation. There are several headwater streams in the project area.

34 East Nottely EA

Most are small streams (1st and 2nd order) that due to their small size provide limited riparian habitat. This includes the lower portion of Stillhouse Branch and several unnamed tributaries to Ivy Log Creek and Dooley Creek. There also is a small portion of riparian habitat on National Forest lands on the Nottely River, downstream of the dam. Most of the existing riparian habitat is in mid-to-late successional condition.

The Forest Plan identified the Acadian flycatcher as the MIS to represent Mid-Late Successional Riparian Habitat Conditions. Habitat for the Acadian flycatcher consists of deciduous forests near streams (Hamel 1992). Preferred habitat for this species is moist bottomlands, swamps, and riparian thickets. Usually this bird builds its nest in branches directly overhanging streams. The Acadian flycatcher has not been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. However, most of survey points were in upland areas. The Acadian flycatcher is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and likely occurs in the project area. However, given the limited quantity of mature riparian habitat population levels likely are low.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to riparian habitat are expected. Through time, the amount of mid-to-late successional riparian habitat would increase as the portions containing young forests mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the Acadian flycatcher and other species that utilize mature riparian habitats.

Cumulative Effects - Mid-to-late successional forested riparian habitat is common on the Forest and the availability of these older riparian habitats and populations of Acadian flycatchers and associated species are expected to increase through time with the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Riparian Corridor standards would be followed on all projects on the Forest to maintain desirable habitat conditions in the riparian corridor. Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), Acadian flycatcher populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that Acadian flycatcher populations also have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

There are no activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability of mature riparian forests. Therefore no cumulative effects to riparian habitat and associated species such as Acadian flycatchers are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: The treatments proposed under this alternative including thinning, two- aged regeneration and selection harvest, prescribed burning, herbicide application, watershed restoration, invasive species control, and wildlife opening development have the potential to impact riparian habitat conditions. However, application of riparian corridor standards (MRx 11) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would ensure that desired conditions in the riparian corridor would be maintained and enhanced. These include provisions for controlling impacts from activities such as vegetation management, fire line construction, and

35 East Nottely EA trail construction. Major ground disturbing activities such as road construction (except at designated crossings) log landings and bladed fire-lines are prohibited in the riparian corridor. Within the riparian corridor, the degree of canopy opening would be limited and a continuous forest canopy would be maintained on these sites. Prescribed fire in the riparian zone would consist of low intensity, backing fires that would result in little change to the vegetation conditions in these areas. The only herbicide application that would occur within the riparian corridor will be the targeted treatment of non-native invasive plants using an aquatically-labeled herbicide. As a result of these measures, riparian habitat conditions and populations of associated species such as the Acadian flycatcher would be maintained.

Through time, the amount of mid-late successional riparian habitat would increase as the portions containing young forests mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the Acadian flycatcher and other species that utilize mature riparian habitats.

There would be no direct effects of the herbicide application on Acadian flycatchers or other riparian associated birds. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects: Mid-Late Successional forested riparian habitat is common on the Forest and the availability of these older riparian habitats and populations of Acadian flycatchers and associated species are expected to increase through time with the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Riparian Corridor standards would be followed on all projects on the Forest to maintain desirable habitat conditions in the riparian corridor. Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), Acadian flycatcher populations have been stable on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that Acadian flycatcher populations also have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

Element: Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood

Measure: Effects on habitat conditions and populations of associated species from project activities.

Existing Conditions:

Snags, dens, and downed wood are important habitat element for a variety of species of wildlife. Large snags are used as nesting and feeding sites and perches by birds, and roosting and maternity habitat for bats. Den trees are used for nesting, roosting and hibernating by a variety

36 East Nottely EA of species. Downed woody debris provides cover and feeding sites for amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates. These elements are typically most abundant in older forests. Approximately 37 % of the East Nottely area is greater than 60 years-of-age and 24 % is in late successional conditions (greater than 80 years-of-age).

The Forest Plan identified the pileated woodpecker as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management on species that utilize snags. Habitat consists of mature (60+ years) and extensive hardwood and hardwood-pine forest (Hamel 1992). Preferred habitat is primarily deep woods, swamps, or river bottom forests. The pileated woodpecker can also be found in rather open, upland forest of mixed forest types. This bird forages and nests on and in snags, with some foraging also occurring on fallen logs and other forest debris. This species requires snags for nesting and foraging. The pileated woodpecker is a common breeding bird on the Blue Ridge Ranger District and has been reported from Breeding Bird Surveys in the East Nottely project area. Given the abundance of mid-late successional forest habitat, population levels likely are moderate.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to snags, dens, and downed wood are expected. Through time, the amount of mid- late successional habitat would increase as the forests in the area mature. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the pileated woodpecker and other species that utilize snags, dens, and downed wood.

Cumulative Effects – Recruitment of snags, dens, and downed wood is most dependent on providing abundant late successional forests. The availability of these habitats and populations of pileated woodpeckers and associated species are expected to increase through time with the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The Forest plan has several standards that ensure the retention and recruitment of snags and den trees. Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), pileated woodpecker populations have been increased on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that pileated woodpecker populations have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the availability of snags, dens, or downed wood. Therefore no cumulative effects to these habitat elements and associated species such as pileated woodpeckers are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: The treatments proposed under this alternative including thinning, two- aged regeneration and selection harvest, prescribed burning, herbicide application, watershed restoration, invasive species control, and wildlife opening development have the potential to impact the availability of snags, dens, and downed wood. However, Forest-wide standards would be followed that ensure the retention and recruitment of these habitat elements on the landscape. These standards specify that standing snags and den trees would not be cut during vegetation management treatments unrelated to salvage unless necessary for insect and

37 East Nottely EA disease control or public safety. As a result, existing snags and den trees in the project area would be retained during the proposed timber management activities.

The prescribed fire treatments proposed in this alternative may impact existing snags and downed wood. However, prescribed fire also is likely to result in tree mortality, creating new snags and downed wood. Overall, the quantity of available snags is expected to increase over time as a result of the periodic prescribed burns.

There would be no direct effects of the herbicide application on pileated woodpeckers or other snag-dependent species. Hazard quotients (summarized in Appendix B) for small birds consuming contaminated insects are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Snags and downed wood are abundant in the project area and they would continue to be common with the implementation of this alternative. Periodic prescribed burning likely would result in an increased abundance of snags. This should result in improved habitat conditions for the pileated woodpecker and other species that utilize these habitat elements.

Cumulative Effects: Recruitment of snags, dens, and downed wood is most dependent on providing abundant late successional forests. The availability of these habitats and populations of pileated woodpeckers and associated species are expected to increase through time with the implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The Forest plan has several standards that ensure the retention and recruitment of snags and den trees. Based on recent analysis of breeding bird population trends on Southern National Forests (1992-2004), pileated woodpecker populations have increased on National Forests in the Southern Blue Ridge (La Sorte et al 2007). This analysis indicates that pileated woodpecker populations have been stable on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest over this same time period.

Element - Viability Concern Species

Aquatic Habitats Including Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Locally Rare Aquatic Species

Measure - Effects on habitat conditions and populations of aquatic species from project activities.

Bounds of Analysis – Spatial: Habitat Conditions in the streams in and immediately downstream of the stands where project activities are proposed. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation

38 East Nottely EA

Existing Conditions:

There are several smaller headwater streams (1st and 2nd order) in the project area, most of which drain directly into Lake Nottely. This includes the lower portion of Stillhouse Branch and several unnamed tributaries to Ivy Log Creek and Dooley Creek. Due to their small size (2-3 feet wide, 1-2‖ deep) they likely are fishless but provide habitat for numerous salamanders and aquatic insects. The only major perennial stream in the project vicinity is the Nottely River, downstream of the dam. It is a cold water stream as a result of the bottom releases from Nottely Reservoir and contains a mixed fishery of rainbow trout and smallmouth bass. The other larger streams in the project area (Chastain Branch, Ivylog Creek, and Reese Creek) have been impacted by the creation of Nottely Lake and are inundated for much of the year.

Much of the project area adjoins Lake Nottely. Lake Nottely is a 4,181 acre reservoir managed by TVA. It contains a variety of game fish including striped bass, hybrid bass, white bass, and largemouth bass, spotted bass, small mouth bass, crappie, and catfish. As with many drawdown reservoirs, cover is limited in much of the lake.

No Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered aquatic species occur in the watersheds included in the project area. However, 4 Sensitive Aquatics Species occur or potentially occur in the vicinity of the project (Table I). This was determined by: (1) consulting Forest Service aquatic inventory records, (2) consulting Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP) records, (3) consulting University of Georgia (UGA), Forest Service, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) aquatic inventory records, (4) reviewing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service county lists for potential species in Union County, (5) ongoing discussions with GNHP, Forest Service, and other agency biologists, (6) various scientific references such as technical manuals, NatureServe information, and others, and (7) results from project-level surveys. ______Table I. Aquatic Viability Concern Species known to occur or with potential to occur in the East Nottely project vicinity. Scientific Name Common Name Status Macromia margarita Margarita River Skimmer S Opiogomphus incurvatus Appalachian Snaketail S Ophiogomphus edmundo Edmunds Snaketail S Beloneuria georgiana Georgia Beloneurian Stonefly S

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to aquatic habitat are expected. Through time, the areas of young forest along several of the tributary streams would mature. This should result in increased streamside shading, woody debris input into the stream, and improved conditions for aquatic species. There are several old roads that have erosion flowing into riparian areas and would continue to do so under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects: The Chattahoochee National Forest has 2,436 miles of perennial streams, including 1,770 miles of cold water streams and 666 miles of cool water streams (USDA Forest

39 East Nottely EA

Service 2004a). There are approximately 19, 449 acres of impoundments within the proclamation boundary of the Forest, a number of which like Lake Nottely are managed by TVA or Georgia Power. Riparian Corridor standards, forest wide standards and Best Management practices (BMPs) would be followed on all projects on the Forest to protect water quality and aquatic habitat condition. There are no activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the aquatic habitat conditions and therefore no cumulative effects are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Sensitive species with the potential to occur in the streams of the East Nottely project area include Margarita River Skimmer (Macromia margarita), Appalachian Snaketail (Ophiogomphus incurvatus), Edmunds Snaketail (Ophiogomphus edmundo), and Georgia Beloneurian Stonefly (Beloneuria georgiana).

The thinning, regeneration and selection harvest, prescribed burning, and herbicide application have the potential to impact aquatic habitat conditions. However, application of riparian corridor standards (MRx 11) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would ensure that water quality and aquatic habitat conditions would be maintained and enhanced. These include provisions for controlling impacts from activities such as vegetation management, fire line construction, and herbicide use. As a result direct impacts to water quality and aquatic species would be minimal. There are also several old roads that are contributing to erosion in riparian areas; under this alternative those old roads would be rehabilitated.

Ground disturbance would occur in the development of temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings during the harvest operations. However, water quality and aquatic habitat would be protected in the project area by the delineation of riparian corridors and the implementation of the standards in the Forest Plan. Major ground disturbing activities such as roads and trails (except at designated crossings) and log landings are prohibited from the riparian corridor and all silvicultural activities within this corridor would be conducted to meet or exceed compliance with BMPs. Within the riparian corridor, the degree of canopy opening would be limited under this alternative.

Existing roads and streams would be used for the majority of the prescribed burn control lines. To minimize soil disturbance from fire line construction, use of heavy mechanized equipment (e.g. bulldozers) in wetlands or riparian corridors is prohibited. Hand lines would be used to create fire lines near streams. Prescribed fire in the riparian zone would consist of low intensity, backing fires that would result in little change to the vegetation conditions in these areas.

Details of the herbicide risk assessment are summarized in Appendix B. Acute exposure hazard quotients for accidental spills have calculated values over 1.0 for fish, aquatic invertebrates and macrophytes for glyphosate and for fish, aquatic invertebrates, macrophytes and algae for triclopyr ester. In addition, upper limit hazard quotients are over 1.0 for non-accidental acute exposures of triclopyr ester for macrophytes and algae. However, Forest Plan standards would be followed on this project, greatly reducing the risk to the aquatic environment. This includes a standard that prohibits herbicide application within 100 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or

40 East Nottely EA perennial or intermittent springs and seeps (FW standard FW-022) and prohibits mixing, loading, or cleaning areas within 200 feet of open water (FW standard FW-023). In addition, glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to (bound to the surface of) both organic matter and clay particles. Therefore it is very immobile in the environment, and unlikely to reach aquatic habitat. Even in the unlikely event that it might reach the stream it would probably be quickly bound to sediment or organic matter in the stream. Triclopyr has limited soil mobility. Mixing and dilution in flowing streams would minimize any potential hazard from any small spills which might occur during implementation of this project. No herbicide application would occur within the riparian corridor.

Cumulative Effects: Riparian Corridor standards, forest wide standards and Best Management practices (BMPs) would be followed on all projects on the Forest to protect water quality and aquatic habitat condition. There are no additional activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect the aquatic habitat conditions and therefore no cumulative effects are expected.

Demand Species White-tailed deer and black bears were selected as Forest Plan MIS to represent public demand issues and are relevant to this project.

Element: White-tailed Deer

Measure - Effects on habitat conditions and deer populations from project activities.

Existing Conditions:

White-tailed deer was selected as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management in meeting public demand as a hunted species. Deer require a mixture of forest/successional stage habitats to meet their year-round habitat needs. Key requirements include the interspersion of mature mast producing stands during fall and winter, early successional forest to provide browse and soft mast, and high quality permanent openings. Current deer populations are moderate on the East Nottely project area due to limited availability of early successional habitat and high quality permanent openings.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to white-tailed deer are expected. Current management of the existing openings would continue. Through time, the limited amount of available early successional habitat in the East Nottely project area would decline as the forests in the area mature. This should result in a reduction of the availability of deer forages and habitat conditions for deer.

41 East Nottely EA

Cumulative Effects - Early successional habitat and high quality permanent openings important for deer are limited on the East Nottely area. These habitats are somewhat more common on the Forest as a whole. Deer harvest data collected by Georgia DNR personnel indicates that deer populations in the mountains and ridge and valley are stable to increasing with some fluctuations primarily due to differences in the annual mast crops (USDA Forest Service 2006). Implementation of the Forest Plan is expected to provide a diversity of habitats that would benefit white-tailed deer populations on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). However, no additional activities affecting deer habitat are planned for the East Nottely area. Therefore no cumulative effects to white-tailed deer or their habitat are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: A number of the treatments proposed under this alternative would result in improved habitat conditions for deer. The canopy openings resulting from the proposed thinning, regeneration, and selection activities would increase the production of browse and soft mast in these stands. Similarly, prescribed burning also would stimulate the production of new growth of both herbaceous and woody species. The wildlife opening renovation treatments proposed under this alternative also would result in improved habitat conditions for deer. The activities proposed, including selective herbicide application would facilitate the control of fescue and other poor quality species and allow for the establishment of clover and other desirable cool season species. These forages would provide important food sources for deer during the critical winter and early spring period.

Through time, the amount of mid-late successional oak forests would increase as the forests in the area mature. This should result in increased hard mast production in the area, which would benefit deer and other mast-dependent species. The planting of oak and possibly American chestnut seedlings in the two-aged regeneration stands also would enhance future hard mast capability. The use of herbicides to release the planted oak seedlings would help ensure successful establishment.

Details of the herbicide risk assessment are summarized in Appendix B. Hazard quotients (upper limit only) for long term exposures to contaminated vegetation were greater than 1.0 for large mammals and large birds only for triclopyr ester. These hazard quotients are not of significant concern because with cut surface or injection application, the amount of non-target vegetation subject to spray deposition is very small. In addition, the scenario assumes a diet composed of 100% contaminated vegetation from the site. The diets of large mammal such as deer are highly variable and include hard and soft mast as well as green vegetation. Large mammals also typically have fairly large home ranges. The scenario also assumes that such vegetation would be consumed from the same sites for 90 consecutive days. The rate at which treated vegetation becomes unappetizing and then unavailable to foraging mammals following treatment make the assumptions proposed for this scenario quite unrealistically conservative for the project area.

Cumulative Effects: Across the Forest, implementation of the Forest Plan is expected to provide a diversity of habitats that would benefit white-tailed deer populations on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The thinning and prescribed burning in this alternative would enhance deer habitat on the East Nottely project area. No additional activities affecting deer

42 East Nottely EA habitat are planned for the East Nottely area. Therefore no cumulative effects to white-tailed deer or their habitat are expected.

Element: Black Bear

Measure - Effects on habitat conditions and black bear populations from project activities.

Bounds of Analysis – Spatial - The spatial bound of the analysis area is Compartments 410, 411, 412, and 415 on the eastern side of Lake Nottely, total acres is 1839 acres. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation

Existing Conditions:

This species was selected as a MIS to help indicate the effects of management in meeting public demand as a hunted species. In the Southern Appalachians, important habitat elements for black bears are habitat diversity, den site availability, availability of hard mast, and habitat remoteness (USDA Forest Service 2004a)

Early successional forest habitat is extremely limited in the project area and as result, soft mast is uncommon. However, mature mast-producing stands are relatively abundant in the East Nottely project area. Over 30 percent of the project area is comprised of hardwood stands of mast producing age. Nearly 25 percent of the project area is in late successional conditions (greater than 80 years-of-age) and as a result, large den trees are relatively common. Current bear populations are low in the project area.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to black bear are expected. Through time, the limited amount of available early successional forest habitat in the East Nottely project area would decline as the forests in the area mature. This should result in a further reduction of the availability of soft mast important to bears and many other species. However, the amount of mature upland hardwood forests would increase as the Forest matures resulting in increases in hard mast and den tree availability.

Cumulative Effects: Black bear numbers have increased and are beginning to stabilize after 20 years of growth, according to bait station survey results (USDA Forest Service 2006). Based on harvest records and bear and human encounters, state biologists have concluded that bears are nearing carrying capacity on the Chattahoochee NF. Increased acres of older hardwood stands, sustained hard mast production, and enhanced soft mast production through forest management activities—such as prescribed burning and timber harvest—have contributed to improved black bear habitat on the Forest.

43 East Nottely EA

Forest Plan is expected to provide a diversity of habitats that would benefit black bear populations on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a).

No additional activities affecting bear habitats are planned the project area. Therefore no cumulative effects to black bear or their habitat are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects: A number of the treatments proposed under this alternative would result in improved habitat conditions for bears. The canopy openings resulting from the proposed thinning, regeneration, and selection activities would increase the production of soft mast and herbaceous forages in these stands. Similarly, prescribed burning also would stimulate the production of new growth of both herbaceous and woody species.

Through time, the amount of mid-late successional oak forests would increase as the forests in the area mature. This should result in increased hard mast production in the area, which would benefit bear and other mast-dependent species. The planting of oak and possibly American chestnut seedlings in the two-aged regeneration stands also would enhance future hard mast capability. The use of herbicides to release the planted oak seedlings would help ensure successful establishment.

Existing den sites and potential black bear den trees in the project area would be protected (Forest-wide standards FW-009, FW-010). Nearly 25% the analysis area is over 80 years of age, and therefore potential den trees would remain relatively common across the area.

Details of the herbicide risk assessment are summarized in Appendix B. Hazard quotients for typical long term exposures to contaminated vegetation were greater than 1.0 for large mammals and large birds only for triclopyr ester. These hazard quotients are not of significant concern because with cut surface or injection application, the amount of non-target vegetation subject to spray deposition is very small. In addition, the scenario assumes a diet composed of 100% contaminated vegetation from the site. The diets of large mammal such as bears are highly variable and include hard and soft mast as well as green vegetation. Large mammals also typically have fairly large home ranges. The scenario also assumes that such vegetation would be consumed from the same sites for 90 consecutive days. The rate at which treated vegetation becomes unappetizing and then unavailable to foraging mammals following treatment make the assumptions proposed for this scenario quite unrealistically conservative for the project area.

44 East Nottely EA

Mature hard mast producing stands that are important to bears are common on the East Nottely project area as well as the Forest as a whole. However, early successional forest that are important sources of soft mast are much more limited across the Forest. Implementation of the Forest Plan is expected to provide a diversity of habitats that would benefit black bear populations on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a).

No additional activities affecting bear habitats are planned in the project area. Therefore no cumulative effects to black bear or their habitat are expected.

Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species and Locally Rare Species

Element – Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species and Locally Rare Species

Measure - Effects on habitat conditions and populations of Terrestrial PETS and Locally Rare species from project activities. Bounds of Analysis – Spatial: The spatial bound of the analysis area is Compartments 410, 411, 412, and 415 on the eastern side of Lake Nottely, total acres is 1839 acres. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation.

Existing Conditions:

Species addressed in this document were chosen due to known occurrences and/or presence of habitat for the species in or near the project area. This was determined by: (1) consulting 20 years of U.S. Forest Service (FS) plant inventory records, (2) consulting Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP) records, (3) consulting University of Georgia, Georgia DNR, and Forest Service fish inventory records, (4) reviewing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists for potential species in Union County, (5) ongoing discussions with GNHP, FS, and other agency biologists, (6) the references at the end of this document, and (7) the results of project- level surveys.

Site-specific inventories for federally listed, Regional Forester Sensitive, and locally rare plants were conducted by Steven Brewer and Laura Lukas of Copperhead Environmental Consulting in July and August 2010. No federally listed or sensitive plants were found during these inventories. However two populations of the locally rare species Rough Sedge (Carex scabrata) were found during these inventories.

No known locations for any additional PETS or locally rare species were identified in Forest Service records or the GNHP database for the project area. However, several species listed below are known to occur or have potential to occur in this portion of the Forest based on occurrence records, species distribution, and habitat preferences. ______Table J. Terrestrial Viability Concern Species known to occur or with potential to occur in the East Nottely project vicinity. Scientific Name Common Name Status Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle S Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafineque’s Big-eared Bat S Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary Butterfly S

45 East Nottely EA

Carex scabrata Rough Sedge LR Condylura cristata Star-nosed Mole LR Pituophis m. melanoleucus Northern Pine Snake LR Mustela nivalis Least Weasel LR

Bald Eagle - Bald eagle populations in Georgia are monitored by annual aerial nesting surveys conducted by Georgia DNR personnel. They have successfully nested for a number of years near the Oconee NF on Lake Sinclair, Lake Jackson, and Lake Juliette and from Carters Lake, south of the Chattahoochee NF. They have been observed foraging on Lake Nottely, Chatuge, and Blue Ridge on or near the Chattahoochee NF and Lake Oconee, Lake Sinclair, the Oconee River, and Ocmulgee River on or near the Oconee NF (USDA Forest Service 2004d). Eagle nesting on the Forest has only been recently confirmed with a successful nest reported on the southeastern portion of Lake Nottely in 2009 (J.Ozier, GADNR, pers.comm). This nest blew down after the 2009 nesting season. However a second successful nest was located on National Forest lands in the northwestern portion of Lake Nottely in 2010.

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat - There are historic records for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat from Fannin and Union Counties, the most recent of which is a 1963 record from an old gold mine near Dial (GNHP database). Laerm (1981) reported historic records from Fannin, Union, Towns, and Rabun Counties in northern Georgia and several counties in the Coastal Plain, but indicated that this species was reconfirmed from only one locality on the coast (Floyd’s Island) in extensive surveys throughout the state. More recently, Menzel et al. (1998) reported Rafineque’s big-eared bat from old mines in Fort Mountain State Park in Murray County, Georgia.

In the summer of 2001 and 2002, Dr. Susan Loeb from Clemson University conducted bat mist netting across the Chattahoochee National Forest including several sites on the Blue Ridge Ranger District. Dr. Loeb also mist netted areas near known records of the Rafinesque’s big- eared bat. The only Rafinesque’s big-eared bat collected during this sampling was from eastern Rabun County near the South Carolina State line. No big-eared bats were found during any of the mist netting on the Blue Ridge Ranger District.

The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat hibernates primarily in caves and old buildings, usually near permanent water (Webster et al. 1985). Harvey (1992) states that maternity colonies are primarily found in old buildings, and are rarely found in caves and mines. There are no caves, mines, or old buildings present in the project area and therefore it does not provide hibernation or maternity habitat.

In the summer, male big-eared bats may roost in hollow trees (Harvey 1992). Hollow trees are common throughout the Forest and are associated with older forests, typically greater than 60 years of age. There are approximately 680,000 acres of these older Forests on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest. The East Nottely project area does provide roosting habitat for the bat.

Diana fritillary - The Diana fritillary occurs throughout the Southern Appalachians, inhabiting pine and deciduous forests near streams. Violets serve as the host plant for larvae (Scott 1986).

46 East Nottely EA

Opler (1992) states that males may use a variety of habitats, but primary habitat consists of openings and fields in wet, rich woods. Roads and other openings in moist woods provide nectar plants for this butterfly (Broadwell 1993). Many of the nectar plants are associated with early successional habitats or forest edges. There are historic reports of this species in White, Union, Fannin, Habersham, and Rabun Counties (Harris 1972). It has been observed in a variety of habitats throughout the Forest for the past 15 years (C. Wentworth, pers. comm.). Breeding habitats are primarily mesic, deciduous or mixed forests where numerous violets occur in the understory (NatureServe 2009). Because the butterfly uses a variety of forest types including both pine and hardwood forests of varying successional stages, nearly the entire Forest (750,000 acres), including the stands in the project area provide suitable habitat.

Rough sedge – The rough sedge is considered secure across its range which extends from Canada, down through New England, into the southeast. The primary threat to conservation of the plant is wetland drainage (NatureServe 2009). Two small populations of this locally rare sedge, located in small stream channels, were found in the recent inventories of the project area.

Star-nosed mole - The star-nosed mole is associated with moist swampy habitats such as marshes, bogs, seeps, and streams in both forested and early successional communities. Burrows near wet habitats may open directly into the water. Nests are constructed in burrows above water level (Webster et al. 1985, Laerm 1995). There are no records of this species in the vicinity of the East Nottely project area, but it could be found in association with the seeps and small streams in the area.

Northern pine snake - The northern pine snake is known from Banks, Burke, Dawson, Lumpkin, Paulding, Pickens, and White Counties (Hermann and Fahey, pers. comm.). Additional counties with records of the snake’s occurrence are Cherokee, Cobb, Gilmer, Gwinnett and Rabun (Wouldiamson and Moulis 1994). The northern pine snake is found in dry, upland forests such as those found on the East Nottely project area. This secretive species requires dry, often sandy soil for construction of their burrows, where they spend much of their time underground (Mount 1975, Martof et al. 1980, Wilson 1995). Eggs are laid in nests located in cavities or burrows that are several inches below ground (Mount 1975). The pine snake’s diet consists primarily of small mammals (Martof et al. 1980).

Least Weasel - The least weasel is a specialist predator of small mammals especially voles, lemmings, and other mice (Nature Serve 2009). The least weasel has been reported from a variety of habitats and elevations most often from early successional habitats including pastures, fencerows, farmland shelterbelts, old-fields, and in and around human buildings (Laerm and Wentworth unpubl.). It is often reported in association with water, including moist meadows, marshes, and forested wetlands. The single Georgia record is from on old fields on the east side of Nottely Lake, approximately 1 mile from the project area. The least weasel could be present in the East Nottely project area, particularly where it adjoins old fields on private lands.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects - This alternative would perpetuate current conditions and no direct impacts to viability concern species are expected. Through time, the amount of mid-late

47 East Nottely EA successional habitat would increase as the forests in the area mature. This would enhance suitable conditions for future nesting opportunities for bald eagles in the Lake Nottely vicinity. It also should result in increased availability of hollow roost trees for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Habitat conditions for other viability concern species should remain constant.

Cumulative Effects - There are no additional actions planned in the vicinity of the East Nottely road that would adversely affect viability concern species. Surveys have been and continue to be conducted in portions of the Forest to determine presence and distribution of various small mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, aquatic species, and PETS and Locally Rare plants. The Georgia National Heritage Program (GNHP) records are checked for known occurrences of PETS and Locally Rare species in project areas, and close contact is maintained between the GNHP biologists and Forest Service biologists for sharing of new information. Forest Service records and other agencies’ biologists and records (in addition to GNHP) are consulted for occurrences.

Future management activities and project locations would be analyzed utilizing any new information available on viability concern species. For Sensitive and Locally Rare species, mitigating measures would be implemented where needed to maintain habitat for these species on the Forest and to prevent future listing under the Endangered Species Act. Much of the private lands surrounding Lake Nottely are heavily developed and additional development is occurring at a rapid pace. This would limit future nesting opportunities for bald eagles on private lands. However, the continued maturation of National Forest would maintain and enhance suitable conditions for future bald eagle nesting opportunities.

There currently are no known bald eagle nests within the East Nottely project area. Georgia DNR would continue to conduct mid-winter aerial surveys for bald eagles. The Forest Plan includes standards to provide protection zone around nests and roost sites if a nest is found in the future. In addition, the Riparian Corridor Management Prescription (MRx 11) with its emphasis on low levels of disturbance and maintenance of mature forests provides direction for management of shorelines where bald eagles may forage. There are no activities planned for the East Nottely area that would affect habitat conditions for bald eagles and therefore no cumulative effects are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Bald Eagle - There are no bald eagle nests or known roost sites on the East Nottely project area. Therefore activities such as thinning, regeneration and selection harvest, prescribed burning, and herbicide application would have no direct effects on bald eagles. The remnant mature shortleaf pines would be retained during the thinning and selection harvest treatments. This would increase vigor in the remaining trees and increase their resistance to southern pine beetle attacks. These mature pines would provide potential bald eagle nesting and roost habitat in the future.

Details of the herbicide risk assessment are summarized in Appendix C. Hazard quotients are projected to be greater than 1.0 for chronic exposure to contaminated vegetation by large birds only for triclopyr (ester) cut surface application, and only at upper exposure limits. With cut

48 East Nottely EA surface or injection application, the amount of non-target vegetation subject to spray deposition is very small. Bald eagles forage for fish and do not consume vegetation. Therefore they would be unlikely to come in contact with the treated vegetation. Treatment buffers along streams and lakes would reduce the risk of herbicides entering Lake Nottely. Hazard quotients for fish- eating birds such as eagles are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure. Therefore the activities proposed in this alternative are not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat - There are no known records of the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in the East Nottely project area and hibernation and maternity habitat is not present in the a project area. Hollow trees that serve as summer roosts for male bats are common throughout the Forest and are associated with older forests, typically greater than 60 years of age. There are approximately 680,000 acres of these older Forests on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest and approximately 700 acres in the East Nottely analysis area. The Forest plan contains a standard that provides for protection of existing snags and den trees during vegetation management treatments. As a result, hollow trees would not be cut or intentionally disturbed. Even if a hollow tree is inadvertently damaged, roosting bats are quick to fly away when disturbed on the roost (Ozier 1999), and would promptly relocate (M. Bunch SCDNR, pers. comm. with A. Gaston).

Although the proposed prescribed burning could damage some hollow trees, given their abundance on the Forest, the availability of summer roost trees would not be affected. Through time, repeated prescribed burns would result in fire scarring of the residual trees that would lead to the development of additional hollow trees, offsetting any losses of existing potential roosts.

Details of the herbicide risk assessment are summarized in Appendix C. Bats could be exposed to herbicides via dermal, ingestion, or inhalation routes. The hazard quotient (HQ) for small mammals through direct spray, and consumption of contaminated vegetation, water, and insects all are less than 1.0 for glyphosate and triclopyr ester, indicating exposure levels not of concern.

Diana Fritillary - There would be no direct effect of the proposed thinning, regeneration and regeneration harvest on the Diana Fritillary. The proposed activities could impact larval host plants (violets) and nectar plants on the site. However nectar plants are not a limiting factor for the Diana, and flowering plants that would provide nectar for the butterfly are commonly found in all types of habitat throughout the Chattahoochee Forest, as well as on private land. In addition, many of the nectar plants likely would increase in these areas due to increased sunlight and would offset any impacts to existing plants.

Both dormant season and growing season prescribed burning is proposed in this alternative. Existing skid trails and roads would be used for much of the control lines so new ground disturbance would be minimal. If Diana Fritillaries were present in the area, they would be present only in the larval (caterpillar) stage during the dormant season. At the end of summer, Diana fritillary eggs are laid next to dried-up violets where they hatch in the fall. The young caterpillars overwinter in the duff without feeding until spring, when they begin feeding on the adjacent violets (Opler 1992). Diana larvae overwinter deep in the duff, and are unlikely to be impacted by dormant season prescribed burns (Adams, pers. comm. with C. Wentworth). The

49 East Nottely EA fuel conditions would result in a mosaic pattern of burned area (i.e. portions of the area would not be burned). Therefore, dormant season burning, which remove only the upper litter layers, should not impact this species. However, if present, young caterpillars could be impacted by a growing season prescribed burn.

Prescribed burning during the dormant season would not harm any larval and nectar plants since the above ground portions would not be present, and the dormant season burn would not damage the root systems. Existing larval and nectar plants could be impacted by a growing season burn. However, the impacts to existing plants would be offset by the herbaceous growth response following the prescribed burn. Observations by Campbell et al. (2007) suggest that disturbances like prescribed burning and mechanical treatments should increase the amount and diversity of nectar resources available to Diana fritillaries.

Herbicide application also could impact nectar plants and violets necessary for the life cycle of Diana fritillary. However, as discussed above, mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to non-target plants.

Rough Sedge

Two populations of rough sedge were found during the inventories of the project area. Both populations are located in stream channels. One is in a stand proposed for thinning treatment. However, these activities would occur in the upland portions of the stand and this population would be protected through the application of riparian corridor standards (MRx 11) and Best Management Practices. Both populations are located in stands proposed for prescribed burning. However, burning intensity would be low in the riparian areas. Since these populations are located in saturated soil within the stream channel, there would be no negative impacts to these plants from prescribed burning. No herbicide application is proposed in either of the stands containing the rough sedge populations.

The spread of Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) has the potential to impact these locally rare plants as well as other native plants. However, no NNIS plants were found in the vicinity of the rough sedge populations. As discussed above, ground disturbing activities would be limited in the riparian areas where these population occur, reducing the potential for spread of NNIS into these areas. In addition, the proposed prescribed burning and herbicide treatments would control some of the NNIS populations.

Star-nosed Mole - There are no records of the star-nosed mole in the vicinity of the East Nottely project. The project area does not contain any marsh or bog habitat, but this species could be found in association with the small streams in the area. These sites would be protected through the application of riparian corridor standards (MRx 11) and Best Management Practices (BMPs). As a result there would be no impacts to potential habitat for the star-nosed mole.

If present, star-nosed moles could be exposed to herbicides via dermal, ingestion, or inhalation routes. The hazard quotient (HQ) for small mammals with typical exposures through direct spray, and consumption of contaminated vegetation, water, and insects all are less than 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating exposure levels not of concern.

50 East Nottely EA

In addition, with the provision of riparian buffer strips on stream zones, the risk of herbicide contamination in streams is greatly reduced.

Northern Pine Snake - The northern pine snake is found in dry, upland forests such as those found on the East Nottely project area. However there are no records of this species from Union County or the East Nottely project area. This species spend much of their time underground. Therefore, the proposed thinning and prescribed burning activities would have no direct impacts on this snake, which, if present, would likely retreat to its burrow. The treatments proposed (thinning, burning, herbicide application) would result in the opening of the canopy and increase in herbaceous vegetation. This would likely increase habitat for the small rodents serving as prey for the pine snake.

Below-ground contamination and dermal absorption of herbicide by the pine snake would be unlikely due to the fact that glyphosate is not mobile in the soil and triclopyr has limited soil mobility. The pine snake’s diet consists primarily of small mammals (Martof et al. 1980). Reptiles were not evaluated in the herbicide risk assessment but hazard quotients for carnivorous mammals consuming contaminated small mammals also are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Least Weasel – The only Georgia record for the least weasel is from an old field on private land on the east side of Lake Nottely. It is associated with early successional habitats including pastures, fencerows, farmland shelterbelts, old-fields, and in and around human buildings. Early successional habitat is very limited on the East Nottely project area. However, the thinning, regeneration and selection harvest, prescribed burning, and herbicide application proposed in this alternative would likely enhance habitat conditions for the small mammals serving as prey for the least weasel. Details of the herbicide risk assessment are summarized in Appendix C. If present, weasels could be exposed to herbicides via dermal, ingestion, or inhalation routes. The hazard quotient (HQ) for small mammals with typical exposures through direct spray, and consumption of contaminated vegetation, water, and insects all are less than 1.0 for glyphosate and triclopyr ester indicating exposure levels not of concern. Least weasels primarily feed on small rodents. Hazard quotients for carnivorous mammals consuming contaminated small mammals also are well below 1.0 for all herbicide applications proposed in this alternative indicating low risk, even at upper levels of exposure.

Cumulative Effects – There are no additional actions planned in the vicinity of the East Nottely area that would adversely affect viability concern species. The only recent vegetation management activities on Forest Service lands in this area have been prescribed burning.

Surveys have been and continue to be conducted in portions of the Forest to determine presence and distribution of various small mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, aquatic species, and PETS and Locally Rare plants. The Georgia National Heritage Program (GNHP) records are checked for known occurrences of PETS and Locally Rare species in project areas, and close contact is maintained between the GNHP biologists and Forest Service biologists for sharing of new information. Forest Service records and other agencies’ biologists and records (in addition to GNHP) are consulted for occurrences.

51 East Nottely EA

Much of the private lands surrounding Lake Nottely are heavily developed and additional development is occurring at a rapid pace. This would limit future nesting opportunities for bald eagles on private lands. However, the continued maturation of National Forest would maintain and enhance suitable conditions for future bald eagle nesting opportunities.

Element – Non-Native Invasive Plant Species

Measure – Risk of invasion and spread of Non-Native Invasive plant Species from project activities.

Existing Conditions:

Site-specific inventories for Non-Native Invasive plant Species (NNIS) were conducted by Steven Brewer and Laura Lukas of Copperhead Environmental Consulting in July and August 2010. In the project area on Forest Service lands, there are 69 documented, infested acres (Table K). Generally, sites occur along existing roads, including closed and temporary roads, or in or around forest openings. NNIS observed included Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), serecia lespedeza, (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), common periwinkle (Vinca minor), oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), shrubby lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii).

52 East Nottely EA

Table K. Non-Native Invasive Plant Species known to occur in the East Nottely project area. Species Number of Acres in Acres in populations Project Area Treatment Stands1

Japanese Stiltgrass 37 51.8 7.6

Serecia Lespedeza 16 4.3 2.1

Japanese Honeysuckle 12 6.0 0.6

Chinese Privet 8 1.4 0.2

Multiflora Rose 7 0.3 0.2

Common Periwinkle 2 1.3 1.1

Mimosa 2 0.01 0.01

Japanese Barberry 2 >0.01 >0.01

Kudzu 1 3.8 0

Oriental Bittersweet 1 0.1 0

Bicolor Lespedeza 1 0.1 0.1

TOTAL 69.1 11.9 1- Only includes stands where ground disturbing activities would occur (e.g. regeneration or selection harvest, thinning, biomass treatments) and does not include stands that would be prescribed burned only.

The Blue Ridge Ranger District’s program currently controls for non-native invasive plant species under a previous decision (USDA Forest Service 2009). Since 2009, the District has been activity controlling NNIS through the use of herbicides as well as with mechanical methods. In 2010 and 2011, the large patch of kudzu in the project area received initial herbicide treatments. Further treatments would be required to control kudzu at this site.

Alternative A (No Action):

Direct and Indirect Effects - No direct or indirect impacts to non-native invasive plants are expected. The No Action does not propose any new ground disturbing activities that would increase suitable habitat, but current trends for new infestations and expansion would continue. Current levels of treatment would also likely continue.

Cumulative Effects - The No Action would create no new suitable habitat in the project areas so there would be no cumulative impacts to non-native invasive plants.

53 East Nottely EA

Alternative B (Proposed Action):

Direct and Indirect Effects – Many activities associated with the proposed action would have direct and indirect effects on non-native invasive plants. The activities in this alternative could increase the density of existing infestation and spread of species into new areas. Areas with ground disturbance such as temporary roads (construction, reconstruction, and closing), log landings, and road reconstruction and maintenance are at a higher risk of invasion and spread of non-native invasive plants. To the extent possible, the locations of the temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings would be the same locations as from past harvesting operations which are also more likely to have non-native invasive plant species present, increasing the risk of spread into new areas.

Of the 69 infested acres on Forest Service lands across the project area, 12 acres occur in stands proposed for ground disturbing activities (Table K). The primary species of concern in these areas are Japanese stiltgrass and serecia lespedeza , both of which are commonly associated with old roads and openings. Design criteria for minimizing soil erosion would reduce the risk from non-native invasive plants. Disturbed soils would be sown with native plant seed or non- persistent, non-native seed (FW Standard FW-056). Successful establishment of vegetation should reduce microsites for non-native invasive plant establishment. Mulch may also prevent establishment of non-native invasive plants, but may also serve as an additional vector for spread.

Equipment can be a source of new introductions as well as a vector for the spread of existing populations. To reduce the introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants, contract clauses require operators to clean equipment before entering any work site and when moving to a new site. Equipment cleaning contract provisions directs the Forest Service to identify areas with invasive species of concern on the Sale Area Map. In addition, it provides specific requirements for cleaning equipment when moving from areas infested with invasive species of concern to uninfested areas as well as direction regarding equipment inspection. These provisions should help minimize the spread of NNIS.

Riparian areas seem to present increased risk for invasion, since these areas are more productive, and appear to provide the best growing conditions for some species, particularly for Japanese stiltgrass, Japanese honeysuckle and privet. However, the majority of the ground disturbance activities would occur on upland sites and disturbance in the riparian area of the project area would be limited.

The proposed timber harvest activities would result in an opening of the forest canopy and increase the amount of sunlight reaching the ground. Where the tree canopy is reduced, existing infestations could increase particularly for species such as Japanese stiltgrass, sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, mimosa, Japanese barberry, and bicolor lespedeza. Over time as the tree canopy closes, some species may be reduced due to shade tolerances, but would continue to persist at low levels. Once established, privet would invade both shaded and open areas. Improving the herbaceous understory may decrease the risk of occupation by invasive plants.

54 East Nottely EA

Nearly all of the project area is proposed for prescribed burning under this alternative. For some NNIS, prescribed burning can be used as an effective control method depending on the species, timing of the burn, and burn intensity. For example, repeated prescribed burns as is proposed for this project also have been shown to be effective in controlling privet (Evans et al. 2006). These actions could diminish the potential impact of this species. However, prescribed burning also can encourage spread of some species such as non-native lespedezas. To the extent feasible, roads, streams and previously used firelines will be utilized to minimize new ground disturbance, reducing the potential establishment of new NNIS populations. In addition, prompt revegetation of disturbed soils with native plant seed or non-persistent, non-native seed will reduce microsites for non-native invasive plant establishment.

The ongoing control program on the District would help reduce the potential of spread of NNIS in the project area. As previously discussed, control of the existing kudzu population in the project area was initiated in 2010 and 2011. Additional NNIS populations located during the inventories of the project area would be targeted for control in 2012 and beyond as funding and resources allow. This includes treatment of NNIS in the existing wildlife openings and in the forest stands identified during the inventories. The focus for control would be the populations of Chinese privet, multiflora rose, mimosa, Japanese barberry, oriental bittersweet, and bicolor lespedeza. Control of some of the NNIS populations prior to implementation of the project would reduce potential sources of spread.

Cumulative Effects – The Proposed Action would increase the risk of introduction, establishment and spread of non-native invasive species compared to the No Action Alternative by increasing the amount of ground disturbance in the project area. This Alternative would increase ground disturbance along roadsides which are the primary habitat for introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants. If infestations of non-native invasive plants were established, the site would serve as an additional source for new infestations and spread into adjacent areas. Eventually, these sites could expand into undisturbed habitats. The amount of risk would depend on existing conditions (species present), the distance to existing sites, and intensity of the disturbance. Road corridors, trails and other vectors for spread (off-road vehicles, recreational use, and road maintenance) would continue. On-going road maintenance would provide areas suitable for new infestations. Adjacent private property may serve as continued sources of non-native invasive plants.

Several measures are in place in this and other projects on the Forest to reduce the effects of NNIS. Erosion control practices to quickly establish vegetative cover would minimize the risk from non-native invasive plants in the areas of ground disturbance. In addition, as discussed above, the spread of NNIS would be reduced through the Equipment Cleaning provision in timber sale contracts. Ongoing NNIS control efforts also would continue across the District, targeting NNIS populations with the greatest threat to native plant communities. The use of these measures should help minimize the cumulative effects of NNIS on this and all other vegetation management projects on the Forest.

55 East Nottely EA

Climate Change/Carbon Sequestration

Measure: Qualitative changes in both the local carbon cycle and in the resiliency of vegetative communities to climate change. It is not currently feasible to quantify the effects of individual or multiple projects on global climate change or the global carbon cycle.

Bounds of Analysis: Spatial: The spatial bound of the analysis area is Compartments 410, 411, 412, and 415 on the eastern side of Lake Nottely, total acres is 1,839 acres. Temporal: Approximately 10 years following implementation.

Background: The desired condition is one in which managed forest stands are at stand densities and of species composition such that they will be resilient under a variety of potential future climates. Sites having the potential to support forest vegetation now and in the foreseeable future, given regional climate projections, are occupied by stands of trees to approximately the same degree as they were under historical disturbance regimes.

The appropriate indicator is relative to carbon storage and climate change. First, climate change may affect the resources in the project area. In this case the affected environment of climate change is limited to the project area. The proposed project can affect climate change through altering the carbon cycle. Secondly, forest management by thinning of overstocked, stagnant forest stands of various forest types releases some stored carbon and may affect carbon storage ability. In that example, the affected environment is more regional (Smith, Health, Skog, and Birdsey).

Classification of carbon in the forest ecosystems and in harvested wood

Forest ecosystem carbon pools:

Live trees- Live trees with diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), including carbon mass of coarse roots (greater than 0.2 to 0.5 cm, published distinctions between fine and course roots are not always clear), stems, branches, and foliage.

Standing dead trees – Standing dead trees with d.b.h. of at least 2.5 cm, including carbon mass of coarse roots, stems, and branches.

Understory vegetation- Live vegetation that includes the roots, stems, branches, and foliage of seedlings (trees less than 2.5 cm d.b.h.), shrubs, and bushes.

Down dead wood – Woody material on the floor of the forest that includes fine woody debris up to 7.5 cm in diameter, tree litter, humus, and fine roots in the organic forest floor layer above mineral soil.

Forest floor – Organic material on the floor of the forest that includes fine woody debris up to 7.5 cm in diameter, tree litter, humus, and fine roots in the organic forest floor layer above mineral soil.

56 East Nottely EA

Soil organic carbon – Below ground carbon without coarse roots but including fine roots and all other organic not included in other pools, to a depth of 1 meter.

Categories for disposition of carbon in harvested wood:

Products in use – End-use products that have not been discarded or otherwise destroyed, examples include residential and nonresidential construction, wooden containers, and paper products.

Landfills – Discarded wood and paper placed in landfills where most carbon is stored long-term and only a small portion of the material is assumed to degrade, at a slow rate.

Emitted with energy capture – Combustion of wood products with concomitant energy capture as carbon is emitted to the atmosphere.

Emitted without energy capture – Carbon in harvested wood emitted to the atmosphere through combustion or decay without concomitant energy recapture.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A (No Action) would result in no change to the current trend for carbon storage or release. Existing non-native and overstocked stands would be relatively non-resilient (i.e. vulnerable) to possible climate change impacts, such as changes in productivity, insect and disease outbreaks, severe weather, and/or wildfire activity.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects – It is not expected that Alternative B (Proposed Action) would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The thinning in the areas to be harvested would provide more structural diversity to the area, and establish vigorous forest stands that may be more resilient to the changes in climate, definitely to forest pests. Forest management may alter the carbon cycle in that if affects the carbon stock in anyone of the pools. Alternative B would remove trees as a result of timber harvest. This would reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated, but stagnant stands. A portion of the carbon would remain stored for a period of time in wood products, leaf and limb litter, root system, and organic matter. The stands would likely remain a carbon source for several years, once their rate of growth is reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase until peaking and then gradually decline but remain positive. Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances. Saturation of carbon does not necessarily occur if carbon continuously flows into products.

The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage.

57 East Nottely EA

Cumulative Effects

For all alternatives, the release of stored carbon may be an obvious concern; the contribution of the proposed project areas to the carbon cycle is extremely small. When combined, the carbon from these projects has minimal cumulative effects not only at the stand level, but also at the regional level. When implemented, the risk and rate of additional carbon release through thinning is very minimal for the reasonably foreseeable future.

Social/Economic Factors

Recreation

Measure: Use by recreationists including hiking, hunting, fishing, dispersed camping and other day use activities. The analysis in this section includes effects of actions on the recreation resource from the typical user standpoint.

Bounds of Analysis: Spatial: The approximately 1839 acres in the project area Temporal: The analysis considers the recreational use over 10 years.

Existing Conditions:

All proposed actions fall within the 7.E.1, Dispersed Recreation Areas management prescription (and MRx 11, Riparian). These areas receive moderate to high recreation use and are managed to provide the public with a variety of recreation opportunities in a setting that provides quality scenery, numerous trails and limited facilities. The management emphasis is to improve the settings for non-formal outdoor recreation in a manner that protects and restores the health, diversity, and productivity of the watersheds. These areas are to be managed and monitored to absorb moderate to high levels of use with minimal improvements while protecting soil, vegetation, and water resource conditions.

Primary activities include hunting, angling, dispersed camping, boating, day-use, and other dispersed recreation activities. There is one developed recreation site, the Deavertown Boat Ramp, which is managed under special use permit by Union County. Motorized recreation occurs on designated and non-designated routes in the area. Shoreline activities are popular; the majority of access is from the lake.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct Effects - If no action is taken conditions would not change.

Indirect Effects - If no action is taken conditions would not change.

Cumulative Effects - No action would produce no significant effect on the type or volume of the recreation activities in the surrounding areas or the Blue Ridge Ranger District. In combination with other ongoing and proposed management activities, recreation opportunities would not change.

58 East Nottely EA

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct Effects - The thinning operations, regardless of type, would have a minimal to moderate and short term effect on recreation in the specific compartments. Access via authorized routes may be impacted by temporary road closures. Existing unauthorized motorized routes that provide access to dispersed recreation area would be closed during harvest activities and would be closed permanently following project completion. Legal access closures and dispersed recreation closures would be avoided when possible. Prescribed burning activities would close areas during fire activity, but impacts would be minimal. Smoke concerns would be mitigated by burning in appropriate weather conditions. The improvements to authorized roads would improve access to dispersed recreation locations. Non-motorized access would be provided to the lakeshore for camping, angling, and other day use activities. Herbicide application or mechanical removal of a kudzu patch would have no impact on the recreation resource. The renovation of existing wildlife opening would have a positive effect on recreation users, particularly hunters, by improving game species habitat. Additionally, wildlife viewing would be improved.

Indirect Effects - The harvest activities are adjacent to several access roads. Reducing stand densities and creating haul and skid routes adjacent to these roads would increase the potential for the creation of illegal motorized routes. This would be mitigated by utilizing gates and earthen berms to discourage unauthorized access in these areas. Project completion would be immediately followed up with permanent closure of these routes, utilizing best management practices including slash scattering, tanks traps, signing, and increased monitoring and compliance. The limiting of unauthorized motorized access to lakeside dispersed recreation areas would facilitate more appropriate non-motorized access including angling, hiking, and walk-in camping. Herbicide application or mechanical removal of a kudzu patch would have no impact on the recreation resource. Access to the wildlife opening would be properly managed to prevent illegal motorized activity.

Cumulative Effects - The proposed activities would not significantly change the type or volume of the recreation activities in the surrounding areas or the Blue Ridge Ranger District. In combination with other ongoing and proposed management activities, recreation opportunities would not change.

Visual Quality

This section discloses the effects of proposed project activities on the Landscape Character and the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) as determined in the Forest Plan using the Scenery Management System (SMS). The SMS uses scenic classes based on the relative value and importance of the landscape to the viewing public on a scale of one through seven. Scenic classes were derived by combining the scenic attractiveness of the area (which includes landscape character and existing scenic integrity) with landscape visibility (which includes concern levels, distance zones, and travel way importance). The Scenic Treatments Guide for Southern Region National Forests provides guidance for mitigation techniques to use in implementation of vegetative treatments.

59 East Nottely EA

Measure: Use by recreationists including, hiking, hunting, fishing, dispersed camping and other day use activities. The analysis in this section includes effects of actions on the recreation resource from the typical user standpoint.

Bounds of Analysis: The geographic bounds for this analysis include effects of actions on the scenic quality from typical observer positions, including primary travel ways and any significant use areas within or nearby the project areas, such as Lake Nottely. The temporal bounds for this analysis consider an extent of 10 years since most vegetation manipulation that causes visual impacts would be negligible to the viewer after this time period.

Existing Conditions

The landscape character goal envisioned for 7.E.1 Dispersed Recreation Management Prescription is natural appearing. The management emphasis is to improve the settings for non- formal outdoor recreation in a manner that protects and restores the health, diversity and productivity of the watersheds. Such areas would be managed and monitored to absorb moderate to high levels of use. The predominant landscape is natural appearing with variations of structurally diverse mid- to late- successional communities. OBJ-7.E.1-01 states as the sole objective for Dispersed Recreation Areas to: Manage forest successional states to maintain a minimum of 75 percent of forested acres in mid- and late-successional forest, including old growth; a minimum of 50 percent of forest acres in late successional forest, including old growth, and up to 4 percent per decade in early-successional forest. A visually-appealing landscape is achieved by providing vista openings, featuring special attractions like rock outcroppings and waterfalls, and by providing park like stands and a diversity of vegetation species and age classes.

Table L displays the Scenery standards relating to management activities in the Dispersed Recreation Management Rx Area as required by Standard 7.E.1-006 in the Forest Plan (FLRMP).

Table L. Scenery Standard 7.E.1-006 in the Forest Plan Inventoried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Scenic Class Scenic Integrity H M M M M M M Objectives

All project areas, with the exception of portions of Compartment 412 that are classified as Moderate, have a Scenic Integrity Objective of High.

The following is a list of affected travel ways and areas: US 19/129, primary travel way GA Hwy 325, primary travel way Lake Nottely, primary travel way and TVA reservoir Nicholson Drive, primary travel way

60 East Nottely EA

John Smith Road, secondary travel way Deavers Road, a secondary travel way Chapman Ford Road, a secondary travel way Forest Drive, secondary travel way Lake Nottely Dr, secondary travel way Rocky Circle, secondary travel way Caldwell Road, secondary travel way

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct Effects - If no action is taken conditions would not change.

Indirect Effects - If no action is taken immediate conditions would not change and scenery changes would be gradual.

Cumulative Effects - In combination with other ongoing and proposed management activities, scenic integrity would not change.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct/Indirect Effects - The project area activities occur within areas of Moderate (north of GA Hwy 325) to High (all other project areas) Scenic Integrity Objectives. The majority of the project is not visible as the foreground, middle ground or background, due to projects location and limited access and observer positions in the surrounding areas. An exception would be the stands that are adjacent to Lake Nottely. The project areas provide the foreground and natural setting for recreation activities on the lake. Mitigation measures found in the Scenic Treatment Guide for Southern Regional National Forests and Best Management Practices for forestry and silvicultural activities would be used to meet minimum Scenic Integrity Objective requirements for Lake Nottely.

Promotion of shortleaf pine and mast producing hardwoods would result in a more natural appearing landscape in the project areas. Prescribed burning activities would leave scorched conditions in the short term; however visual impacts would be short-lived and localized. The project area activities occur within areas of Moderate (north of GA Hwy 325) to High (all other project areas) Scenic Integrity Objectives. The basal area reductions to 0-20 square feet would initially be an impact on the visual resource. Recreationists, along with homeowners, traveling along Chapman Ford Road and Forest Drive would have noticeable impacts from the harvest activities both in the short and long term. However, these impacts occur along secondary travel ways and scenic mitigation measures would be used to minimize the impacts.

The activities to improve watershed conditions and manage forest visitor access would result in a positive impact on scenery conditions. Dispersed recreation areas accessed by unauthorized routes would become less impacted by preventing motorized access. The objective to treat and control a kudzu patch would improve native scenery conditions. The proposed wildlife opening renovations are not in the foreground of any primary or secondary travel ways nor are they large

61 East Nottely EA in scale. There are only minimal impacts from renovating wildlife openings and scenic mitigation measures would be used to minimize those impacts.

Cumulative Effects - In combination with other ongoing and proposed management activities, the proposed action (given that scenic mitigation measures would be utilized) would have no significant cumulative effect on visual quality.

Cultural Resources

Measure: The measure of this effect is the number of sites found within the project area and their potential disturbance within the project area.

Bounds of Analysis: The spatial analysis for the East Nottely Project is the analysis area within Compartments 410, 411, 412, and 415 on the east side of Lake Nottely where activities are proposed. The time bound for this analysis would be approximately 10 years from implementation, whereas the cumulative effects would be indefinite until another project is proposed in or near the same area. Monitoring of protected sites would continue after project completion as part of the Forest’s heritage resources management, and sites found during this survey would be on record for future projects in the area.

Existing Conditions:

Heritage resources are areas containing remnants of past human behavior that provide information about how people used and adapted to their environment over time. The Chattahoochee-Oconee is rich with heritage resources that provide a vast information base on the history and prehistory of northern Georgia. These resources range from 10,000-year old artifacts and sites to CCC camps from the 20th century. All heritage resources are fragile and not- renewable, meaning they cannot be rebuilt or remade. Once damaged, the information they contain becomes irretrievable (Forest Plan). The prehistory and history of the Chattahoochee National Forest can be found in the 1994 Cultural Resources Overview for the forest (Wynn et al. 1994). Also, this background can be found in the 2004 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests (EIS 3-525) and previous survey reports within these four current compartments for the East Nottely Project.

Our knowledge of the cultural resources within these four compartments comes from previous surveys. Surveys have been conducted on all types of locations for a variety of purposes. Approximately 470 acres have been previously surveyed in four separate surveys which recorded eleven sites. The current survey has recorded 19 new sites within the proposed project areas. Twelve of the total thirty sites are recommended for protection from future disturbances.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects - None of the proposed activities would take place so no direct effects would occur. There is potential for heritage resources to be damaged by

62 East Nottely EA unplanned fire suppression activities due to fuel buildup. No other on-going or future activities in the project area are reasonably expected so there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects - This alternative has the potential to effect heritage resources by ground disturbing activities. Commercial and non-commercial activities by mechanical means could impact heritage resources by disturbing intact cultural resources. Most previously surveyed areas were not resurveyed and those previously recorded sites already determined ineligible were not revisited. However, a few sites were revisited if they had an unknown or potentially eligible recommendation to obtain additional information.

The potential for effects has been mitigated to an acceptable level by implementation of the standards in the current Land and Resource Management Plan, and identification and evaluation of historic properties and mitigation measures established in consultation with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer. Historic properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Preservation (NRHP), including a protective buffer, will be marked on the ground and avoided during implementation.

Cumulative Effects - The degree of cumulative effects to known heritage sites from all management activities should be slight as inventory, assessment, protection, and mitigation measures would be implemented prior to initiation of each project (Land and Resource Management Plan 2004). Based on our inventory and mitigation measures there should not be any adverse cumulative effects on sites recommended as eligible or unknown for the NRHP.

Physical Factors

Soils

Measure – Soil productivity

Bounds of Analysis: The temporal bound used for cumulative effects on soil productivity is three to five years; the spatial bound includes all soils where management activities are proposed.

Existing Conditions:

The East Nottely Project Area is situated within the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains Ecological Subsection (M221Dc). This subsection is one ecological level of land classification used to arrange and order information about land units. The current ecological classification system in use by the Forest Service is divided in a hierarchical framework (Cleland et. al, 1997) to delineate ecological units at different levels of scale that have similar capabilities and potentials for management. At the broad landscape scale of the eastern United States the ecological units are the Humid Temperate Domain (200), Hot Continental Division (220), Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest-Coniferous Forest – Meadow Province (M221) and the Blue Ridge Mountains

63 East Nottely EA

Section (M221D). Each of these units describe similarities in climate, vegetation communities and patterns, topographic features, geology and soil types, disturbance regimes, and elevations.

At the scale of the Chattahoochee National Forest the ecological units applicable to Forest Plan implementation are Subsections and Landtype Associations. The Southern Blue Ridge Mountains subsection is briefly described as follows: low mountains (elevation 2000-5000 feet), 35 to 55 inches annual precipitation, average annual temperature 50-60 degrees, growing season 150 to 220 days, and perennial streams common. This area extends from its southern extent in the mountains of Georgia north through North Carolina into the southern border of Virginia. Within the boundaries of the Chattahoochee National Forest Landtype Associations (LTA) are delineated at the Forest scale with similarities at the level of project activities. The East Nottely project is located within the following LTA:

Landtype Association M221Dc014 – Nottely Lake: generally located on the low hills and mountains surrounding the Nottely River valley and the prominent feature Lake Nottely, a reservoir managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority on 4,180 acres. The LTA is generally located between the towns of Blue Ridge (west side) and Blairsville (east side). Terrain includes low mountains with broad side ridges descending by gentle grades into broad, flat valleys. Geology is primarily aluminous schist with minor occurrences of mica schist. Valley bottoms along large creeks and the Nottely River have broad stream terraces, generally found along the river south of the reservoir along US 129. Within the LTA elevations range from 1,750 along the Nottely River to 2,750 feet near the peak of Sharptop Mountain, west of the Lake. Average annual precipitation within the Landtype Association is about 56 inches, primarily due to the elevation of the Blue Ridge Divide south of the LTA, creating a rain shadow in the area. The southern facing slopes receive lower precipitation amounts. Average annual temperature is estimated at 61o and growing season of 195 to 200 frost-free days (Georgia Mountain Experiment Station). North slopes are relatively cooler and damper, while south and west facing slopes tend to be warmer and drier. Slope gradients range from 5 to 40 percent, with lower gradients of 0 to 5 percent along the ridge crests and valley floors along streams.

Lake Nottely is a constructed reservoir, completed in 1942 by the Tennessee Valley Authority with a dual purpose of power generation below the dam, and flood control. The reservoir is located entirely within Union County, Georgia, with the dam 2.3 miles upstream of the Georgia- North Carolina state line. Power generation has been in operation since 1956. Blairsville lies at the upstream end of the reservoir. Private land development has been increasing along the shoreline in recent years, contributing to land clearing, erosion and sedimentation into the reservoir. Lake Nottely is also managed for water based recreation activities by the TVA.

The upland terrain soils within the East Nottely project area are well developed soils, deep to bedrock, well drained, and moderate to high in productivity for forest tree species. Surface soil textures are dark brown fine sandy loam. The subsoil textures range from loam to clay. Soil depth over bedrock is typically more than sixty inches on the side-slopes and in cove positions. Depth of soil material can be less than 30 inches over bedrock along ridges, typical of the Cowee-Evard complex found near the crest of mountain ridges, with soil material over bedrock 15 to 26 inches thick.

64 East Nottely EA

Soil inventory information for this project was evaluated from the Fannin-Union Counties Soil Survey, published cooperatively by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service in 1996. Field surveys were conducted by soil scientists from these agencies from 1975-1990 with National Forest lands surveyed by Forest Service soil scientists from 1980-1983. Field visits were completed within the project areas in February and May 2010 to examine current soil conditions in the project areas, identify compaction sensitive areas, slope breaks and other soil interpretations needed to design management activities.

Soils of the East Nottely project area have been classified into seven (7) soil series, and further divided into 3 primary soil mapping units. The series are named and generally located by landform position as follows:

Lower slopes along stream terraces and floodplains: Arkaqua, Thurmont, Colvard Middle and lower slopes: Clifton, Evard, Cowee Upper and middle slopes: Clifton, Evard, Cowee, Hayesville

Soil mapping units are used to identify soil types as they occur on the landscape. These delineations can be used to identify landform position, chemical and physical soil properties, and further evaluated to interpret the mapping units for risks or hazards, and various treatments. Some mapping units may have two or more soil series within the delineations, called complexes, due to the nature of the landscape geology and topography. This is common in mountain topography with long side slopes and ridgetops. Soil properties, landscape positions, existing condition of soil units, and the associated management implications or precautions of these soil units were analyzed with respect to the effects of proposed practices in each alternative. The specific soil mapping units are identified in the table below with slope gradient, acres/percentage in the project area, and the interpreted soil erosion and compaction hazard.

Table M below displays information on eight soil mapping units within the project areas that occupy more than 30 acres as a map unit as measured by GIS analysis. The soil interpretations, harvesting limitations, compaction hazard and erosion hazard, are based on data from the Fannin-Union Counties Soil Survey.

Table M. Major Soil Mapping Units - East Nottely Project Area. Soil Map Unit Slope Acres in % of Harvesting Compaction Erosion Name & Symbol Range Project Project Limitations Hazard Hazard Area Areas Clifton-Evard 10 to 1407 77 Moderate Slight to Moderate Complex (CIE) 25 Moderate

Clifton-Evard 6 to 10 132 7 Moderate Moderate Moderate Complex (CIC)

Thurmont fine 6 to 12 119 6 Moderate Moderate Moderate sandy loam (ThC) Cowee-Evard 25 to 114 6 Moderate Slight to Severe

65 East Nottely EA complex (CxF) 45 Moderate Thurmont fine 2 to 6 9 1 Moderate Moderate Moderate sandy loam to Severe (ThB) Hayesville fine 6 to 10 5 0.3 Moderate Moderate Moderate sandy loam (HaC) Colvard fine 0 to 2 2 0.1 Moderate Moderate Moderate sandy loam (Cr)

Unknown 0 to 2 42 2 Moderate Moderate Moderate

For additional information concerning these soil map units and additional management interpretations, reference the Soil Survey of Fannin and Union Counties, Georgia, on file in the District Rangers or Forest Supervisors office.

Effects on Soils

Soil Erosion - Soil erosion is recognized as potentially the most serious, direct form of damage to soil productivity. Soil can be permanently lost and soil particles physically moving from a site may result in sediment delivery to nearby streams impacting water quality and possibly compromising aquatic habitats. Ground or soil disturbing management practices have the greatest potential to cause erosion. Principally because they remove vegetative ground cover and often concentrate and channel surface runoff water. Research has shown that access routes and systems, along with impact areas of log decks and primary skid trails are the most common causes of accelerated erosion that occur in forested watersheds. In addition, erosion rates would tend to remain greater on these areas for one to three years following their use due to altered soil structure and loss of infiltration and until vegetation cover is restored.

A soil’s susceptibility to erosion varies by soil type and position on the landscape. A slight or moderate erosion hazard indicates that standard erosion control measures such as installing water bars plus seeding and fertilizing not exposing more than 15 to 25 percent of mineral soil in treatment areas are sufficient to prevent excessive erosion. Soils with severe erosion hazard ratings require more intensive efforts to reduce the potential for accelerated erosion both during and after the soil disturbing activity.

This interpretation identifies the risk of erosion when soils are exposed and not protected by vegetation cover. To reduce this risk, mitigation measures would be implemented for all action alternatives to minimize soil erosion. These measures could include location of access routes on appropriate locations (slope and gradient), water control on access routes, and prompt revegetation of exposed soils when use is completed. These measures would be followed in accordance with the Forest Plan and Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry, and monitored for compliance by Forest Service personnel.

66 East Nottely EA

Soil Compaction - Compaction, or soil rutting, increases soil bulk density and decreases porosity as a result of the application of forces such as weight and vibration caused by the operation of heavy equipment used in forestry operations. One of the major soil concerns when operating heavy equipment in the forest is soil compaction. The primary method to minimize this impact is to operate equipment on designated routes during drier soil moisture periods. Compaction can detrimentally impact both soil productivity and watershed condition by causing increased overland flow during storm events. Plant growth can be reduced due to a combination of factors including lower amounts of water entering the soil and its reduced availability to plant growth, a restricted root zone, and reduced soil aeration. It is generally acknowledged that all soils are susceptible to soil compaction or decreased soil porosity. Soils in the East Nottely project area are most susceptible to compaction or rutting when wet.

A severe rating indicates that soils would easily compact when soil moisture is at or above soil moisture field capacity. The soils in the project have a moderate rating for soil compaction. This indicates that under most field conditions compaction would not be a problem, but may occur when soil moisture content is at or above field capacity. Mitigation measures proposed for all action alternatives to minimize compaction would be followed in accordance with the Forest Plan, generally restricting equipment operations when soils are saturated.

Soil Displacement - The use of large machinery in forestry operations may affect soil productivity by soil displacement. Soil displacement is described as the horizontal movement of soil from one place to another by mechanical forces such as a blade, wheel slippage, or dragging logs. Displacement has negative effects on productivity because it removes the area of highest concentration of organic matter and nutrients from soil and significantly reduces soil biological activity.

Soil Nutrients (organic matter) - Loss of soil nutrients can occur directly from soil erosion, soil displacement, or indirectly from harvesting timber or from fire. The most effective way of managing soil organic matter is through effective management of the forest floor and woody debris. Nutrient depletion, however, is generally a concern where soils are initially nutrient poor, or where stand rotations are very short, i.e. on the order of 20 to 35 years (Jorgensen and Wells, 1986). None of these factors apply in this project area, or from proposed management actions being considered.

A large portion of the total nutrient supply of the forest ecosystem is contained in the forest floor (duff layer) and decaying woody debris. These materials are important because they are the reservoir for soil organic matter and short- and long-term nutrient supply. The forest floor and decaying woody debris also serves to improve soil infiltration, aeration, and retention of soil moisture, and provide needed habitat to support soil microbial activity for the forest ecosystem.

Prescribed Fire Effects on Soil - Prescribed fire has both favorable and adverse effects on soil. Favorable effects are temporarily enhanced nutrient availability and phosphorus cycling and reduced soil acidity (FEIS-Appalachian Mountains, IV-90). Adverse effects include excessive soil heating that can kill soil biota, alter soil structure, destroy organic matter, and loss of site nutrients through excessive volatilization. Soil erosion and additional nutrient loss through

67 East Nottely EA leaching may occur during rainstorms. Negative effects are principally related to the severity and frequency of the burn.

High intensity burns, more typical during wildfires, can adversely affect long-term soil productivity. Such things as excessive nutrient loss from the site through atmospheric volatilization and deep leaching, loss of soil organic matter and even soil structure and reduced infiltration rates can be seriously compromised, further leading to accelerated erosion rates.

Management actions, however, have been proposed to conduct prescribed burns in properly managed conditions to produce a low to moderate fire intensity. During prescribed burning actions sufficient amounts of unburned material would be left to minimize erosion. Burns would be implemented such that not more than 15 percent bare soil would be exposed on units receiving fuels reduction or wildlife habitat burns. Soil exposure occurs primarily within bladed fire control lines. Dormant and even growing season prescribed burns every 3 to 5 years pose minimal risks to soil quality on most sites would result in little to no detectable change of the structure of mineral soils because the elevated temperatures in the soil would be less and of brief duration (i.e. the fire would not stagnate in one spot for long periods of time). Light to moderate-severity burns would expose soil on less than 20 percent of the area and vegetative recovery would usually take one year or less. Soil biota would also be temporarily reduced but would recover quickly.

The proposed prescribed burns would occur every 3 to 5 years either during the dormant or growing season and be of low to moderate intensity. Some of the prescribed burns would occur on slopes greater than 35 percent. Only the upper forest floor litter layer consisting of non- decomposed or semi-decomposed pine needles, leaves and small twigs should be consumed. This would leave the underlying layer, which consists of more decomposed needles, leaves and twigs, to protect the soil from excessive nutrient loss. This organic layer, along with the trees and other living vegetation on the site, would also serve to prevent or minimize any soil movement.

Alternative A (No Action) Direct and Indirect Effects: Erosion - Alternative A would result in the least amount of direct erosion. Only undisturbed natural erosion would be expected to continue, along with erosion from the existing system roads in place. Current levels of road use, along with regular maintenance, would minimize erosion from the road prism. A significant indirect effect due to the implementation of this alternative would be the effects that a wildfire could have to soil productivity in the project area. Under this scenario, the No Action Alternative would represent the most detrimental situation as existing high fuel loadings along with more limited fire suppression equipment access into this area would equate to the most acres that could be affected by wildfires.

Compaction and Displacement: No soil disturbing activities would be planned in the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects on the soil from implementation of this alternative as no heavy equipment use would be planned.

68 East Nottely EA

Nutrient Loss: The No Action alternative would result in no direct nutrient depletion. However, in the event of a wildfire the nutrient loss could well be the most excessive of any alternative. Under this alternative a wildfire would be expected to impact the most acres as a high severity level. In the event of a wildfire, the excessive amount of nutrient depletion would make this alternative the worst of those analyzed when taking account the indirect and cumulative effects that would occur.

Considering only direct effects, the existing trends would continue. The No Action Alternative would be considered the least effective in terms of maintaining long term soil productivity.

Cumulative Effects - No cumulative effects would result from past projects, e.g. salvage activities from storms in 1993 and 1994, as these past projects were completed more than 10 years ago and no effects remain. No other future actions are proposed during the temporal and spatial bounds used for the project area.

Alternative B: (Proposed Action)

Table N. Summary of Soil Disturbing Activities in East Nottely Project Soil Disturbing Activities Units Treatments Timber Harvest Activities 1,041 acres Mechanical Harvest Forest Service system roads 1 mile Reconstruction Temporary roads, skid 183 acres Construct, Existing & closure trails & log landings Unauthorized roads 2.5 miles Rehabilitate & closure Fireline Construction 19.25 miles Construct & closure

Direct Effects: Erosion - In Alternative B (Proposed Action), the primary areas of concern for erosion would be use and maintenance of the Forest Service system roads identified for access to projects, temporary access roads into harvest areas, log landings, skid trails, and fire control lines for the prescribed burns planned after the timber harvest. All of the Forest Service system roads identified for the project are existing roads that would need reconstruction or maintenance for the project. FS Road 116 would require pre-operations reconstruction to provide surface drainage and minimize erosion and improve travel safety. The reconstruction would be with the GA BMP’s and Forest Plan standards. Temporary access route locations are in place from previous timber management activities, generally following the ridge crests and upper side slopes. The slopes and soils of these landscape positions are suitable for access routes, and development would require minimal excavation disturbance. In areas where temporary access route locations don’t exist or are in poor or sensitive locations, access would follow GA BMP’s and Forest Plan standards. Development and use of these temporary roads would disturb approximately 2.0 acres per mile constructed. These existing routes generally require minimal excavation of the roadbed, restoration of drainage structures and then closure and revegetation at the end of operations to stabilize disturbed soils. Log landings would need to be developed within the treatment areas to concentrate logs for removal. Efficient operations would require on average one (1) landing per 7 to 8 acres of harvest area.

69 East Nottely EA

In Compartment 410, a narrow horse trail follows an old skid trail about a half mile down FS116 from the junction with the county road. The old skid trail is located on the right-side of the road and appears to be a user-created trail. The existing travel surface (road bed) of FS 116 also has problems with deep ruts with standing water in lower areas. These locations have the potential to sink if water stands area for a long period of time without proper drainage. However, completing reconstruction of this road would make it more suitable for logging operations and visitor use travel. Reconstruction of this road would allow equipment to operate while minimizing damage and providing a wider road bed for access. Drainage dips also need to be implemented on this reconstruction project to maintain the travel surface.

An unauthorized road would be decommissioned in Compartment 410, stands 35, 37. This would help prevent sediment runoff into Stillhouse Branch and eventually Lake Nottely. In several locations on the old road bedrock is exposed and active gullies are forming and eroding toward the stream. Drainage would also be restored and vegetation sown to minimize soil erosion.

Forest Drive dead ends directly into Lake Nottely. This is an unauthorized road that is being administratively blocked ¼ mile from the lake and will be rehabilitated into a walking trail. This portion of Forest Drive encourages visitors to drive to the shore of Lake Nottely. This furthers the erosion problems into Lake Nottely like silt runoff in rain events. The severity of the erosion in the road bed is starting to form a gully in center of road. Heavy equipment would be used to stabilize the road. Either a fence or gate would be installed and open to foot traffic only.

Prescribed fire is proposed as a follow-up treatment after the harvest to develop and maintain desired conditions. Fire control lines would need to be developed prior to the implementation of prescribed burns (following the completion of harvest operations), but would have repeat use for subsequent prescribed burns.

Each of these soil disturbances (temporary roads, log landings, stream crossings, and fire control lines) would be implemented under Forest Plan standards and Georgia’s Best Management Practices for forestry to minimize erosion and loss of soil productivity within the project area. Areas of soil disturbance would be stabilized and restored to vegetation cover after operations end to minimize soil erosion. Monitoring has shown that these measures, when properly implemented, are effective at minimizing erosion. Implementing the Proposed Action Alternative, therefore, should result in no long term effect on soil productivity.

Compaction: The majority of the soils of the East Nottely project area are rated with a moderate compaction hazard rating within proposed treatment areas. Soils in the lower slope positions and in riparian corridors typically have a moderate to severe hazard rating for compaction. This rating is primarily due to low proportions of rock content in the top six inches of soil, and the clay content at this same depth. Most of the area within riparian corridors would not be disturbed during operations, offering mitigation of this potential damage. Treatments on all soils would require attention to soil moisture levels during operating periods and adherence to Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry and Forest Service timber sale contract provisions related to wet period operations to avoid irreparable damage from compaction.

70 East Nottely EA

Soil Displacement: The Proposed Action Alternative would result in some soil displacement from skidding of logs, and dozer constructed firelines, log decks, and temporary road construction. Where these actions are being dedicated to these uses for future management actions, soil displacement is acceptable. Implementing mitigation measures referenced in the Forest Plan and Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry would result in displacement having only a minimal impact to soil productivity.

Nutrient Loss: Some short-term loss in nutrient resources is expected due to tree harvest and prescribed burning, accelerated erosion, volatilization and deep leaching. These effects may continue for up to two years following project implementation. On the positive side, harvesting and prescribed burning would temporarily increase availability of nutrients resulting in improved vegetative growth during this same period.

The prescribed burns would be conducted every 3 to 5 years during either the dormant or growing season with a low to moderate severity. This means that, in addition to the targeted fraction of 10-hour (1/2 ― dbh) and larger fuels planned for consumption, only the upper forest floor litter layer consisting of non-decomposed or semi-decomposed pine needles, leaves and small twigs would also be consumed. Most of the nutrient resources would remain onsite by leaving the underlying layer, which consists of more decomposed needles, leaves and twigs, intact and unburned. This remaining organic layer, along with the residual canopy position trees, unconsumed slash and other large woody debris and other living vegetation, would serve to minimize the temporary loss of the nutrient resources. Implementing this action alternative would result in no long-term effect on the soil nutrient resources.

Indirect Effects: Fire Effects and Soil nutrients - Long-term negative effects to the soil should be minimal under the proposed treatment of low to moderate intensity prescribed burns on a 3 to 5 year frequency. Typical burn intensity would be limited by established burning parameters and Forest Plan mitigation measures designed to protect soils and overstory trees and to minimize risk of escape. These parameters result in retention of enough leaf litter to protect soil from the negative effects listed above in most cases. Underburn frequencies would be one to four years or greater which would allow recovery of forest floors and soil biota and would not deplete soil nutrients.

With standard prescribed burn planning and mitigation, negative effects to soil productivity from prescribed fire under the proposed action alternative are not expected. This is because the burns would be light to moderate in severity and cool enough to protect overstory trees, and the lower portion of the litter layer would remain in place.

Cumulative Effects - No effects would result from past projects, e.g. 1994 storm salvage of timber, as these past projects were completed more than 10 years ago. No other future actions are proposed during the temporal and spatial bounds used for the project area.

The effect to long-term soil productivity as a consequence of those actions being proposed in this Alternative relates to the cumulative effects from erosion, compaction, displacement and the soil nutrients capital as noted above. By adhering to mitigation measures common to all action alternatives and following all applicable Forest Plan standards and Georgia’s Best Management

71 East Nottely EA

Practices for Forestry, long-term soil productivity would be maintained. In addition, fuel loadings throughout most of the project area would be reduced from timber harvesting and prescribed fire and the construction of temporary roads would improve access for fire suppression needs. These actions would reduce the probability of a future accumulation of fuels and wildfire hazard, which could impair long-term productivity.

Water

Measure – Water Quality

Bounds of Analysis: The temporal bound used for cumulative effects on hydrology is three to five years; the spatial bound includes all hydrological areas where management activities are proposed.

Existing Conditions:

The East Nottely project area is located on an upland area east and north of the main channel of Lake Nottely, located in Union County, Georgia. The streams in East Nottely drain to the south and west to the main channel of Nottely Lake. The East Nottely project area is located in three 6th level HUC’s. The northern most is the Dooley Creek-Nottely River Watershed which contains 429 acres of National Forest land, 322 of which are in the project area. This is located north of Nottely Dam in Compartment 412. The second watershed is the Ivylog Creek watershed which includes portions of Compartments 410 and 411. It contains 3,828 acres of National Forest land, 524 of which are in the project area. The third watershed is the Nottely Lake watershed which includes the remainder of the area surrounding Lake Nottely. It contains 3,933 acres of National Forest lands, 990 of which are in the project area. Nottely Lake is a reservoir impoundment formed by Nottely Dam and is owned and administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Uses authorized include power generation, flood control and recreation.

There are several smaller headwater streams (1st and 2nd order) in the project area, most of which drain directly into Lake Nottely. This includes the lower portion of Stillhouse Branch and several unnamed tributaries to Ivy Log Creek and Dooley Creek. Due to their small size (2-3 feet wide, 1-2‖ deep). The only major perennial stream in the project vicinity is the Nottely River, downstream of the dam. The other larger streams in the project area (Chastain Branch, Ivylog Creek, and Reese Creek) have been impacted by the creation of Nottely Lake and are inundated for much of the year.

Streams within the project area are mostly 1st and 2nd stream orders. This is characteristic of upper side slope and ridge top topographic positions, commonly called ―headwaters‖ in stream systems. In each of these streams, sediment levels increase after rainfall storm events. One major source of sediment is runoff from dirt and gravel roads. Another, less obvious, source is sediment already in the streams from several sources that is moved by increased water volume and flow after storm events.

72 East Nottely EA

Streams within the project area are generally characterized as small perennials or intermittent characteristic of the low-mountain and broad valley landforms of the area. Channels are shallow and narrow with gravel bottoms. Some portions of stream channels on the west side of the project area have been altered or impacted during previous private ownership, mainly for farming activities. Water quality in the streams is generally moderate to high, with some periods of turbidity during storm events. The streams are not classified as trout streams by the GA DNR Wildlife Resources.

Stream crossings on the small streams are the main point of entry for adverse effects on water quality such as potential input of sediment. Existing crossings in place include two on the unauthorized road along Stillhouse Branch. To minimize sediment input from the road, the unproductive culverts will be removed and the stream will be rehabilitated. The erosion that flows downhill to the stream will also be rehabilitated and sown vegetation. There is also an unauthorized crossing coming from private onto Forest Service. This access will be blocked and the crossing will be rehabilitated. Forest Drive also has erosion flowing down into Lake Nottely and tends to be a favorite party spot with vehicle access onto the lake shore. Unauthorized roads would be administratively closed and rehabilitated for non-motorized access only.

Alternative A (No Action)

Direct Effects - When eroded soils are delivered to the stream system, they can fill interstitial space between substrate particles, fall out of the water column and get deposited on the stream bottom, or continue to be transported downstream to other stream reaches. In this alternative the existing unauthorized roads and crossings would continue to be sources of erosion and sediment. Erosion would continue at levels described for existing condition over 4 to 5 acres, and could increase over time as users continue to create disturbed areas adjacent to the current travel way.

Indirect Effects - Indirect effects include the delivery of eroded soil to stream channels and Lake Nottely resulting in the loss of aquatic habitats, the loss of total pool volume downstream, or a shift in substrate particle size distribution downstream of road segments.

Cumulative Effects - Ground disturbing impacts implemented in the past 5 years in the project vicinity have been limited to the existing roads. No additional actions are currently proposed or expect to be proposed in the reasonably foreseeable future within the analysis area that would add to the erosion and sedimentation currently occurring within the disturbed acres of the road template.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct Effects - Ground disturbance would occur in the development of temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings during the thinning operations. Stream channels would be protected in the project area by the delineation of riparian corridors and the implementation of the standards in the Forest Plan related to this zone along streams. Low levels of erosion may occur with this ground disturbance. When eroded soils are delivered to the stream system, they can fill interstitial space between substrate particles, fall out of the water column and get deposited on the stream bottom, or continue to be transported downstream to other stream reaches. In this

73 East Nottely EA alternative short-term erosion would continue during the period of thinning treatments, particularly in the vicinity of skid trails and log landings. Erosion may continue for 6 months to 1 year after completion until adequate ground cover is restored. Maintenance of stream crossings and road approaches would also reduce sedimentation downstream of the crossings. This alternative would continue to allow vehicle access along the existing FS Road #116, resulting in the potential for continued erosion for the entire length of the road (1.0 miles of open road) unless road maintenance is applied on a regular basis.

Complying with and meeting the intents of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for individual project areas and State of Georgia BMPs can protect the beneficial uses of water near project areas. Monitoring by Forest Service personnel can serve to help determine when implementation of such protective practices has occurred and their effectiveness. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains FEIS (VMFEIS), issued in July 1989, would be followed.

Glyphosate is not considered soil active and Triclopyr has limited soil mobility. With the provision of riparian buffer strips on stream zones, the risk of herbicide spills or movement into stream zones is further reduced. There is a possibility that chemical herbicides may enter streams during treatment by direct application or drift or after treatment by surface runoff or subsurface movement. The risk of entry of chemical herbicides into surface waters is discussed in the Risk Assessment, Appendix C. Direct application of herbicide to surface water would not occur under the Proposed Action.

Drift of herbicides into surface water is influenced by application method, the existence of buffers and weather conditions. Some drift would likely occur in foliar, and less so by basal bark or injection method applications, and is greater in broadcast than by stem specific, selective treatments. Drift decreases as droplet size increases, or when granular from chemicals are used (VMFEIS -89). The method of foliar application in the treatment areas would be by backpack sprayer to selected individual stems only. After treatment, some relatively small quantities of herbicide could enter perennial streams in the project areas by surface flow during major storm events, or by movement in ephemeral channels, also during major storm events.

Key factors influencing peak concentrations are presence of stream buffer areas, storm intensity and duration, herbicide application rate and properties (mobility and persistence), soil type, distance from application point, depth of the water table and downstream mixing and dilution. Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams would be protected by 100 & 25-foot buffers respectively, within which no chemical herbicides would be applied. Herbicides might be able to move through the buffer, but are subject to dilution and mixing in transit. If an ephemeral stream is not buffered, herbicide may be detected in low concentration in stream flow soon after the first storm after treatment that is sufficient to create flow into nearby channels. No herbicide would be applied within 100 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent streams or within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Exclusion zones would be clearly marked before herbicide application so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Storms with significant rainfall rarely produce anything more than low herbicide concentrations in streams because the active ingredient is diluted by a factor of the volume of water received in

74 East Nottely EA an area. Lesser storms, on the other hand, would usually not produce sufficient flow to move the chemical into a nearby stream. Storms of medium intensity and/or of relatively long duration would result in the highest detectable stream concentrations (VMFEIS Appendix C, Vol. II, C-1 thru C-24).

The potential for herbicide concentration in ground water is proportional to application rate. The rates proposed for use in this project are less than the manufacturer’s recommended label rate. The selective treatment method which targets individual tree stems, or small clumps, further reduces application rate another 50-90 percent below what can be expected under general broadcast methods and manufacturer's rates (VMFEIS, IV-101). When applied at the lowest effective rate, herbicides should not occur in ground water at concentrations exceeding the EPA's strictest drinking water standard. Deeper aquifers tapped by wells would have no presence or only negligible concentrations. Risk to ground water quality would remain minimal, in part, because the mitigation measures that are appropriate to apply in the treatment areas include the buffered, no treatment zone adjacent to all water sources (VMFEIS, Page IV-105).

The risk of glyphosate leaving the site is negligible because glyphosate binds tightly to the soil and has practically no leaching ability. Triclopyr has limited soil mobility. With the identified mitigation measures, the proposed activities would have no adverse direct effects to aquatic resources or aquatic species by implementing this alternative.

Indirect Effects - Indirect effects would be reduced when the road and stream crossings are maintained. Less sediment would be delivered to the stream channel resulting in improved aquatic habitat and water quality.

Cumulative Effects - No ground disturbing projects have been implemented in the past 5 years in the project vicinity. No additional actions are currently proposed or expect to be proposed in the reasonably foreseeable future within the analysis area that would add to the erosion and sedimentation currently occurring within the disturbed acres of the road template.

There are no known cumulative effect(s) from herbicide treatments outside of these watersheds because of the relatively short half-life of the specific herbicides. In addition, because an individual stem or sprout group treatment method would be used, the true net acres treated would be only a small percentage the total stand acreage (estimated between 5 & 10%). Since there are no expected effects on aquatic resources from current activities or this proposal, there would be no cumulative effects to aquatic resources.

75 East Nottely EA

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

The following is a list of agencies and persons who were consulted during this analysis:

Georgia State Historic Preservation Office – Dr. David Crass US Fish and Wildlife Service – Jimmy Rickard Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Scott Frazier, Ken Riddleburger, Jeff Durniak, and Jim Hakala National Wild Turkey Federation – Greg Boozer Tennessee Valley Authority – Kemmy Garrett Georgia Forest Watch – Wayne Jenkins, David Govus, Jim Walker, Darren Wolfgang, and Dennis Stansell Georgia Appalachian Trail Club – Dayton Miller and Gary Monk Appalachian Trail Conservancy – Morgan Summerville Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition, Inc. – Callie Moore Lake Nottely Improvement Association, Inc. – Lynn Varian and Sue Boris Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma - Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians - George Wickliffe, Chief Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians - Michell Hicks, Principal Chief Poarch Band of Creek Indians - Buford Rolin, Chairman Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town - Tarpie Yargee, Chief Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma - A. D. Ellis, Principal Chief Thlopthlocco Tribal Town - Vernon Yarholar, Town King Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas - Carlos Bullock, Chairman US Forest Service – Dr. Paul Kormanik (retired), Paul Mistretta, Steven Chinault, David Kuykendall, Michael Joyce, Deborah Byrd, Joanne Baggs, Alison Koopman, James Wettstaed, John Petrick, Erika Mavity, Charlene Breeden, Brian Jackson and Charles Jackson.

The following is a list of EA preparers with the U.S. Forest Service:

Alice Brown – Forester / ID Team Leader Jim Wentworth – Wildlife Biologist Jake Cowart – Lands/Special Uses/GIS Specialist John Campbell – Recreation Manager Don Vaughters – Engineering Technician Jason Demas – Fire Management Officer Becky Vaughters – Zone Archaeologist Dick Rightmyer – Forest Soil Scientist

76 East Nottely EA

REFERENCES

Broadwell, R. 1992. Draft Element Stewardship Abstract for Speyeria diana. Unpubl. Rept. 6pp..

Bruce, Rebecca E. 1994 Heritage Resources Survey for the Pleasant Hill, Jim Mountain, West Mulky, and Lake Front Timber Sales, Brasstown Ranger District, FY94. U.S. Forest Service Report No. 94GA04-01. Gainesville, GA.

Campbell J. W., J. L. Hanula, and T. A. Waldrop. 2007. Observations of Speyeria diana (Diana Fritillary) utilizing forested areas in North Carolina that have been mechanically thinned and burned. Southeastern Naturalist 6(1): 179-182.

Cleland, D.T.; Avers, P.E.; McNab, W.H.; Jensen, M.E.; Bailey, R.G.; King, T.; Russell, W.E. 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Published in Boyce, M.S.; Haney, A., ed. 1997. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. pp. 181-200.

Crawford, H. S., R. G. Hooper, and R. W. Tittterington. 1981. Songbird population response to silvicultural practices in central Appalachian hardwoods. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:680-692.

Degraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States. Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA Forest Service. Agricultural Handbook 688. 625pp.

Dessecker, D. R., and D. G. McAuley. 2001. Importance of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and American woodcock. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 29:456-465. Dimmick et al. 1996. Response of ruffed grouse to forest management in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. In: Proc. of 7th International Grouse Symp. Fort Collins, CO. Dimmick, R. W., M. J. Gudlin, and D. F. McKenzie. Coordinators/Editors. 2002. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative. A report on the status of the northern bobwhite and a plan for the recovery of the species. Southeast Quail Study Group Tech. Comm. Report to State Wildlife Agency Directors of the Southeastern Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies.

Evans, C. W., D. J. Moorehead, C. T. Bargeron, and G. K. Douce. 2006. Invasive plant responses to silvicultural practices in the South. The University of Georgia Bugwood Network, Tifton, GA. BW-2006-03. 52pp. Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry. Georgia Forestry Commission, Macon, GA 72 pp.

77 East Nottely EA

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2003. Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Greenberg, C. H. 2000. Individual variation in acorn production by five species of Southern Appalachian oaks. Forest Ecology and Management, 132:199-210.

Hamel, P. B. 1992. Land Manager’s Guide to Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern region, Chapel Hill, NC 437pp.

Harris, L. Jr. 1972. Diana. Speyeria diana Cramer. Pages 276-278 In: Butterflies of Georgia. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, OK. 326pp.

Harvey, Michael J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in cooperation with USFWS and Tennessee Tech. U., Cookeville, TN. 46 pp.

Healy, W. M. and E. S. Nenno. 1983. Minimum maintenance versus intensive management of clearings for wild turkeys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11(2):113–120

Jones, S. B., Jr., and N. C. Coile. 1988. The Distribution of the Vascular Flora of Georgia. Department of Botany, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 230pp.

Jorgensen, R. and C.G. Wells. 1986. Foresters’ primer in nutrient cycling. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-37. 42 p. Kammermeyer, K. E., W. M. Lentz, E. A. Padgett, and R. L. Marchinton. 1993. ―Comparison of three ladino clovers used for food plots in northeastern Georgia.‖ Proc Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 47:44–52. Kingham, Jill 1997 Cultural Resources Inventory on the Brasstown Ranger District, Fall 1996. U.S. Forest Service Report No. 97GA04-03 (INFRA # 1997-08-03-04-003). Gainesville, GA.

Laerm, J. 1981. Plecotus rafinesquii (Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat). In: A survey of the status, distribution, and abundance of potentially threatened and endangered vertebrates in Georgia. Part IV: The Mammals. Final Report to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 161pp. Unpubl.

Laerm, J. 1995. Star-nosed mole. Unpubl. Manuscript. 6pp.

Lancia, R. A., J. A. Gerwin, M. S. Mitchell, W. M. Baughman, T. B. Wigley. 2000. Avian diversity and productivity on an intensively managed, industrial forest in South Carolina: The Westvaco Example. In: Fragmentation 2000 conference, Sept. 17-20,2000. Annapolis, MD.

78 East Nottely EA

La Sorte, F. A., F. R. Thompson III, M. K. Trani, T. J. Mersman. 2007. Population trends and habitat occurrences of forest birds on southern national forests, 1992-2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-9. Newtown Square, PA. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 260p.

Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of NC Press. Chapel Hill. 264pp.

Menzel, M. A., T. C. Carter, and S. L. Pierce. 1998. A Survey of Macro- and Micro- Habitat Characteristics Influencing the Use of Mines in Smithgall Woods and Fort Mountain State Parks in the Blue Ridge Province of Georgia as Hibernacula by Bats. A technical report submitted to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Non-Game Endangered Wildlife Program.

Miller, J. H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forest: a field guide for identification and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 pp.

Mount, R. H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station. 347pp.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Opler, P. A. 1992. Diana Speyeria diana. Page 150 In : A field guide to eastern butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Ozier, J. C. 1999. Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat. Pages 11-12 In: Protected Animals of Georgia. Georgia Dept. of Natural. Resources.

Parker J. R., K. E. Kammermeyer, and R. L. Marchinton. 1992. Wildlife usage of clover plots in the Chestatee Wildlife Management Area. Ga J. Sci. 50:160-169.

SAMAB, 1996 The Effects to Southern Appalachian Assessment Forest Ecosystems from Native and Exotic Pests. Chapter 6

Scott, J. A. 1986. Speyeria diana Great Smokkies Fritillary. Page 324 In: The Butterflies of North America. A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA. 583pp.

Smith, Heath, Skog, and Birdsey. 2006. Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United States. GTR NE-343

79 East Nottely EA

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Atlanta Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1996. Soil Survey of Fannin and Union Counties, Georgia. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U. S. Forest Service, Gainesville, GA. 1988 Cultural Resouce Surveys on the Brasstown Ranger District, FY88, Towns and Union Counties, Georgia. Forest Service Report No. 88GA04I02 (INFRA # 1988-08-03- 04002).

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

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. 91pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Management Bulletin R8-MB 113 B. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA .

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. R8-MB 113 A. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA .

USDA Forest Service 2004c. Compilation of Breeding Bird Survey Data for Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests 1992-2003.

USDA Forest Service. 2004d. Appendices to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Management Bulletin R8-MB 113 F. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA .

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Management Indicator Species Population Trend Report, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. September 2006.

USDA Forest Service 2009. Environmental Assessment. Non-Native Invasive Species Treatment, Blue Ridge and Conasauga Ranger Districts. USDA Forest Service, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. 54pp.

Weakley, A. S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 1015pp. Accessed July and August, 2007. Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

80 East Nottely EA

Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.

Wilson, L. A. 1995. Land Manager’s Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, NC. 360pp.

Wouldiams, D.W., and A.M. Liebhold. 2002. Climate change and the outbreak ranges of two North American bark beetles. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 4:87–99.

Wouldiamson, G. K. and R. A. Moulis. 1994. Distribution of Amphibians and Reptiles in Georgia. Volume 2 – Locality Data. Special Publication N. 3. Savannah Science Museum, Inc. Savannah, Georgia.

Wynn, Jack T. 1986 Cultural Resource Surveys of Deaverstown Tract and Chapman Ford Road, Union County, GA. Forest Service Report No. 86GA04E01 (INFRA # 1986-08-03-04-001). U.S. Forest Service, Gainesville, GA.

Wynn, Jack T., Rebecca E. Bruce, Lee L. Certain 1994 Past, Present, and Future: Cultural Heritage Management on the Chattahoochee- Oconee National Forest, Georgia. U.S. Forest Service, Gainesville, GA

81 East Nottely EA

Appendix A. Timber Sale Financial Analysis

An analysis of the financial efficiency of the alternatives is presented below. The results of the analysis provide the Responsible Official with the assurance that financial efficiency was considered. Cost and unit estimates are derived from field data, maps and actual prices from similar projects. The financial analysis only looks at stumpage related benefits and the costs involved in preparing and implementing a timber sale. Timber harvesting activities may result in changes, both positive and negative, to other resources such as wildlife or recreation. These changes are not considered in this analysis. However, these items will be considered in the decision making process, along with the financial efficiency of the sale.

This analysis follows direction given in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18.30 (USDA 1995b). The cost analysis and the values generated are based on other timber sales with conditions similar to those in the analysis area. Depending upon sale packaging and market conditions, the values of future sales might be somewhat higher or lower than estimated. Estimated value generated is as follows:

Estimated Value Generated Alternative Volume Estimated Value Benefit/cost Ratio (ccf) (mmbf) Generated Proposed Action 8,289 4.1 $177,611 0.92 No Action 0 0 0 0

Revenues from the Proposed Action would be from the sale of timber. Costs include those related to timber management (sale preparation) and Knutsen-Vandenburg (KV) silvicultural activities. Costs would be met through money appropriated by Congress or through money reserved from timber sale receipts (KV). Calculations of costs and revenue estimates for each alternative are summarized below.

Federal Cost and Revenues Alternative Total Timber Pre Timber Other Total Revenue Sale Cost Net Revenue Cost Net Revenue Proposed Action $177,611 58,416 $119,195 $137,683 $-18,488 No Action 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Cost and Revenues Alternative Total KV Cost Returns to Treasury Revenue Proposed Action $177,611 $90,739 $86,872 No Action 0 0 0

82 East Nottely EA

Appendix B. Standard Mitigation Measures for Herbicide Use

1. Herbicides are applied according to labeling information and the site-specific analysis done for projects. This labeling and analysis are used to choose the herbicide, rate, and application method for the site. They are also used to select measures to protect human and wildlife health, non-target vegetation, water, soil, and threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species. Site conditions may require stricter constraints than those on the label, but labeling standards are never relaxed. 2. Only herbicide formulation (active and inert ingredients) and additives registered by the EPA and approved by the Forest Service for use on national forest are applied. 3. Public safety during such uses as viewing, hiking, berry picking, and fuelwood gathering is a priority concern. Method and timing of application are chosen to achieve project objectives while minimizing effects on non-target vegetation and other environmental elements. Selective treatment is preferred over broadcast treatment. 4. Areas not prescribed burned for at least 30 days after herbicide treatment. 5. A certified pesticide applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains crew member in personal safety, l proper handling and application of herbicides, and proper disposal of empty containers. 6. Each Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), who must ensure compliance on contracted herbicide projects, is a certified pesticide applicator. Contract inspectors are trained n herbicide use, handling, and application. 7. Contractors ensure that their workers use proper protective clothing and safety equipment required by labeling for the herbicide and application method. 8. Notice signs (FSH 7109.11) are clearly posted, with special care taken in areas of anticipated visitor use. 9. Triclopyr is not ground-applied within 60 feet, of known occupied gray bat habitat. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. 10. No herbicide is broadcast ground-applied within 60 feet of any known threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. Selective applications to control competing vegetation within this buffer designated to protect TES plants may occur when needed to protect the TES plants from encroachment by invasive plants and when a non-soil active herbicide is used. 11. Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes worn during treatment, and skin are not cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers. 12. No herbicide is ground-applied within 100 horizontal feet, of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and streams. No herbicide is applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Selective treatments (which require added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may occur

83 East Nottely EA

within these buffers only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so that applicators can easily see and avoid them. 13. Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or other sensitive areas. 14. During use, equipment to store, transport, mix, or apply herbicides is inspected daily for leaks. 15. Herbicides and application methods are chosen to minimize risk to human and wildlife health and the environment. No class B, C, or D chemical may be used on any project, except with Regional Forester approval. Approval will be granted only if a site-specific analysis shows that no other treatment would be effective and that all adverse health and environmental effects will be fully mitigated. Diesel oil will not be used as a carrier for herbicides, except as it may be a component of a formulated product when purchased from the manufacturer. Vegetable oils will be used as the carrier for herbicides when available and compatible with the application proposed. 16. Herbicides re applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human (NRC 1983) and wildlife health (EPA 1986a). Application rate and work time must not exceed levels that pose an unacceptable level of risk to human or wildlife. If the rate or exposure time being evaluated causes the Margin of Safety (MOS) or the Hazard Quotient (HQ) computed for a proposed treatment to fail to achieve the current Forest Service R-8 standard for acceptability (acceptability requires a MOS >100 or a HQ of <1.0 using the most current version of the SERA Worksheet Maker). Additional risk management must be undertaken to reduce unacceptable risks to acceptable levels, or an alternative method of treatment must be used. 17. Weather is monitored and the project suspended if temperature, humidity, or wind becomes unfavorable for correct application as shown n Table 1.

Table 1. Weather Restrictions for Herbicide Application Application Method Temperatures Higher Humidity Less Wind (at target) Than Than Greater Than Ground: Hand (cut surface) N.A. N.A. N.A. Hand (other) 98°F 20% 15 mph Mechanical: Liquid 95°F 30% 10 MPH

84 East Nottely EA

18. Nozzles that produce large droplets (mean droplet size of 50 microns or larger) or streams of herbicide are used. Nozzles that produce fine droplets are used only for hand treatment where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed 8 feet. 19. With the exception of permittee treatment of right-of-way corridors that are continuous into or out of private land and through Forest Service-managed areas, no herbicide is broadcast within 100 feet of a private residence, unless landowner agrees to closer treatment. Buffers are clearly marked before treatments so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

85 East Nottely EA

Appendix C. Results of the Risk Assessment

Detailed Summary

Effects of all herbicides have been assessed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains (VMEIS). For all herbicides considered, an additional risk analysis was completed using methodology developed for the Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). The details of the risk assessment results are available in the project record. In the risk assessments, there are two terms not used n the VMEIS. These are Reference Dose (RfD) and Hazard Quotient (HQ).

RdD – Derived by USEPA, this is the maximum dose in mg of herbicide active ingredient per kg of body weight per day that is not expected to cause injury over a lifetime of exposure. In other words, it is, in EPA’s opinion, a ―safe‖ lifetime daily dose. This is a conservative estimate, and is designed to be protective. HQ – This is the ratio of the estimated exposure dose to the RfD. A HQ of 1 reflects an exposure to amounts of a.i. less than the RfD, while HQ’s greater than 1 reflect exposures to amounts of a.i. greater than the RfD. HQs of 1.0 or less reflect exposure levels that are not of concern. HQ’s greater than 1.0 reflect exposures to possible effects to be examined more closely to see if the projected exposures need to be further mitigated or need to be avoided. For the effects on wildlife, one must remember that these effects are constructed for individuals and not populations.

For Alternative B, the spill in Appendix C would be in place. Alternative B also assumes that all of the mitigation measures in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of this document would be followed, as would mitigation measures in the VMEIS. Published analyses of environmental effects in the VMEIS are not duplicated in this document. However, information published subsequent to the VMEIS encountered in the open literature that is both relevant to this analysis and demonstrates a potential for significant effect on the conclusions drawn in the VMEIS has been included in current analysis.

The following tables show the basis for estimated application rates that are used in the risk analysis:

Cut (severed) stems for Release Application Compartment 412 Stand 16 Herbicide Lbs ai/gal % (fraction) in Gallons of Lbs ai/acre solution spray/acre Glyphosate 5.4 50.0% 0.65 1.8

Foliar Spray for Release Compartment 412 Stand 15, Compartment 411 Stand 20 & 42 Herbicide Lbs ai/gal % (fraction) in Gallons of Lbs ai/acre solution spray/acre Glyphosate 5.4 1.0% 30 1.6

Site Prep Applications Compartment 412 Stand 15, Compartment 411 Stand 20 & 42

86 East Nottely EA

Herbicide Lbs ai/gal % (fraction) in Gallons of Lbs ai/acre solution spray/acre Triclopyr (ester) 4.0 1.25% 25 1.25

For each herbicide, hazard quotients are developed that summarize risk characteristics for workers, the general public, terrestrial animals and aquatic species. For this analysis, hazard quotients derived from spill scenarios into ponds have been set to zero. The reason is that the project has mitigation measures in place (Appendix B) that make such spills so unlikely that such an analysis would be irrelevant. In addition, in the unlikely event this should occur, expedited clean up and exclusion from use are required until clean up has been accomplished. The specific spill scenario referenced is: acute/accidental exposure, contaminated water consumed by a child (E04 sheet).

Hazard quotients for the general public involving direct spray exposures to the entire body or lower legs are also considered so unlikely as to be irrelevant. These have also been set to zero.

The most important hazard quotient is the general exposure HQ for workers. These are the people most likely to have direct exposure to herbicides. According to the Forest Service Southern Region Pesticide Specialist, the central HQ best reflects a realistic upper exposure and risk for workers using required personal protective equipment and employing proper washing and hygiene habits.

The herbicides considered for use in this EA are glyphoste and triclopyr. Hazard quotients were calculated for the estimated application rates for this project. HQ’s over 1.0 are discussed below.

Glyphosate, cut stump treatment @ 1.8 lbs/acre

Results for typical exposures of glyphosate are all less than 1.0 for human health.

Wildlife G03 sheet, acute exposure hazard quotients to fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes for accidentals have calculated values over 1.0. Such exposures and risk are most unlikely for glyphosate. This is because glyphosate is strongly absorbed to (bond to the surface of) both organic matter and clay particles. Therefore it is very immobile in the environment, and unlikely to reach aquatic habitat. Even in the unlikely event that it might reach such habitat, it would probably be quickly bound to sediment or organic matter in the stream. In addition, with the provision of riparian buffer strips on stream zones, the risk is further reduced. This includes a standard that prohibits herbicide application within 100 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and seeps (FW-002).

Glyphosate, foliar application @ 1.6 lbs/acre

Results for typical exposures of glyphosate are all less than 1.0 for human health except for one scenario. All results were figured on 2 lbs. of active ingredient per acre. General Public E04 sheet, accidental acute exposure hazard quotients to children that consume water where there was an accidental spill. Such exposures and risk are most unlikely for glyphosate. This is because glyphosate is strongly absorbed to (bond to the surface of) both organic matter and clay particles. Therefore it is very immobile in the environment, and unlikely to reach aquatic habitat. Even in

87 East Nottely EA the unlikely event that it might reach such habitat, it would probably be quickly bound to sediment or organic matter in the stream. In addition, with the provision of riparian buffer strips on stream zones, the risk is further reduced. This includes a standard that prohibits herbicide application within 100 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and seeps (FW-002).

Wildlife G03 sheet, accidental acute exposure hazard quotients to fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes for accidental spills have calculated values over 1.0. Such exposures and risk are most unlikely for glyphosate. This is because glyphosate is strongly absorbed to (bond to the surface of) both organic matter and clay particles. Therefore it is very immobile in the environment, and unlikely to reach aquatic habitat. Even in the unlikely event that it might reach such habitat, it would probably be quickly bound to sediment or organic matter in the stream. In addition, with the provision of riparian buffer strips on stream zones, the risk is further reduced. This includes a standard that prohibits herbicide application within 100 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and seeps (FW-002).

Triclopyr (ester), foliar application for site prep at 1.25 lbs/acre

This would be applied in mixing triclopyr with either JLB Plus or Sunflower oil as a carrier and is applied ground broadcast across over the vegetation.

Human health E02 sheet, direct ground broadcast spray (manual or mechanical), general exposure for workers, upper bound HQ = 4.0. The central HQ for general exposure is 0.6. However, the upper bound exposure is most unlikely for the following reason:

According to the Forest Service Southern Region Pesticide Specialist, the central HQ best reflects a realistic upper exposure and risk for workers using appropriate personal protective equipment and employing proper washing and hygiene habitats. Forest Service personnel are required to follow these safety protocols whenever applying herbicides.

Human health E02 sheet, accidental exposure of a worker to contaminated gloves shows a typical HQ of 1.1. This is unlikely to occur because the scenario assumes that the contaminated glove will be left on the hands in direct contact with the skin for 1 hour. Labeling instructions and worker protection standards require proper hygiene. Contaminated gloves should be removed immediately and both the contaminated skin and gloves should be properly washed with an appropriate soap or detergent, and skin rinsed with water if contaminated.

The typical HQ for vegetation contact of an adult female in shorts and a t-shirt are 3 and the lower level is less than 1.0. However, herbicide application areas are signed to preclude accidental exposure and the scenario assumes contact occurs while the vegetation is still wet.

Wildlife G02 sheet, longer term exposure (90 days) of a large bird or large mammal to contaminated vegetation on site, had upper levels of HQ’s above 1.0. Typical values were less than 1.0. The upper level hazard quotient is not a concern for the following reasons:

88 East Nottely EA

There are no threatened or endangered large mammal species in the project vicinity. Bald eagles are occasionally observed foraging on Lake Nottely but the only bald eagle nest, recently found in 2010 bird surveys, is located in the Davenport OHV trail and the Davenport Stewardship Mountain Project. Bald eagles forage for fish and do not consume vegetation. Therefore they would be unlikely to come in contact with the treated vegetation. Treatment buffers along streams and lakes will reduce the risk of herbicides entering Lake Nottely. Hazard quotients for fish-eating birds such as eagles are well below 1.0, even at upper levels of exposure. The scenarios assume a diet composed of 100% contaminated vegetation from the site. The diets of large mammal and birds such as deer and turkey are highly variable and include hard and soft mast (deer and turkeys), insects and seed (turkeys) as well as green vegetation. Large mammals and large birds also typically have fairly large home ranges. The scenario also assumes that such vegetation will be consumed from the same sites for 90 consecutive days. These assumptions make the scenario quite unlikely. These HQs deal with individuals, not wildlife populations. Although an individual may be affected there won’t be significant effects to the populations.

Wildlife G03 sheet, the exposure HQ for aquatic plants, algae and fish had typical values greater than 1.0 for accidental and non-accidental exposure. This is not of significant concern because:

With the provision of riparian buffer strips on streams, the risk of herbicide spills or movement into the stream is further reduced. Mixing and dilution in active streams will minimize any potential hazard from any small spills which might occur during implementation of this project.

Hazard quotients for exposure of sensitive and tolerant terrestrial plants from runoff of triclopyr ester have hazard quotients greater than 1.0 for areas which receive more than 20 inches of annual rainfall. These values vary depending on the average annual rainfall in a given area and the scenarios assume that rain falls every 10 days. However, all proposed herbicide applications are to be applied directly to the targeted vegetation; therefore by correctly following application procedures, impacts to non-targeted species would be minimal. This will further protect non- targeted vegetation, including rare plants, from any direct or indirect impacts. Although some loss of terrestrial plants could possibly occur, there are mitigation measures already in place to protect sensitive species so overall effects should be minimal.

89 East Nottely EA

Appendix D. Emergency Spill Plan

1. PREVENTION AND READINESS

In their vehicles, Contracting Officer Representative and crew leaders will carry copies of this spill plan, the herbicide labels and MSDSs for the herbicides, surfactants and dyes being used. They will also carry a vehicle spill kit having the contents specified at the end of this appendix.

2. PROVIDE FOR CARE OF INJURED OR CONTAMINATED PERSONNEL

Immediately determine if any personnel are injured or contaminated. Assist with first aid of injured or contaminated personnel. Remove injured or contaminated personnel from the spill site to an area safe and free of pesticides.

If eyes are contaminated with pesticide, give first priority to washing them out, using portable eyewash bottles, or if these are unavailable, wash with any clean water. Remove contaminated clothing from affected individuals, and wash pesticides off skin with detergent and clean water. If any pesticides have been ingested, see the Material Safety Data Sheet for specific first aid measures.

Immediately seek medical assistance for injured and contaminated personnel. Do not leave contaminated individuals alone unless essential to secure aid. If necessary, direct a third person to stay with the injured until a physician takes charge and has been advised of the actual or possible pesticide exposure.

Watch for the following symptoms of pesticide poisoning: Eye irritation, skin irritation, discomfort or pain in stomach or intestinal area, dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, slurred speech, muscle twitching or convulsions, or difficulty in breathing.

3. SPILL IDENTIFICATION

Determine product name for chemical or chemicals spilled and check the label and Material Safety Data Sheet for immediate hazards.

Extinguish all flames and possible ignition sources and stop any smoking by personnel in case chemicals are flammable.

Isolate the contaminated area and keep unnecessary persons away from the spill site.

4. NOTIFY AND INFORM

District Pesticide Coordinator: Alice Brown at (706) 745-6928 ext. 112 District Safety Officer: Teresa Brown, telephone: (706) 745-6928 ext. 114 Forest Pesticide Coordinator:

90 East Nottely EA

Brian Jackson, telephone: (770) 297-3020 Forest Safety Office: Chip Manson, telephone: (770) 297-3077 Speak directly with at least one of the above personnel, in order or priority, and inform as to: a. Chemical Name and Brand Name b. Location of Spill c. Compartment and Stand Number d. Nearest Road Name and Number e. Size or Volume of Chemical Spilled

5. CONTAIN THE SPILL

Contain the spilled pesticide. Keep spill from entering streams, drains, wells, ditches, or other water systems.

Wear appropriate and approved protective clothing, including rubber or nitrile gloves, safety glasses, or goggles, overalls or rain suit, rubber boots or overshoes, or a respirator if extra protection is needed.

Prevent further leakage from containers by repositioning them so that the damaged part of the container is above the level of the containers, or by applying rags, tape, or other materials at hand to temporarily seal the leak.

Separate leaking containers from undamaged containers. Flag off the area and post warning signs to keep unprotected personnel from entering.

Confine the spill to prevent it from spreading. Encircle the spill area with a dike of sand or other absorbent material. Rags or similar material may be used if necessary. If spilled material may flow toward sensitive areas, divert it by ditching.

If the soil involves a small watercourse, dam it to confine the spill if possible. If available, activated charcoal may be used to filter contaminated water. For larger waterways, a log boom or baled straw may used to contain the spill. Dam or divert the flow of clean water around the spill if possible. Some pesticides (such as glyphosate) may be inactivated by muddying the water.

If a liquid pesticide is spilled on land, cover the spill with absorbent material (kitty litter). If the spilled pesticide is in a dry formulation, cover it with a secured plastic tarpaulin to prevent it from becoming wet or being blown away. Contained materials must be reused if possible, or disposed of as toxic waste.

Do not flush contained or spilled pesticides into ditches, sewers, drains, or off of a road, since this will further spread the chemical.

Small spills require use of vehicle spill kits. Large spills may require the use of a dozer and or additional items from the storage facility spill kit.

91 East Nottely EA

SUMMARY OF CLEAN UP STEPS

DRY SPILLS

1. Cover powder or dust chemicals with a tarpaulin to prevent it from becoming airborne. A fine mist may also dampen the chemical to reduce spreading. Too much water may dissolve the chemical. Use caution. 2. Sweep the material together as the tarp is rolled slowly back. 3. Shovel the material into plastic bags or drums. 4. Seal the bags and label them, identifying the pesticide and other contents. 5. Store the containers of material in the pesticide storage building until the content can be evaluated for disposal or re-used in a manner consistent with labeling.

LIQUID SPILLS

1. Pump or bail as much of the spilled liquid as possible into containers. 2. Use absorbent material, such as commercially bagged clay, kitty litter, or sawdust to soak up the spill. Use only enough material to absorb the spill. Begin spreading the absorbent material around the edge of the spill, and work toward the center. 3. Shovel the absorbent material and pesticide, along with any contaminated soil, into leak proof containers. 4. Label all containers. 5. Store the containers in the pesticide storage building until the contents can be evaluated for disposal or re-use in a manner consistent with labeling.

LIST OF OTHER KEY PERSONNEL AND AGENCIES

Georgia Emergency Services: (800) 338-6745

Union General Hospital (706) 745-2111

Poison Control Center (404) 616-9000

Fannin Regional Hospital (706) 632-3711

Chestatee Regional Hospital (706) 864-6136

Local Fire Departments 911

Local County Sheriff 911

92 East Nottely EA

RECOMMENDED PESTICIDE SPILL KIT CONTENTS

Storage Facility Kit Vehicle Kit 4 pairs of nitrile gloves 2 pairs of nitrile gloves 2 pairs non-vented goggles 1 pair of non-vented goggles 1 respirator and cartridge (chemical resistant) 1 pair of rubber or neoprene boots 2 pairs of rubber or neoprene boots or overshoes 1 shop brush or whisk broom 2 pairs of overalls or rain suits 6 polyethylene bags with ties 1 roll of flagging or engineers tape 1 pint liquid detergent 1 dust pan 1 polyethylene or plastic tarp 1 shop brush or whisk broom 10 blank labels 1 dozen polyethylene bags with ties 1 ABC type fire extinguisher 1 quart liquid detergent 30 lbs. absorbent material (kitty litter) 1 polyethylene or plastic tarp 2 eyewash bottles (filled) 10 blank labels 1 round point shovel 1 ABC type fire extinguisher 1 30-gallon plastic garbage can with 80 lbs. absorbent material (kitty litter) lid (use for cleanup, and transport) 1 square point D handle shovel 1 roll of flagging 1 30-gallon plastic garbage can with 1 roll of duct tape lid (use for cleanup, storage and transport) 1 roll of duct tape

93 East Nottely EA

Appendix E. Monitoring Plan Resource monitoring is identified for the Project to evaluate the implementation of operations to achieve project objectives, and assess the effectiveness of mitigation, best management practices and planned protection measures. Completion of these monitoring items is dependent on available funding.

Soil & Water Resources:

1. What: Implementation and effectiveness of applicable Best Management Practices used in land disturbing activities.

How: Implementation would be evaluated during routine inspections of land disturbing activities. Evaluation of timber sale operations would occur as one component of timber sale contract administration. Documentation of BMP compliance would also be completed on a sample basis by the Forest hydrologist and soil scientist as part of forest plan monitoring.

When: BMP implementation will be monitored during and immediately after sale activity by timber sale administrator. Monitoring of other land disturbing activities, (e.g. prescribed fire, road maintenance, may be conducted during and after activities are implemented.

Responsible: District Timber Sale Administrator, District Fire Management Officer, District Engineering Technician, Forest Soil Scientist, and Forest Hydrologist

2. What: Evaluate success of revegetation on disturbed sites such as skid trails, landings, temporary roads, road corridor cuts and fills, prescribed fire control lines.

How: Field inspection of treated sites at the close of the sale and 1-2 years after the sale.

When: Sites are inspected to ensure initial seeding and success in the years following the initial seeding. Additional seeding will then be done if the success rate is low.

Responsible: District Timber Sale Administrator, Harvest Inspector, District Fire Management Officer. Forest Soil Scientist and/or Forest Hydrologist may monitor a representative sample as part of Forest Plan monitoring.

Vegetation/Timber Management:

1. What: Compliance of timber harvest operations with timber sale contract provisions.

How: This monitoring would occur as a fundamental component of timber sale administration. Funding would be guaranteed if a timber sale were sold. Minor contract

94 East Nottely EA

changes or modifications would be enacted when necessary to meet objectives and standards on the ground, when agreed to by the Forest Service and timber sale purchaser.

When: During life of the contract

Responsible: District Timber Sale Administrator, Harvest Inspector

2. What: Ensure compliance with BMPs and Forest Plan Standards related to the application of herbicides.

How: Observation and oversight of herbicide mixing and applications to ensure that appropriate application rates and procedures are implemented.

When: At the time the herbicide is applied.

Responsible: Contract administrator or certified pesticide applicator

Roads:

1. What: Monitor road maintenance for BMP implementation.

How: On-site inspections conducted as part of contract inspection. Implementation guaranteed when sale is sold.

When: Throughout operations period of timber sale.

Responsible: District Engineering Technician

2. What: Monitor effectiveness of the closure of temporary and unauthorized roads.

How: Site visits to determine the effectiveness of the closures and to detect illegal ATV use of these areas.

When: Periodic inspections following the closure of these roads.

Responsible: District Timber Sale Administrator, Recreation Manager, District Engineering Technician

Prescribed Fire:

1. What: Post Burn evaluation of prescribed burning operations to determine if resource objectives were met and if on-site resources were protected.

How: Completion of Standard Post Burn Evaluation Form.

When: Immediately after completion of prescribed burn and as needed in the future.

95 East Nottely EA

Responsible: District Fire Management Officer, Prescribed Burn Boss

2. What: Installation of 1- 2 standard prescribed fire monitoring plots and 1 riparian monitoring plot within the unit project area to monitor basic vegetation effects and fuel reduction (pre and post burn).

How: These plots would be installed using the criteria in the Southern Region Prescribed Fire Effects Monitoring Guidebook

When: Plots would be installed and measured in the growing season prior to the burn, immediately post-burn, and at year 1 and year 3 following the burn.

Responsible: District Fire Management Officer, Prescribed Burn Boss, and District Biologist.

Silviculture:

1. What: Tree Seedling Survival

How: Using standard regeneration survival and stocking checks per Forest Service Silvicultural Handbook.

When: One and three year’s post-planting.

Responsible: District and Forest Silviculturist, Contracting Officer’s Representative

Heritage:

1. What: Protect heritage sites from disturbance.

How: A buffer will be identified around known sites to protect them from disturbance; and will be monitored for compliance with contract provisions.

When: The contractor will be made aware of the buffer areas and it will be monitored prior to and during harvest operations.

Responsible: Zone Archaeologist, District Timber Sale Administrator

96 East Nottely EA

Appendix F, Response to Scoping Comments

Edwin Dale – SPB’s are troublesome little devils, but they do open the forest floor for new growth.

The Forest Service agrees that SPB’s are troublesome and would like to minimize the opportunity for an outbreak. The openings that the SPB would create do not fit within the Forest Plan goals and objectives in that their 1) scope and scale cannot be reasonably controlled once at epidemic levels and 2) impacts would likely create a fire hazard within the urban-wildland interface.

GA DNR Wildlife Division – Agree that the project will address the stated purpose and need for the work including: improving forest health, restoring native pine-hardwood forest types, restoring oak-pine forest types, improving wildlife habitat, controlling non-native species and improving watershed conditions. Support the premise of the proposed field of work. Agree with and approve the proposed projects to thin for forest health and wildlife habitat. One concern is that the 587 acres referred to as commercial biomass thinning may be constrained by a limited biomass market for these products. Support selling of the trees as biomass but also suggest considering these acres for precommercial thinning funded with a stewardship contract(s). Agrees with all other proposed actions in notice including efforts made to improve erosion issues and rehabilitation of 11 acres of wildlife openings.

The Forest Service would consider using all contracting options available, including stewardship contracting, to treat overstocked stands within the project area whether commercial or pre-commercial.

Dennis Stansell - Use of fire as a management tool in this project and all others in the S. Appalachian region should be suspended immediately because burning will produce large amounts of greenhouse gases which will accelerate climate change. Proposes the FS find a carbon neutral solution to all projects in the future.

The effects of the proposed action, including prescribed burning, on climate change and carbon sequestration are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. As stated therein, prescribed burning would result in a temporary release of stored carbon but this release is mitigated by increased resistance to potential large scale disturbance (carbon release) such as insect/disease outbreaks and wildfire.

Denny Rhodes – General comment on biomass harvesting for the purpose of energy generation at it relates to traditional coal energy generation. Biomass can produce greater amounts of CO2 per unit heat release than bituminous coal.

This comment is outside the scope of this decision. The effects of the proposed action on climate change and carbon sequestration are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA.

Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition, Inc. – In general HRWC supports forest stand health improvement and understands that timber harvest and prescribed burning are often critical

97 East Nottely EA components of sound forest management. However, there are some specific issues related to the ecological health and water quality of Lake Nottely that need to be taken into consideration while working in this watershed, particularly around the shoreline. Lake Nottely has almost always had a poor ecological health rating due to receiving a tremendous nutrient load of phosphorus. HRWC’s biggest concern is that nutrient loading in not increased particularly around the shoreline. Another obvious water quality concern is sedimentation from disturbed areas associated with project activities.

The effects of the project on soil and water quality are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA. As stated therein, the Forest Service would implement all applicable Forest Plan standards and Georgia’s Best Management Practices for forestry to minimize erosion and loss of soil productivity within the project area including the lake shoreline. Loss of soil nutrients can occur directly from soil erosion, soil displacement, or indirectly from harvesting timber or from fire. The most effective way of managing soil organic matter is through effective management of the forest floor and woody debris. Nutrient depletion, however, is generally a concern where soils are initially nutrient poor, or where stand rotations are very short, i.e. on the order of 20 to 35 years (Jorgensen and Wells, 1986). None of these factors apply in this project area, or from proposed management actions being considered.

GA Forest Watch – GFW opposes the use of biomass from the National Forest for energy purposes. We do not under any circumstances support management that involves multiple stand entries on a short rotation basis for the sake of producing biomass from the National Forest. Agree that this area can best be managed and maintain with a mix of growing season and dormant season burns in a mosaic pattern. Sorry to see FS is still proposing to invest in food plots.

The Forest Service is not proposing short rotation “biomass” management within the project area nor is this supported in the Forest Plan. Instead, we are proposing to improve long-term forest health and wildlife habitat restoration through commercial 1st thinning of immature pine stands that would otherwise require significant investment to pre-commercially thin (and would produce a significant wildfire/fuels hazard). Again, all stands to be thinned would be managed on a long-term rotation as prescribed by the Forest Plan. The food plot renovation proposed in this project would convert the currently unproductive openings to desirable native warm season and non-native cool season species. These improvements would benefit a wide variety of wildlife species (see Parker et al 1992, Kammermeyer et al 1993, Healey and Nenno 1983, Dimmick et al. 1996, 2002). A portion of these openings would be established in native warm season grasses. These species require less maintenance and can be managed with periodic prescribed burning.

Appalachian Trail Conservancy/GATC – Can’t see the project from the AT so there are no issues.

98 East Nottely EA

Appendix G: Response to Draft EA Comments

Edwin Dale – “I hope the Forest Service is able to obtain funding to meet the goals and objectives of the proposed East Nottely Forest Health and Restoration project. Its implementation should further the FLRMP, and I have no problem with the described project. As I recall from my reading there is a meaningless typo on p.48 near the bottom of the page.‖ FS Response: Comment noted

Mark E. Banker – Ruffed Grouse Society ―Based on the very strong evidence of the need for more young forest habitat in the southern Appalachians and the considerable input provided by RGS volunteers and staff over the life of the planning for this project, we feel the Forest failed to consider public input and an alternative that would have created a true mosaic while staying well within the guidelines of the Forest Plan. A project with 1800 acres available and 25 acres of young forest proposed is not balanced. We request that the forest consider and analyze an alternative that creates more young forest via even-aged management and uses more available literature to put the alternative in perspective.‖

FS Response: Early Successional Forest Habitat is a very important habitat condition for a wide variety of wildlife species and declines in some species can be attributed to a decreased availability of this habitat. However, the East Nottely Project is located in Management Prescription 7.E.1 – Dispersed Recreation Areas which emphasizes mid- to-late-successional forest conditions. Creation of early successional forest habitat is limited to 4 percent of the Forest acres. The project will create early successional forest habitat through the 25 acres of two-aged regeneration harvest (1.4% of project area). Although there currently is no early successional forest habitat in the project area much of the area is relatively young (44 percent in sapling/pole stage) primarily due to past South Pine beetle outbreaks. The project area consists of several moderate sized (125-500 acre) tracts of National Forest land primarily surrounded by residential development. Because of the Management Prescription direction and current conditions of the project area, creation of early forest successional habitat was not emphasized in this project. No comments were received during scoping from the Ruffed Grouse Society or other organizations or individuals suggesting the need for additional early successional forest habitat in this project.

Scott Frazier – Georgia Department of Natural Resources ―Given that the EA identifies that white pine stands and individuals now comprise more of the Forest and more xeric sites than was historically the case, we wonder if the preferred alternative wouldn't be better suited to plan to convert all 90 acres of non-merchantable white pine stands to a combination of early-succession habitat and grasslands.‖

FS Response: See above response to Mark Banker.

Monte Seehorn ―The 25 acre planned regeneration harvest figures out to less than 1.4% of the Project acreage, which is inadequate if wildlife is of any significant concern. Two more 25 acre two age

99 East Nottely EA shelterwood cuts placed at selected locations would be invaluable to wildlife by adding significantly to vegetative diversity, and would still total slightly less than 4% of the area.‖ FS Response: See above response to Mark Banker.

―I have no problem with planting oak and chestnut if there are no rootstock, but why plant yellow pine in the only area planned for early successional conditions? Looking at stand type distribution, there doesn’t appear to be a potential shortage of yellow pine. Why not plant dogwood or some other desirable soft mast plant if there is no rootstock?‖ FS Response: The two stands that will be regenerated and planted currently are dense white pine stands with very limited existing hardwood rootstock. They will be planted in a mixture of white oaks and shortleaf pine, which historically was one of the dominant forest communities for this portion of the Forest. However, the shortleaf pine component in the area has been greatly reduced by numerous outbreaks of Southern Pine beetle and the subsequent planting of white pine plantations.

―p.3 -What is meant by two-age and ―even‖ age silvicultural methods? Should this read two-age and ―uneven‖ age silvicultural methods?‖

FS Response: No, there are three silvicultural methods for age management; even age (single age class in which the range of tree ages is usually + 20 percent of rotation), two-aged (two distinct age classes separated in age by more than + 20 percent of rotation), and uneven-aged (a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups).

―p. 20 - I think a more correct terminology for young hardwood ―regeneration‖ and mixed oak/yellow pine ―regeneration‖ would be to refer to these stands as sapling/pole stands to keep from confusing ―regeneration‖ with early successional stands.‖

FS Response: The majority of the stands in question are 20-30 years of age and are correctly characterized as sapling/pole stands.

―p. 31- Under Successional Habitat on page 31, the statement is made that the 12 acre selection cut would create early successional habitat. That is incorrect. The only harvesting technique proposed in this Project that creates early successional habitat is two-age shelterwood.‖

FS Response: The respondent is correct. The proposed selection cut will remove all white pine, Virginia pine, and loblolly pine from these stands. As a result, there will be some portions where the majority of the overstory will be removed, creating substantial canopy openings. While this will allow for the development of some early successional conditions, because the openings will generally be small (< 1 acre), the conditions created will not be true early successional forest habitat according to the Forest Plan definition.

―pp. 35-36 - The riparian Project writeup gives little or no leeway for vegetation management, and addresses only Acadian Flycatcher needs. With a minimum of 75% of the overall Forest in mid to late successional forest cover, it seems a little unreasonable to require 100% unbroken

100 East Nottely EA canopy in riparian areas. Early successional vegetative composition in riparian areas is unique and provides a component of diversity in plants not found on drier sites. Many species of wildlife would benefit to a greater degree from riparian harvesting than from harvesting on drier sites. … I would hope that some consideration would be given to harvesting in riparian areas in any project including such habitat. Riparian areas are usually imbedded within adjacent stands, and could generally be managed under proposals for that stand.‖

FS Response: There are several small 1st and 2nd order perennial streams within some of the stands proposed for thinning. Within these stands, as permitted by Riparian Corridor standards (MRx 11) and BMP’s, some timber harvesting will occur within the associated riparian areas as part of the thinning operations. However, as required a minimum of 50 square feet of basal area per acre or 50% canopy cover will be retained.

Georgia Forest Watch Biomass: ―We oppose extraction of timber from national forests in Georgia for the purpose of producing biomass energy, and oppose conversion of diverse natural forests to single species plantations for any purpose.

In furtherance of that position, the organization’s board of directors has adopted the following policy: Georgia ForestWatch opposes whole tree harvesting in the national forests for any purpose because such harvesting is unsustainable and detrimental to forest soil fertility, productivity, and water quality.

Soil Nutrients (organic matter): GFW is opposed to whole tree harvesting for any purpose and insists that the District retain tree tops and residual slash within the cutting units for the purposes of retaining nutrients and soil fertility, reducing soil compaction from equipment, and maintaining the long term productivity of the sites identified in this proposal. The District appears to share GFW's concern, and seems to recognize the importance of retaining organic material in the project area in the following passages from the EA:‖

FS Response: The harvesting operation related to whole tree removal will not be any different than a conventional commercial timber operation. In both cases, the trees are felled and the whole tree is skidded to the deck. It is at that point the tree is delimbed and loaded onto a truck. The only difference here is the amount of at the decks.

The Forest Plan direction to comply with BMPs in harvesting operations is basic to minimizing soil and site productivity...... minimize the ground area disturbed by equipment use, minimize actions that cause erosion, etc. along with the timber sale contract provisions. Again, the Forest Service is not proposing short rotation “biomass” management within the project area nor is this supported in the Forest Plan. Instead, we are proposing to improve long-term forest health and wildlife habitat restoration through commercial 1st thinning of immature pine stands that would otherwise require significant investment to pre-commercially thin (and would produce

101 East Nottely EA

a significant wildfire/fuels hazard). All stands to be thinned would be managed on a long-term rotation as prescribed by the Forest Plan.” EA pg.99

Non-Native Invasive Species ( NNIS): ―We appreciate the District‟s adherence to contract clauses that require operators to clean equipment before and after entering units of the sale areas. This is a common sense approach that will reduce unnecessary spread of NNIS.

Interesting Kudzu treatment option:

The traditional methods to remove or maintain kudzu and other invasives have been by mechanical and/or hand mowing and the use of herbicides. A group called the Kudzu Coalition in South Carolina (http://www.kokudzu.com) has discovered a non-chemical means for removing this invasive pest. Through monitoring, experimental design, and the use of adaptive management, the coalition has developed and refined a series of management options for kudzu that apply to a wide spectrum of management scenarios.

One of the most interesting ―surgical‖ methods discussed on their website is to first mow or remove the above-ground vines, primarily to provide access to the site. Then workers pull the vines to the surface and remove the root crown of the plant using a prong-hoe for smaller roots (two inches in diameter and smaller) and a pruning saw or mattock for larger, older roots. Without the root crown, the kudzu vine cannot survive and re-sprout. This technique appears to have been effective over the last several years of field trials. The coalition estimates that the average worker can cut 50 root crowns per hour, although a high school volunteer (who helped refine this technique) cut 180 root crowns in one hour! Naturally, this method is not appropriate for all situations, but with determination, education, and a strong volunteer labor force, real results can be obtained especially on small patches of Kudzu such as the one present in the Lake Nottely proposal‖.

FS Response: The Non-Native Invasive Species Decision for the Blue Ridge and Conasauga Ranger Districts permits the use of manual, mechanical, cultural, and chemical methods to control NNIS. In some situations, mechanical/hand methods of kudzu control may be appropriate. The use of alternative methods will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on environmental conditions, and funding and volunteer staffing considerations.

Wildlife Openings ―The District and the Forest as a whole has not enjoyed much success with their wildlife openings. The EA states on page 38 that the USFS and the GA Department of Natural Resources (DNR) maintain 1300 acres of openings with the goal of maintaining high quality forage such as clover and cool season grasses. In fact the vast majority of these openings feature predominately low quality fescue with very little clover and are often associated with non-native invasive species. The USFS and the GA DNR have been sowing clover for decades on these wildlife openings with hardly anything to show for it.

The openings are killed with herbicides, limed, plowed, and sown with clover only to turn rank again within a few years, requiring the process to be repeated. The reason for this failure is that a grass legume mix has to be mowed regularly through the course of the growing season to prevent the grasses from out- competing the clover. Hay producers in the north Georgia area are aware of this problem and if interested in maintaining clover must cut frequently through the course of the growing season. It has been logistically impossible for the USFS and the GA DNR to mow these hundreds of small openings on a regular basis.

102 East Nottely EA

The fact that one wildlife opening on this project is choked with Kudzu is testimony to the fact that the USFS‟s reach has exceeded its grasp. Given that budgets are permanently shrinking for both the GA DNR and the USFS it is difficult to understand why precious dollars would be wasted on this effort to rehabilitate failed wildlife openings in the project area. In addition to the cost of rehabilitating, sowing and mowing each opening requires a road with all the attendant problems connected with maintaining a road. Across the country and this forest the agency seeks to identify a ―Right-sized‖ road system, as requested by Agriculture Secretary Vilsack. It seems this would be a good time to identify which food plots present an opportunity to be restored to forest cover and there by allow road closure.‖

FS Response: The food plot renovation proposed in this project will convert the currently unproductive openings to either desirable native warm season or non-native cool season species (e.g. clover). The establishment and maintenance of clover does require a commitment of annual mowing and periodic fertilization. As a result, only a fraction of the FS maintained openings on the Blue Ridge District currently are managed for clover. However, these high quality openings provide important benefits to a wide variety of game and non-game wildlife species (see Parker et al 1992, Kammermeyer et al 1993, Healey and Nenno 1983, Dimmick et al. 1996, 2002) and their management will continue to be a part of the wildlife opening program. The District also has begun an effort to establish native warm season grasses in some sites. In the East Nottley project, the 4 acre opening containing kudzu ( an old house site) will be established in native warm season grasses. These species require less maintenance and can be managed with periodic prescribed burning.

The District does periodically evaluate its wildlife opening project and make adjustments as needed. In recent years, several openings (along with their access roads) on the District that were difficult to maintain have been abandoned and were allowed to return to forest cover.

Herbicide: ―While we are concerned about herbicide use, we do recognize that the District is committing to ―judicious and sparing‖ use of herbicides on a very small percentage of this project proposal. We ask that the District refrain from and or enforce prohibitions of over application, application in riparian corridors (there is 100 ft. buffer commitment in the EA), as well as broadcast application. If such restrictions are implemented and enforced we believe environmental impacts from herbicides can be reduced. The concept of ―enforcement‖ and contractor supervision seems obvious but based on prior instances on other areas of the National Forest it must be mentioned again.

If the District decides to proceed with chemical use, we request that biodegradable signs be posted to warn unknowing forest users that chemicals have been used, and also list the stand reentry recommendation. Since we are talking about public forests we feel citizen forest users should be apprised of chemical treatments to enable them to make informed decisions to enter certain areas within this management proposal.‖

FS Response: The Forest Service has Standard Operating Procedures under Standard Mitigation Measures for Herbicide Use #, Notice signs, EA page 95.

Richard Artley: ―Page 6 of the draft East Nottely EA states: ―Restore/maintain native ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat via approximately 25 acres of two-aged regeneration harvest and 12 acres of selective harvest.

103 East Nottely EA

Comment: Anyone with even a remedial knowledge of forest ecology and commercial logging knows that native ecosystems and improve wildlife habitat are degraded by timber harvest.

Please review Opposing Science Attachment #1, divulge the Opposing Views statements to the public and explain how timber harvest improves any natural resource in the forest.‖

FS Response: The stands proposed for two-aged regeneration harvest and selective harvest is off-site white pine plantations. These relatively young, dense stands have very poorly developed understory and groundcover layers. As a result, they currently provide very limited wildlife benefits. The proposed treatments will remove off-site white pine and begin to develop a more natural mix of oaks and shortleaf pine (see EA pages 19-21). In the short term, the two-aged harvest will create early successional conditions that will benefit a wide variety of wildlife species (see EA pages 30-32). The references listed in Attachment #1 are largely opinion pieces rather than peer-reviewed science and/or primarily relate to the western United States and are not applicable to this project.

Page 7 ―Additional Wildlife Habitat Improvements – Proposed Activities

1) Renovating approximately 11 acres of existing wildlife openings Renovating activities consist of herbicide control of invasive weeds, mowing, fertilizing, and sowing to native warm season and desirable non-native cool season species.

Comment: There is an effective weed control measure that the Responsible Official chooses not to use.

Please see Opposing Science Attachment #10.

In the draft and final NEPA document explain who the Responsible Official does not manage livestock grazing allotments to reduce weed spread.‖

FS Response: There are no grazing allotments on the East Nottley project area or elsewhere on the Chattahoochee National Forest. The opposing views cited in Document #10 focus on livestock and non-native invasive species in the western US and are not applicable to this project.

―Comment: Of course non-native invasive vegetation (a.k.a. noxious weeds) is a significant problem on our national forests. They need to be controlled and someday eradicated. However, one must be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease. The safe and effective non-herbicide means of reducing the spread and killing this vegetation are hand pulling and beneficial insect action.

Please use them!

Mitigation measures should not be considered when spraying lethal poison. The only responsible action that can be taken to assure no mammal (including humans), bird, and fish deaths is to use the alternative ways of eradication noxious weeds.

These alternatives are more expensive but this extra expense would be supported by the vast majority of national forest users when they become familiar to the lethal effects of glyphosate herbicide. They would consider it a well-deserved use of their tax dollar.

104 East Nottely EA

Please read and consider the massive threats of glyphosate use contained in Opposing Views attachment #9. Also, please print Opposing Views attachment #9 and give a copy to each Forest Service application crew member if the Responsible Official ignores the scientific evidence that clearly shows that even casual contact with glyphosate-laced herbicides could cause:

· birth defects · non-Hodgkin's lymphoma · mitochondrial damage · cell asphyxia · miscarriages · attention deficit disorder · endocrine disruption · DNA damage · skin tumors · thyroid damage · hairy cell leukemia · Parkinson disease · premature births · decrease in the sperm count · harm to the immune system in fish · death of liver cells · severe reproductive system disruptions · chromosomal damage ―

FS Response: Thank you for your input regarding the glyphosate use proposed in East Nottley Forest Health EA. We completely agree with you that the standard for the analysis of such proposals is “best science” and to this end we have reviewed all of the materials you summarized for consideration. In your “Opposing Views Document #9” we find 66 items cited. Four of these are duplicates (our numbers: #09-40, 09-43, 09-44, & 09-55). Of the remaining 62 items 48 are either Editorials, Interviews, Magazine or Newspaper articles, Internet blog postings, or Letters to the Editor; none of which are further discussed since they are not new science but rather statements of personal opinion. Three of the remaining items are literature reviews/science summaries with no new science (#09-15, 09-46 & 09-65). Two others are abstracts submitted as part of conference proceedings (#09-54 & 09-57). Abstracts of this type are not refereed as are published science articles, and this “gray literature” is not considered to be finished work but rather progress reports on current research which is incomplete. And finally there were indeed 9 articles included which are relevant science articles (#09-01, 09-09, 09-11, 09- 13, 09-33, 09-34, 09-35, 09-37 & 09-38). Seven of the nine science articles are directly addressed in the new Forest Service risk assessment of glyphosate (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service or use Syracuse Environmental Associates, Inc.) 2011. Glyphosate: human health and ecological risk assessment final report. Publ. SERA TR-052-22-03b. Washington D.C.: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 336 p.) The remaining two articles which are not directly cited in the risk assessment are by scientists who are cited in the risk assessment based on other work of a similar nature in the contemporary science literature. Information from several of these articles has been added to the WorksheetMaker program which the Forest Service uses to quantitatively evaluate the level of risk posed by any proposed use of glyphosate. While this updated risk assessment has only recently been released, it has been made available to the decisionmaker prior to his finalizing his decision. No changes in the

105 East Nottely EA

conclusions from the analyses based on the SERA 2003 risk assessment used by the Forest Service in preparing this EA were necessitated by this updated assessment of risk.

―Page 9 of the draft East Nottely EA states: ―Alternative B The Proposed Action

―Renovate and maintain approximately 11 acres of existing wildlife openings.

Comment: The draft EA never tells the public how such renovation will take place. How can the public comment on things with no information?

Please provide a detailed explanation of this action in the final EA and FONSI.‖

FS Response: The proposed renovation is described on page 9-10 and 38 of the EA. “Renovating activities typically include, but are not limited to, herbicide control on invasive weeds, mowing, fertilizing, and sowing to native warm season and desirable non-native cool season species.”

―Page 9 of the draft East Nottely EA states: Alternative B The Proposed Action

Improve forest health in over-crowded and fire-excluded stands to lower the risk of insect and disease infestation (particularly southern pine beetle) and reduce susceptibility to damaging wildfire." "

Comment: Thankfully, these healthy forests pass through periods when some conifer tree species in some areas become "degraded" by natural disturbance events. Healthy forests are not static. This life/death cycle is natural for healthy forests and should not be interrupted.

Every (emphasis added) healthy population of living things depends on dying individuals.

Taking action to exclude insects and diseases from damaging and killing conifer trees reflects an attitude that sound conifer trees available for timber harvest are more important than the countless other natural resources in the forest.

Action should not be taken to reduce the insect, disease and drought induced mortality to conifer trees. Such natural disturbance events are necessary to maintain the forest's biological diversity. Insect and disease activity is an indicator of a healthy properly functioning forest.

Trees killed by insect activity are important habitat for scores of wildlife species.

Trees killed by insect activity provide the organic matter to replenish and enrich mineral soils.

Indeed, dead and dying trees have great ecological value in the forest. These conditions cannot be artificially created.

Independent, unbiased scientists emphasize this fact. Please see Opposing Science Attachment #5.

106 East Nottely EA

Trees killed by pine beetles are less flammable than the untouched pine trees. Please see Opposing Science Attachment #17.

Please do not interfere with beneficial natural processes in the forest.‖

FS Response: Referenced material provided is out of the scope of the East Nottely Forest Health project. The effects of forest health are on Southern Pine Beetles as it relates to Southern Yellow Pines and White Pine species. Two references were provided that focuse on southern pine beetle species and it’s host species: Turchin, P., P. Lorio, A.D. Taylor, and R.F. Billings. 1991. Why do populations of southern pine beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) fluctuate? Environmental Entomology 20: 401–9. Cited in Raffa, K.F., and D.L. Dahlsten. 1995. Differential responses among natural enemies and prey to bark beetle pheromones. Oecologia 102: 17–23.

Schowalter, T.D., and P. Turchin. 1993. Southern pine beetle infestation development: Interaction between pine and hardwood basal areas. Forest Science 39: 201–10.

Summary: The authors introduced initial populations of southern pine beetles into replicate experimental plots that had been thinned and/or had hardwood removed. They concluded that landscapes with a high proportion of stands composed largely of a single tree species will be susceptible to pest outbreaks, whereas landscapes composed of more diverse stands and stand types will tend to restrict incipient outbreaks. They also found that stand susceptibility to southern pine beetle increases with pine basal area. They caution that trees that are physiologically capable of defending against small populations often succumb to the pressures of large populations. Thus, even the stands shown in the study to be relatively unfavorable for beginning infestation could suffer severe pine mortality during a southern pine beetle outbreak.

―Any normal, healthy, fully functioning forest has some stands of trees that die from insect and disease activity.‖ FS Response: The pine stands targeted for treatment in this project are not healthy, normally functioning stands. These stands are dense and overstocked. As described in the Purpose and Need these pine stands will be thinned to reduce the epidemics of SPB attacks. ―Page 10 of the draft East Nottely EA states: Alternative B The Proposed Action

―Construct approximately 3.0 miles of temporary use roads to access harvest units.‖

Comments: Road construction harms the natural resources in the forest ecosystem more than any other development activity. This definitely includes temporary roads.

The national forests are not private industrial tree farms where the road density is between 4 and 6 miles per square mile.

Road construction clearly causes the most long-term damage to the natural resources than any other human activity in the forest. Even obliterated temporary roads continue to pump sediment into streams for 4 to 6 years after they are obliterated.

Please consider the following information:

107 East Nottely EA

Sometimes temporary roads create more sediment per mile during precipitation events than system roads. This is because:

1) The earth must be handled twice …. when constructing the road and when obliterating the road. 2) Temp roads are "designed" by a logger on a cat with no knowledge of hydrology and the logger is under pressure to work quickly. 3) Most temp roads are outsloped, thus, the water on the road drains off the road at random places. 4) Temp roads have no surfacing to slow the water velocity. High water velocity picks up more sediment particles. 5) Temp roads have no ditch. Ditches adjacent to system roads control the water until the road designer calls for an appropriate outlet culvert location. 6) Sediment-laden water leaves the temp road at random locations . . . often in the streams.

Please read ―Temporary Roads are Like Low Fat Ice Cream‖ by George Wuerthner , 3-17-09. The link to this article is at: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/temporary_roads_are_like_low_fat_ice_cream/C564/L564/

Please see Opposing Science Attachment #4.‖

FS Response: The Forest Service acknowledges that access routes, whether permanent or temporary, are the most common causes of accelerated erosion in forested watersheds (EA, page 79). Significant research has been conducted on sources of erosion by the Forest Service and a number of other organizations for several decades, with the common finding that roads are a primary source of ground disturbance, and therefore, a contributor of sediment to the stream system of a watershed. This research has contributed considerable results and solutions in the development of best management practices (BMPs) for forest operations. When properly designed, installed and maintained, BMPs have been demonstrated to minimize the area affected by ground disturbing activities, and result in reduced sediment movement to streams. The required implementation of Best Management Practices is a Forest Plan standard on Chattahoochee-Oconee ground disturbing projects (Forest Plan FW-070, pg. 2-22, and Management Prescription 11 standard 11-004, pg. 3-178). Temporary roads are an integral element in the management of National Forest lands, primarily to access a project site on a short-term basis. These access routes are used during timber harvest operations on a short duration time frame to move equipment in and out of a production site. Using BMPs, the harvest operations are designed to minimize impacts to streams by providing buffers, or streamside management zones, between disturbance activities and the stream channel. Forest Service harvest operations are planned in advance of logger actions to identify sites for log landings, skid trails and temporary roads. This pre-activity design identifies suitable locations for logger activities that will minimize the need for stream crossings by equipment, maximize the distance between streams and disturbance actions, and recognize opportunities to rehabilitate and close access routes post-harvest activities. Timber sale contract provisions are also in place to control the construction, maintenance and closure of temporary roads used by the purchaser of a Forest Service timber sale. Specifically Contract provisions BT 6.63 or CT 6.63 require the purchaser to complete closure and rehabilitation measures on temporary roads promptly after the road has served the Purchaser’s purpose, including removal of stream crossings, ruts, berms and blocking the road to normal vehicular traffic. This is a contract obligation on all temporary roads used by the Purchaser in sale operations.

108 East Nottely EA

Temporary access roads on National Forest projects often use existing routes or templates constructed in prior harvest operations. The project areas proposed for operations in the East Nottely project are in stands established 25-35 years ago, now in need of thinning to reduce the density of stems and improve the health and vigor of the residual trees. These existing routes can be used for this proposed entry if they can comply with the current BMPs (Georgia’s Best Management Practices for Forestry – 2009) and the Forest Plan (2004). Considerations would include the width of the road prism, adequate drainage, minimal stream crossings, and opportunity to close and rehabilitate after operations are completed. Forest Service personnel will evaluate these existing routes prior to the use by the timber sale purchaser and logger. An optimum temporary road will be only wide enough to safely handle the equipment using the route, be constructed during favorable weather, minimize crossings of streams, and have rolling broad-based dips to provide surface drainage of stormflow. Ditches are not desirable on temporary roads as this creates a zone of concentrated flow that can increase erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Ditches also require additional excavation to construct, and can often require additional disturbance to maintain if the ditches lose their function. Exposed shoulders along temporary roads that pass through a streamside management zone or SMZ should be stabilized, particularly within 100 feet of streams. Outsloping of temporary roads is a desirable feature to allow storm water to drain off the road surface instead of concentrating volume and velocity of the flow.

A basic principle of road location and construction in forested watersheds is to reduce hydrologic connectivity; basically reduce the connections of a road system to the stream channel network through ditches, ditch relief culverts, gullies, and natural stream crossings. The lower the percentage of total road length that is connected to the channel network the better. Achieving low hydrologic connectivity uses a road template that is outsloped, surface water reinfiltrates into the soil, and any ditches present are not connected to a stream. These features are generally present in temporary roads constructed using BMPs on Forest Service timber sale operation areas. ―Pages 78 to 82 of the draft East Nottely EA identify the 55 references used to prepare the document Nowhere in the text of the East Nottely EA are the reference documents identified where they were used.

The Duke University Libraries describes the correct process that authors should use when citing sources in their paper (see below).

Citing Sources Within Your Paper Whenever you quote, paraphrase, summarize, or otherwise refer to the work of another, you are required to cite its source, either by way of parenthetical documentation or by means of a footnote. Offered here are some of the most commonly cited forms of material; for types of documents not exemplified here, please consult the appropriate style manual available in the library’s reference collection.‖ http://library.duke.edu/research/citing/within/index.html

The EA includes no parenthetical documentation or footnotes in the body of the EA showing where the sources were used.

One expects US Forest Service NEPA documents to be written using generally accepted protocol.

Without such information in the body of the EA the public does not know what information was borrowed from other sources, or if the other sources were used at all.

Please assure that the final EA complies with the protocol described above.‖

109 East Nottely EA

FS Response: The vast majority of the referenced documents were properly cited in the body of the draft EA. The few references that were not properly cited in the draft EA will be corrected in the final EA.

110 East Nottely EA

Appendix H: Project Area Maps

111