Nashville District

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Proposed Master Plan Revision Center Hill Lake

May 22, 2018

For Further Information, Contact: Travis A. Wiley U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District 110 9th Ave South, Room A-405 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 736-7958

PROPOSED MASTER PLAN REVISION CENTER HILL LAKE MASTER PLAN REVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5

2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 7

3 ALTERNATIVES ...... 7

3.1 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 7

3.2 No Action ...... 8

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 8

4.1 Project History and Setting ...... 8

4.2 Climate, Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils ...... 11 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ...... 11 4.2.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 15 4.2.3 No Action ...... 15

4.3 Aquatic Environment ...... 17 4.3.1 Existing Conditions ...... 17 4.3.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 27 4.3.3 No Action ...... 27

4.4 Terrestrial Resources and Land Use ...... 27 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ...... 27 4.4.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 36 4.4.3 No Action ...... 37

4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 37 4.5.1 Existing Conditions ...... 37 4.5.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 39 4.5.3 No Action ...... 39

4.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources...... 39 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ...... 39 4.6.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 40 4.6.3 No Action ...... 40

i

4.7 Air Quality ...... 40 4.7.1 Existing Conditions ...... 40 4.7.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision or No Action ...... 40

4.8 Socio-Economic Resources ...... 41 4.8.1 Existing Conditions ...... 41 4.8.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 44 4.8.3 No Action ...... 44

4.9 Recreation Resources ...... 44 4.9.1 Existing Conditions ...... 44 4.9.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 45 4.9.3 No Action ...... 46

4.10 Health and Safety ...... 46 4.10.1 Existing Conditions ...... 46 4.10.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 47 4.10.3 No Action ...... 47

4.11 Aesthetics ...... 47 4.11.1 Existing Conditions ...... 47 4.11.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision ...... 47 4.11.3 No Action ...... 47

4.12 Cumulative Impacts...... 47 4.12.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 48 4.12.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 50 4.12.3 Effects ...... 51

5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ...... 52

5.1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ...... 52

5.2 Endangered Species Act ...... 52

5.3 Environmental Justice ...... 53

5.4 Cultural Resource Requirement ...... 54

6 SCOPING AND PUBLIC CONCERN ...... 54

6.1 Public Involvement ...... 54

6.2 Scoping Responses ...... 54

6.3 MP Revision Comments ...... 55

7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 55

8 REFERENCES ...... 56

ii

9 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 58

Tables and Figures

Table 1. Resources Likely to be Affected by Implementation of the Proposed MP Revision ...... 8 Table 2. Relevant Figures for Center Hill Lake ...... 10 Table 3. Theoretical Minimum Flows at Old Hickory Dam for Water Quality ...... 23 Table 4. Impaired Stream Reaches (2014 303 (d) list) in the Center Hill Lake and Collins River Watersheds ...... 25 Table 5. Center Hill Surface Water Designations ...... 26 Table 6. Common Invasive Plants ...... 30 Table 7. State Listed Species Within One Mile of Center Hill Lake Boundaries ...... 31 Table 8. Low Density Recreation Areas on Center Hill Lake ...... 36 Table 9. Proposed Designation of Project Lands ...... 37 Table 10. Federally Listed Species Recorded in the Center Hill Lake Project Area ...... 38 Table 11. Labor Force Populations and Unemployment Rates ...... 41 Table 12. Employment by Industry ...... 42 Table 13. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance ...... 42 Table 14. Visitation Data by FY (Oct-Sep) ...... 44 Table 15. Land Use in Caney Fork Watershed ...... 49 Table 16. Projected Population Growth between 2018 and 2070 in Area of Review ...... 50 Table 17. Federal Act/Executive Order Compliance ...... 52 Table 18. Percentage of Caucasian Residents in Counties Surrounding Center Hill Lake ...... 53

Figure 1. Center Hill Lake ...... 6 Figure 2. Map of the Cumberland River Basin ...... 10 Figure 3. Ecoregions Surrounding Center Hill Lake ...... 12 Figure 4. Soil Associations in Center Hill Lake Area ...... 16 Figure 5. Center Hill Water Elevation Guide Curve ...... 19 Figure 6. Center Hill Surface Area and Storage Volume Curves ...... 19 Figure 7. Average Monthly Rainfall and Inflow Comparison ...... 20 Figure 8. Tributary Streams of Center Hill Lake ...... 21 Figure 9. Vegetation Classification Acreage Records for Center Hill Lake, as designated by the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) ...... 28

iii

Figure 11. Density of visitor home zip codes based on nearly 2,400 customer comment surveys...... 43 Figure 12. Campground Total Percent Usage (Days Available/Days Occupied) by Fiscal Year 45 Figure 13. NLCD (2011) Land Cover Data for the Caney Fork Watershed ...... 49

Appendices Appendix A Scoping Letter and Responses, Environmental Assessment Review Responses Appendix B Project Land Use Classification Maps

iv

1 INTRODUCTION The Center Hill Dam project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved 28 June 1938 (Public Law No. 761, 75th Congress, 3rd Session). Although power production was not included as a function of the project at that time, the Act stipulated that penstocks were to be installed so that power production could be added if the demand for electricity warranted such action in the future. The Third Supplemental Defense Act of 17 December 1941 and the River and Harbor Act of 1946 authorized the inclusion and completion of the power generating stations at Center Hill Lake. The originally authorized purposes for Center Hill Dam and Lake include flood control (flood damage reduction) and the production of hydroelectric power. Although recreation was not originally an authorized function of this project, lands were acquired and recreation facilities constructed to assure unencumbered access to the lake for the general public. Today the resources of Center Hill Lake are managed to not only provide recreation but also to improve fish and wildlife habitat and provide water supply for surrounding municipalities. Following passage of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) undertook preparation of master plans for Recreation Development at USACE projects in compliance with Section 4 of that Act. Moreover, Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 states, "…to construct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities in reservoir areas under the control of the Secretary of the Army; and to permit construction, maintenance and operation of such facilities." In 1959 and again in 1962, the Chief of Engineers issued instructions on inclusion of recreation development at reservoirs as a project purpose under specific limitation. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (PL 89-72) established development of the recreational potential of Federal water resource projects as a full project purpose. Anotherlegislative project purpose includes fish and wildlife management.

In June 1948, at the time of Dam closure, a master plan for recreation development at Center Hill Lake had been prepared and approved for implementation. Since that time, portions of the Master Plan (MP) have been reevaluated on a site-by-site basis in response to particular development needs or opportunities. A complete update was conducted in 1977 and again in 1984. With the proposed MP Revision, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being completed to evaluate existing conditions and potential impacts of proposed alternatives. The EA is prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR, 1500–1508), and the USACE implementing regulation, Policy and Procedures for Implementing NEPA, Engineering Regulation 200-2-2, 1988.

Various documents are referenced in this EA as providing background or supplemental information. Those of primary importance include the following: Center Hill Lake MP(1977 and 1984); Cumberland River Environmental Impact Statement (1975 and updated 1992); Center Hill Lake Operational Management Plan (OMP) Part I Natural Resources Management, and OMP Part II Park Management. Full citations are included in Section 8 of this document. As the MP Revision and EA will be combined documents, this EA will reference sections of the MP revision when information has already been expounded and there is no need for reiteration.

5

Figure 1. Center Hill Lake

6

2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION This revised MP replaces the 1984 MP for Development and Management of Center Hill Lake. In accordance with Engineering Regulation (ER) 1130-2-550 and ER 1130-2-540 and their corresponding Engineering Pamphlets (EP’s), the MP describes in detail how all project lands, waters, forests, and other resources will be conserved, enhanced, developed, managed, and used in the public interest throughout the life of the project. The plan includes recommendations as to the optimum location and design of recreation facilities, taking into consideration a variety of elements, such as the natural and cultural environment, economic feasibility, projected recreation demand and future operation and management capabilities. The MP guides and articulates USACE responsibilities pursuant to federal laws to preserve, conserve, restore, maintain, manage and develop the project lands, waters, and associated resources. The MP deals in concepts, not in details, of design or administration. Detailed management and administration functions are addressed in the project OMP, which implements the concepts of the MP into operational actions.

The MP is developed and kept current for Civil Works Projects operated and maintained by the USACE and will include all land (fee, easements or other interests) originally acquired for the projects and any subsequent land (fee, easements or other interests) acquired to support the operations and authorized missions of the project. The MP is not intended to address the specifics of regional water quality, shoreline management or water level management; these areas are covered in a project’s Shoreline Management Plan or Water Control Manual.

MPs are periodically revised to ensure focus on three primary components: regional and ecosystem needs, project resource capability and sustainability, and expressed public interests/ desires. In summary, the purpose of a revised MP is to present a current inventory and assessment of resources, provide an analysis of resource use, and evaluate existing and future needs required to protect and improve the value of resources at Center Hill Lake.

3 ALTERNATIVES Land Classification for fee property is the primary use for which project lands are managed. Project lands are zoned for development and resource management consistent with authorized project purposes and the provisions of NEPA and other Federal laws. The USACE currently uses five categories of classification of project lands identified as: Project Operations, High Density Recreation, Mitigation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Multiple Resource Management Lands. Project waters can be classified as Restricted, Designated No Wake, Fish and Wildlife Sanctuary or Open Recreation.

Alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Assessment include the following:

3.1 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision With implementation of the proposed MP Revision, three actions would be incorporated: 1) project land and water allocations and classifications would be made current, 2) an analysis of resource and project use would be conducted, and 3) an evaluation of existing and future needs and demands on the project would be completed. Classifications for project lands and water would be revised to reflect current and anticipated use. Additional descriptions of these classifications and project areas are provided in the Center Hill Lake MP Revision, Chapters 4 and 5 and in Section 4.4.1 of this document.

7

Implementation of the proposed MP Revision is the preferred alternative. A revision to the MP would allow the most comprehensive revision that best reflects environmental stewardship and conservation of Center Hill Lake project lands and waters while meeting public, social, and economic demands.

Table 1. Resources Likely to be Affected by Implementation of the Proposed MP Revision Affected Environment Likely to be Affected

Climate, Physiography, Topography, No Geology and Soils Aquatic Environment Yes Terrestrial Resources/Land Use Yes Threatened & Endangered Species Yes Archaeological & Historic Resources Yes Air Quality No Socioeconomics Yes Recreation Resources Yes Health & Safety Yes Aesthetics Yes

3.2 No Action The No Action alternative is defined as the USACE taking no action and therefore not implementing a revision to the Center Hill Lake MP. Under this alternative, no new resource analysis and allocation would occur, nor would a revision to project sites’ inventory be completed. Requirements regarding periodic revision of MPs as outlined in EP 1130-2-550 (30 January 2013) would not be incorporated. Operation and management of Center Hill Lake would continue as outlined in the 1984 MP Revision. The pre-1996 guidance for land and water classification would remain.

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Detailed descriptions of the environmental setting of Center Lake are provided in the MP Revision and Operational Management Plans. The following discussions provide a summary of the project area.

4.1 Project History and Setting The Cumberland River is one of the major tributaries of the Ohio River. The source of the Cumberland River is located at the junction of the Poor and Clover Forks near the City of Harlan, Kentucky. From Harlan, the Cumberland River meanders southwesterly to the City of Nashville, Tennessee. From Nashville, the river flows in a northwesterly direction to Smithland, Kentucky, where it joins the Ohio River.

The Cumberland River Basin, depicted in Figure 2, contains 17,598 square miles of land and water area. The Cumberland River drops more than 800 vertical feet in its course from Harlan, Kentucky, to the Ohio River. There are five existing multipurpose Projects on the main stem of the Cumberland River, which include: Barkley, Cheatham, Old Hickory, Cordell Hull, and Wolf Creek (Lake Cumberland). Center Hill Dam and Lake is located at Mile 26.6 on the Caney Fork River in DeKalb County, Tennessee. The Center Hill Lake impoundment lies in DeKalb, Warren, White, and Putnam Counties in Tennessee. The lake extends 64 river miles from Center Hill

8

Dam to the Great Falls Dam in Rock Island, Tennessee. It has 415 miles of shoreline with a local, uncontrolled drainage area of 2,195 square miles. Center Hill Dam was authorized for construction by the Flood Control Act of 1938 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946. Construction of Center Hill Lake Dam was initiated in March 1942, and suspended one-year later because of the World War II. Work was resumed in January 1946, and the dam was completed for flood control operations in November 1948. Construction of the powerhouse commenced in March 1949, and was completed in November 1951. Three hydro-electric power generating units aggregating 135,000-kilowatt capacity were placed in operation during December 1950, January 1951, and April 1951, respectively.

Center Hill Dam and Lake is considered a “flood control” lake, which can experience potential pool fluctuations of up to 67 feet during flood events. The entire Project encompasses a total of 37,721 acres of fee property, 102 acres of flowage easement and 830 acres of transfers of government land. With a minimum power pool elevation of 618 feet above mean sea level (msl), Center Hill Lake has a surface area of 14,590 acres, with a maximum power pool (summer pool) elevation of 648 feet msl Center Hill Lake has a surface area of 18,220 acres and at maximum pool 685 feet msl, the surface area of the lake increases to 23,060 acres. The total flood control storage for Center Hill Lake is 2,092,000 acre feet. The guideline for the acquisition of lands at Center Hill Lake was predicated to include all land upstream from the dam lying below elevation 690 feet AMSL. A rolled fill dike type auxiliary dam (Saddle Dam) is located 0.5 miles east of the main dam. This saddle dam is 125 feet high, 770 feet wide, and has a maximum base width of 660 feet. A fuse plug was installed in 1994, which stands at an elevation of 692.4 feet.

The entire project encompasses a total of 37,721 acres of fee property and 64 miles of riverbed. With a normal pool elevation of 648 feet msl, Center Hill Lake has 415 shoreline miles. Statistics for the project are shown below in Table 2.

The MP Revision specifically addresses recreation, cultural resources, and fish and wildlife (natural resources) management authorizations. This includes operation and management of recreational facilities as well as outgrants to other public agencies and concessionaires to provide additional features. Natural resource management includes management of lands and surface waters and coordination with public agencies and non-profit organizations to protect, enhance, and conserve the environmental resources of the project. Flood control, hydropower, and water supply are beyond the scope of this review and are managed by the Nashville District Office in conjunction with other projects on the Cumberland River.

9

Figure 2. Map of the Cumberland River Basin

Table 2. Relevant Figures for Center Hill Lake Land Base Total Fee Property 37,721 acres Total Easement Property 102 acres Shoreline Miles 415 miles Pool Backwater Length (Center Hill Dam to Great Falls Dam) 64 miles Maximum Pool Elevation (685 feet AMSL) 23,060 acres Minimum Pool Elevation (618 feet AMSL) 14,590 acres Normal Pool Elevation (648 feet AMSL) 18,220 acres Total Storage Capacity (685 feet AMSL) 2,092,000 acre-feet Center Hill Dam Type Concrete-gravity and earth Height (above lowest foundation) 250fill feet Total Length 2,160 feet Spillway Section Length 470 feet Gates 8 -Tainter

10

Gate Size 37 feet X 50 feet Discharge Capacity at Max Pool (685 feet AMSL) 458,000 cfs Power Intake Section Length 267 feet Left Non-overflow Section Length 400 feet Right Non-overflow Section Length 245 feet Earth Embankments Length 778 feet Center Hill Saddle Dam Type Rolled Fill Dike Height 125 feet Total Length 770 feet Top Elevation 692.4' AMSL Center Hill Powerhouse Number and Capacity of Units 3 @ 45,000 kw Total Installed Capacity 135,000 kw

4.2 Climate, Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils

4.2.1 Existing Conditions

4.2.1.1 Climate The climate of the Center Hill Lake area is moderate. Temperatures range from summer highs (July) of 88° farenheit (F) to winter lows (January) of 28° F. A record high of 105° F was set in June 2012; the record low of minus 24° F was set in January 1985. The average growing season is approximately 200 days, extending from April to October. Annual rainfall for the basin averages 55.99 inches with an additional seven inches of snow per year (USCD, 2017). Relative humidity for the area ranges from 42% to 93% across the year. Humidity rarely drops below 25%, but does reach 100% at times. Winds predominantly blow from the south or southwest (35 percent of the time); westerly winds occur approximately 20 percent of the time across the watershed. Typical wind speeds are less than 6 miles per hour (mph) with an average speed of 2.8 mph (Weatherspark, 2017).

4.2.1.2 Physiology, Geology, and Topography Physiology and Geology: Center Hill Lake lies within two sub-ecoregions of the Interior Plateau (EPA Ecoregion 71) as shown in Figure 3. This ecoregion has abundant aquatic fauna, with some of the most diverse fisheries found within Tennessee.

11

Figure 3. Ecoregions Surrounding Center Hill Lake

12

The Eastern Highland Rim (71g) is a plateau that has been dissected in many places by streams, leaving large divided flat areas of about elevation 1000 ft. msl and stream valleys as low as elevation 400 ft. msl. Center Hill Lake extends into the eastern half of Highland Rim which as a whole province surrounds the Central Basin. These streams exposed the Central Basin bedrock underneath Mississippian and Devonian formations of the Highland Rim. The formations of the Highland Rim are the Devonian Chattanooga Shale, Mississippian Fort Payne Limestone, Warsaw Limestone, St. Louis Limestone, Monteagle Limestone, and Hartselle Sandstone. The Fort Payne is the protective cap rock which preserves the softer formations under it while the Warsaw to Monteagle Limestones are also susceptible to solutioning forming caves and sinkholes. The Fort Payne is the surface rock at the western edge of the Highland Rim where Center Hill Lake enters the province. As one moves upstream and eastward, the Warsaw then the St. Louis become the surface bedrock. The Monteagle and Hartselle only occur at approximately mile marker 84, nearly to Great Falls Dam. The structure of the Highland Rim is simple compared to its neighboring provinces. The bedrock formations dip east off the eastern flank of the Nashville Dome. The jointing that occurred due to the uplift of the dome occurs much less in the Highland Rim. This means there are fewer branches for the water to erode the Fort Payne Limestone allowing the limestone to form the relatively flat plateau surface or the low rolling hills of the St. Louis Limestone. Karst terrain sinkholes and depressions, which are especially noticeable between Sparta and McMinnville. Numerous springs and spring-associated fish fauna typify the region. Natural vegetation is transitional between the oak-hickory forests to the west and the mixed mesophytic forests of the Appalachian ecoregions (68, 69) to the east. Bottomland hardwoods forests were once abundant in some areas, although much of the original bottomland forest has been inundated by several large impoundments. Barrens and former prairie areas are now primarily oak thickets, pasture or cropland.

The Outer Nashville Basin Ecoregion (71h) was formed by erosion. This region is the southern end of the Cincinnati arch, which extends from Nashville to Cincinnati, Ohio. Three major tectonic events uplifted the end of the arch into what is known as the Nashville dome. The highest structural part of the dome was located in Rutherford County, approximately 25 miles southeast of Center Hill Lake. The total structural relief at the crest of the dome was approximately 1,300 feet which corresponds with the top of the Highland Rim. The response of the sedimentary bedrock in the dome undergoing uplift, compressional loading from the deposition of the formations above, and flexure was vertical jointing generally parallel and perpendicular to the northeast oriented axis of the dome (follows the arch). The formations in the Central Basin are gently dipping Ordovician limestone with some shale members (Lebanon Limestone, Carters Limestone, Hermitage Limestone and Shale, Cannon Limestone, Catheys Limestone, and Leipers Limestone). These limestones are susceptible to solutioning; forming sinkholes, caves, open joints and bedding planes, sinking streams and other features characteristic of karst terrain. The erosion of these softer limestones forms the present-day Central or Nashville basin. The jointing pattern of the dome is the same jointing pattern in the lower reaches of Center Hill Lake, the river follows many of the main joint orientation when it makes the 90° bends. Due to the erosion of the Caney Fork, the Central Basin physiographic region forms a peninsula into the Highland Rim region which is why the shoreline of the lake is composed of steep ridges far into the Highland Rim province. The limestone rocks and soils in the Outer Nashville Basin are high in phosphorus, and commercial phosphate is mined. Deciduous forest with pasture and cropland are the dominant land covers. The ecoregion has areas of intense urban development with the city of Nashville occupying the northwest region. Streams in the ecoregion are low to moderate gradient, with productive, nutrient-rich waters, resulting in algae, rooted vegetation, and occasionally high densities of fish. (EPA, 2017a)

13

Topography: The topography around Center Hill Lake is different for the headwaters than it is for the lake nearest the dam. This difference is due to the different physiographic regions the lake exists within. The downstream portion of the lake from approximately river mile 58 to 26.6 (dam) consists of very steep, narrow ridge tops that drop abruptly into rather flat, narrow valleys or the shoreline. This area has a range of elevation from 500 ft. MSL (the old river shoreline) to 1000 ft. MSL. The highest ridge rising above the lake is 1065 ft. MSL between Little Hurricane and Second Creek and south of Lick Branch.

4.2.1.3 Soils Within the project boundaries there are three general soil association areas; Bodine – Mimosa – Delrose, Christian – Bodine, and Waynesboro – Christian. A soil association can be defined as a particular land area that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils. An association consists of two or more major soil series and several minor soil series, and is named for the major soil series. The three general soil associations and association areas are described below.

The Bodine – Mimosa – Delrose Association occurs on all project lands from the dam to the Sligo Bridge as shown on Figure 4. This association is made up of approximately 30 percent Bodine soils (on the hilltops), 25 percent Mimosa soils (lower slopes), and 14 percent Delrose soils (middle slopes).

The remaining 31 percent consists of a number of minor soils series; the Arrington, Egam, Lynnville, and Staser soils located on bottom land in narrow valleys, and the Armour soils located on foot slopes and low terraces. In general, this association can be described as excessively drained and well-drained, rolling to steep, cherty soils and well-drained soils that have a clayey subsoil. The association is typically located at the transition zone between the Central Basin and the Highland Rim. Limitations are severe for engineering construction, especially highways. The steep Bodine and Delrose soils are likely to slip and slide if cuts are made in the hillsides. Most deep cuts require excavation of several feet of massive limestone. The five major soil series within the Center Hill Lake project boundaries are described below.

Bodine Series. The Bodine series consist of cherty, excessively drained, strongly acidic or very strongly acidic soils. These soils are located on narrow ridge crests and hillsides in the highly dissected areas of the Highland Rim. They developed in residuum derived from cherty limestone. Slopes range from 5 to 75 percent. The soils offer fair to good stability, and are moderately productive. Major limiting characteristics include steep slopes, bed-rock outcroppings, and coarse rock fragments.

Christian Series. The Christian series consists of moderately deep and deep, well-drained soils on uplands of the Highland Rim. These soils developed in material weathered from limestone and contain lenses and pockets of siltstone, sandstone, and cherty limestone. Slopes range from 5 to 30 percent. Major limiting characteristics include steep slopes, slow percolation, moderately slow permeability, and a clayey surface layer.

Delrose Series. The Delrose series consists of deep, well-drained, cherty, highly productive soils on hillsides in the outer part of the Central Basin. These soils developed in material moved downslope from higher areas. Slopes range from 20 to 55 percent. The steeper slopes of this soil series are subject to sliding since 2 to 10 feet of creep material generally overlies a clayey subsoil. The only major limiting factor associated with this series is the degree of slope.

14

Mimosa Series. The Mimosa series consists of well-drained soils on uplands on the lower side slopes and the low ridges in the outer part of the Central Basin. These soils developed in residuum derived from phosphatic limestone. Slopes range from 2 to 40 percent. Major limitations include rock outcrops, steep slopes, slow percolation, and moderately slow permeability.

Waynesboro Series. The Waynesboro series consists of deep, well-drained soils. These soils developed in alluvium that washed from soils derived from limestone, sandstones, and shale. The alluvium extends to a depth of 5 to 20 feet and overlies the residuum derived from limestone or the limestone rock. Slopes range from 2 to 20 percent. The only major limitation to be considered is the degree of slope.

Soil associations within soil areas for the project area are mapped in Figure 4 and identified in the Legend. Select soil characteristics within each association are described in Table 5. A soils association is a distinctive pattern of soils in defined proportions that is related to a particular landscape. It typically consists of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil.

4.2.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Greater consideration would be given to land uses on areas with geological, topographical, or soil concerns with implementation of the proposed MP Revision. Updating project site assessments to reflect current and potential futures uses, as well as designating environmentally sensitive areas, such as existing wetlands, islands, and other areas with unique attributes or sensitivity, could prevent encroachment into incompatible use areas where soils, geology, or topography need to be protected. This reclassification would also reflect the best possible use(s) of project lands based on terrain, topography, access, etc. Implementation of the proposed revision would have no effect to the climate, physiography, topography or geology of the project but could have a minor, long-term, beneficial effect to soils on the project.

4.2.3 No Action Under the No Action alternative, areas of special concern for topography, geology, soils, and climate extremes could still be protected based on the 1984 MP and individual review of proposals. However, without special consideration, these areas of concern are more likely to be encroached upon or damaged. In addition, areas of special interest discussed in the 1984 MP would not be formally recognized as environmentally sensitive areas. Similarly, site assessments would not be revised to reflect more realistic existing and future site uses and areas of special concern would be overlooked.

15

Figure 4. Soil Associations in Center Hill Lake Area

16

4.3 Aquatic Environment

4.3.1 Existing Conditions

4.3.1.1 Hydrology The entire reservoir system in the Cumberland River Basin operates in a coordinated manner to provide multiple benefits. Under normal operations, water in storage is utilized to improve river flows and ameliorate conditions at various key locations during the later summer and fall low flow season. Runoff is captured and stored at the storage projects where it is slowly released in a controlled fashion when downstream conditions allow.

Center Hill Dam located at Caney Fork river mile 26.6 is one of four storage projects constructed in the Cumberland River Basin which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 (PL 75-761). Due to the greater need of a low pool for flood mitigation in the winter and early spring and the higher demand for hydropower generation in the summer, Center Hill is generally operated with a lower January headwater target of between 623 and 632 feet and a higher late May and early June target of 648 feet as shown in Figure 5. A plot of the surface area and storage volume of Center Hill Lake is provided in Figure 6. The elevations of physical components of the dam and the storage volume of the flood control, conservation, and inactive pools is given in Table 2.

When soil conditions are mostly saturated in the wintertime, rainfall events can raise the pool elevation by as much as 35 feet in a three-day period. The Center Hill pool of record was set on May 10, 1984 when a widespread storm event occurred at a time lake levels were higher near the end of the spring fill. The highest calculated stream flow on the Caney Fork at Center Hill before the dam was built was estimated to be 186,500 cfs on March 23, 1929 based on a drainage area ratio of the peak flow at the Silver Point gage located just upstream of the dam site, and the highest daily average inflow since the dam was constructed was computed to be 165,500 cfs on December 23, 1990. The official channel capacity control flow for the Caney Fork below the dam under normal flood operations is 30,000 cfs and this release has not been exceeded since the dam was completed in 1951. During the summer drawdown beginning in late June and extending into the fall, the pool is typically lowered by 16 to 24 feet to supplement hydropower releases during higher power demand periods. These summertime and fall releases during the generally drier part of the year also provide flows for water supply users, and support navigation downstream. The higher pool levels during the warmer part of the year also benefit recreation in the lake when the most swimming and boating occurs. Daily hydropower generation totals at Center Hill are specified for the next day by USACE Water Management personnel in the District Office, and TVA typically sets the hourly generation schedule with more generation normally occurring during peak power demand periods. Weekly hydropower production for the Cumberland River Reservoirs, including Center Hill is also declared to SEPA (Southeastern Power Administration) each Thursday for the following week by Water Management staff to meet minimum energy agreements which vary by month of the year. Using the hourly preschedule issued by TVA, the hydropower units at Center Hill are operated remotely by powerhouse operators located at Cordell Hull Dam using the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). Average annual hydropower generation at Center Hill was around 397,000 megawatt-hours between 1989 and 2006 before the Interim Risk Reduction Measures (IRRM) to lower the pool for dam safety were initiated in 2007. In order to protect water supply users in the lake, water is not released if it would bring the lake elevation below 618 feet, the bottom of the conservation pool.

17

Even though rate of change limits for hydropower generation are officially set to two units up or down per hour, in practice, the three hydropower generators are limited to one unit up or down per hour to prevent downstream bank erosion and due to safety concerns with recreational boating and fishing in the tailwater. During the late summer and fall, sluicing in combination with turbine releases is generally required to maintain the combined reservoir discharge at the state water quality standard of 6 mg/l of dissolved oxygen for cold water fisheries. The Center Hill Turbine-Generator Rehab Project authorized by Section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is in the process of replacing the original hydropower units with new aerating turbines which may reduce the need for sluicing to supplement dissolved oxygen levels in the future. The orifice gate is also frequently opened during the warmer periods of the year to provide a continuous release of around 250 cfs of cold water to support the downstream fishery. The station service generator (SSG) or “house generator unit” can also be used to release a continuous flow of around 50 cfs. Even though the official minimum flow is that resulting from one hour of generation within any 48 hour period, every effort is made to provide some discharge in excess of that every day for the benefit of the ecosystem and the cold water fishery downstream.

Due to IRRM for dam safety at Center Hill the lake level has been operated with a lowered summer pool target elevation between 630 and 633 feet since 2008 while dam safety work continues. The cutoff wall within the main dam has been constructed but raising the pool back to normal operations will depend on downstream risk computed once the roller compacted concrete (RCC) reinforcing berm is built below the saddle dam and fuse plug and deficient spillway gate electrical and structural components are replaced or upgraded. The 34.5 foot tall fuse plug consisting of a sand and gravel berm with a clay core and covered by riprap was constructed in 1996 to allow passage of extreme floods without overtopping the main dam by cutting the saddle dam down to elevation 658 feet and building the fuse plug on top of it which is designed to wash out when the lake level reaches 692 feet. The RCC berm currently under construction is designed to prevent a failure of the saddle dam due to concerns with underground piping.

Great Falls Dam located at Caney Fork River Mile 91.1 just upstream of Center Hill Lake is a small hydropower dam built by private interests in 1916 and acquired by TVA in 1939. The drainage area of Great Falls is 1,675 square miles or 77% of the 2,174 square mile drainage area of Center Hill. TVA daily computes an eight day release forecast for Great Falls Dam, but because the storage volume of Great Falls is only 54,500 acre-feet or about 7% of the 762,000 acre-feet of Center Hill, it is not uncommon for Great Falls to pass inflow during high flow events particularly during the winter and early spring flood season.

18

Figure 5. Center Hill Water Elevation Guide Curve

Figure 6. Center Hill Surface Area and Storage Volume Curves

19

Groundwater: The portion of the Center Hill project located in the Central Basin features Ordovician limestones underlying Chattanooga shale. Soils are comparatively shallow and contain fragments of limestone, chert, and quartz. Groundwater is stored in bedrock openings, soil-filled crevices, and in a few thicker patches of soil or alluvium. In this section of the project, there is less space for groundwater storage than in those project lands located in the Highland Rim. Geologic studies conducted before dam construction indicated that the Central Basin area substructure was characterized by small solution cavities, but no evidence of cavern systems was detected. Joints and cracks in the limestone formations permit water from rainfall to recharge the solution cavities, thus supplementing dry-weather stream flow. Soils in the Highland Rim portion of the project range from a surface layer of silt loam to a subsoil that is predominantly clayey chert with an average thickness of 40 feet. The thicker soils provide for greater groundwater storage than the shallow soil layer prevalent in the Central Basin. The surface of the Highland Rim area is pitted with oval or irregularly shaped limestone sinks and depressions. Groundwater may move freely through these underground cavities and faults. Approximately 87 percent of the wells in the project area produce good water containing no sulfur, iron, salt, oil, or gas.

The quality of ground water in the area is generally good. Waters are moderately mineralized, with calcium and chloride ions predominating, along with moderate concentrations of sulfates. Iron content is generally low. Although the concentration of ions increases during time of low flow, average dissolved solids have been recorded in the area at approximately 442 mg/l.

Figure 7. Average Monthly Rainfall and Inflow Comparison

20

Surface Water: The drainage area of the Caney Fork river basin above Center Hill Dam consists of 2,174 square miles of forest and agricultural land which is dominated by steep hills and narrow valleys. These conditions lead to relatively rapid runoff of typically high percentages of rainfall during the months of January through March with much lower percentages in the June through October time frame as shown in Figure 7 below with rainfall averages calculated from the Rock Island 2 NM rain gage located near the center of the Caney Fork Basin. Major streams entering the reservoir between Center Hill Dam and Great Falls Dam include Mine Lick Creek, Falling Water River, Taylor Creek, Fall Creek, Pine Creek, and Sink Creek. Major streams that eventually flow into the Caney Fork upstream of Great Falls Dam include the Collins River, Calfkiller River, Rocky River, Barren Fork River, Cane Creek, Hickory Creek, Bee Creek, Laurel Creek, West Fork Creek, Beam Creek, and Wilkerson Creek.

Figure 8. Tributary Streams of Center Hill Lake

4.3.1.2 Water Quality The Caney Fork River downstream from Center Hill Dam supports a put and take trout fishery. The Tennessee water quality dissolved oxygen standard for a cold water fishery is 6.0 mg/l. Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Caney Fork below Center Hill Dam are dependent upon conditions found in the reservoir. Typically releases are accomplished through turbine discharges for power production. As the reservoir thermally stratifies during the warm season, DO levels in the water column below the thermocline decrease at varying rates since any

21 source of reaeration is removed. Turbine discharge DO levels in the tailwater eventually fall below the 6.0 mg/l threshold at varying times depending upon a complex set of factors, including weather, discharge patterns, phytoplankton activity, and reservoir elevation to name a few.

The USACE recognized the problem caused by declining DO levels in the turbine discharges and during the early 2000’s enacted a series of modifications to ameliorate this problem. Hub baffles were added to all three hydropower units as were auxiliary air supplies. Another tactic has been to at times run turbines at reduced capacity. These measures can increase DO but are not sufficient in normal circumstances to maintain the 6.0 mg/l standard at or near the discharge point. Therefore, when DO levels fall below the 6.0 mg/l standard despite the use of all turbine venting measures, water is discharged through sluice gates from deep within the reservoir to mix with the turbine releases. Sluicing has proven effective in enabling the USACE to meet or exceed the 6.0 mg/l standard within a short distance below the dam (about 2 miles or less). In addition, sluiced water is typically colder than turbine discharges so there is a thermal benefit to the tailwater for cold water tolerant organisms, although the cooler temperatures have a detrimental effect to other aquatic organisms such as mussels.

The turbine venting measures in place should continue to serve as a stop gap restorative measure until auto venting turbines (AVT) or other sources of supplemental oxygen can be installed. The first AVT is currently being installed and tested. The initial unit should be followed by replacement of the two other turbines with AVTs. Specifications call for AVTs to meet the DO criterion within a very short distance downstream from the powerhouse.

A future consideration also is that a warming climate, particularly warmer winters and possibly wetter conditions overall will limit winter water column mixing and reduce ambient DO concentrations in the reservoir leading to poorer antecedent conditions even before the rigors of warm season stratification set in.

The issue of riverbed substrate dewatering during periods of reduced discharges has been improved by periodic usage of an orifice gate. An orifice gate is installed in a main sluice but is configured to provide a restricted flow far less than an unmodified sluice. Orifice gates provide a flow of approximately 250 cfs at Center Hill and are used principally to increase areas of wetted habitat in the tailwater, particularly noticeable where shoal areas exist. As a byproduct, the additional flows provided by orifice gate releases improve conditions for recreational boating/floating, an increasing visitor usage on the Caney Fork.

The Caney Fork River is the largest tributary to the Cumberland River. During the warm season (April-October) flows coming from the Caney Fork River via Center Hill Dam releases are important for maintaining adequate flow downstream on the Cumberland River and its associated series of navigation pools. Old Hickory Dam at Cumberland River Mile 216.2 is considered the water quality control point for Cumberland Basin system operations. Normally when desirable DO levels are maintained in Old Hickory Project releases, the downstream Cheatham Lake pool is adequately protected from harmful drops in DO. A minimum of 5 mg/l is the Tennessee criterion for warm water streams to support desirable aquatic life. Typically, if the outflow at Old Hickory is at 5 mg/l or just above, there is sufficient recovery potential so that DOs do not drop below 5mg/l and are usually observed to steadily rise due to algal activity and natural reaeration. The theoretical biweekly minimum average flows needed to maintain this standard in the reach below Old Hickory Dam have been estimated in Table 3 below. Actual flow requirements during a specific year may vary significantly from these numbers. Since there

22 is no significant storage capacity at Old Hickory to supply such flows, releases from the upstream storage projects, including Center Hill, would be used to meet this need.

Table 3. Theoretical Minimum Flows at Old Hickory Dam for Water Quality

Month Theoretical Minimum Flow (cfs)

April 2,000

May 4,900

June 7,600

July 9,100

August 9,400

September 7,4001

October 2,000

1Higher flows are necessary until Old Hickory Lake destratifies

There are eighteen actively sampled water quality stations for collection of physical, chemical, biological, and sediment contaminant data on Center Hill Lake and the Caney Fork River. There are six main stem lake stations, five tributary embayment lake stations, six inflow stations, and the tailwater station. Collection of Physical Water quality data by LRN Water Management staff is performed at least monthly throughout the year at Center Hill. Physical, chemical, chlorophyll-a, and phytoplankton data are collected during the spring, summer, and fall periods. Once every ten years, Center Hill is sampled intensively five times within a year. Benthic macroinvertebrates are monitored once every three years at six inflow locations and two tailwater sites. In order to examine potential contaminants from metals and organic constituents, sediment samples are collected in the lake once every five years at six different locations. In addition to field sampling by water management staff, there is a water quality monitoring gauge in the tailwater just downstream of the dam that collects continuous water temperature data and transmits the data every thirty minutes throughout the year. There is also a water temperature gauge on the Caney Fork River near Stonewall, Tennessee.

Water quality data that is collected manually as instantaneous measurements in the field is stored in the CE-DASLER database. Typically, field data reports are prepared and sent to

23 stakeholders immediately after the completion of every sampling trip. The automated water quality gauges transmit data via DCP and the GOES network to the CWMS database in the district office. Physical, chemical, and biological data records span from approximately 1970 to present and can be accessed at the following websites:

http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Water-Management/Water-Quality/ https://water.usace.army.mil/

Water quality is a primary concern within Center Hill Reservoir and the Caney Fork River; however, impaired flow from tributaries entering the system cannot be controlled by USACE actions at the project. Local inflows contribute pollutants in varying quantity to the pool. There are 41 reaches of stream in the Caney Fork HUC-8 watershed and 14 reaches of stream in the Collins River watershed (a tributary of the Caney Fork) listed on the 2014 Final 303 (d) list for impaired streams in Tennessee (TDEC, 2014). However, despite the impairments in the watershed of Center Hill, the overall status of water quality in Center Hill is listed as “good” by EPA and supports all designated uses: domestic water supply, fish and aquatic life, industrial water supply, irrigation, livestock watering and wildlife and recreation (EPA, 2017b). Table 4 below shows the number of reaches and combined miles of impaired streams (TDEC, 2014).

24

Table 4. Impaired Stream Reaches (2014 303 (d) list) in the Center Hill Lake and Collins River Watersheds Watershed # of Miles of Most common impairments Pollutant Sources Impaired stream Stream Reaches Caney Fork 41 344.31 Siltation, Alteration of stream- Pasture grazing1, (05130108) side cover 1, Municipal point sources2, Nitrate+Nitrite2, Upstream impoundment3, Low DO, Flow Alteration3, Abandoned mining4 Temperature Alteration3 pH/Manganese4

Collins River 14 175.06 Siltation, Alteration of stream- Pasture grazing1, (05130107) side cover 1; Specialty crop production1 pH/Manganese/Iron/Aluminum2 Abandoned mining2 E. coli3 Coal Mine Permitted Discharge2 Pasture Grazing3 1,2,3,4 Numbers are meant to match impairments with pollutant sources.

4.3.1.3 Aquatic Resources Center Hill Lake supports an excellent fishery due to adequate nutrient inputs. It has been noted for its walleye (Sander vitreus) fishery, however in some years walleye fall victim to DO depletion in the reservoir. Other popular game fish in Center Hill Lake are largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), white bass (Morone chrysops), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and crappie (Pomoxis annularis, P. nigromaculatus).

Common non-game fish present in the lake include: channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), spotted gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum), river carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio), and American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula).

Typical forage fishes located in the reservoir include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and the central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum).

The Caney Fork River below Center Hill Dam supports an economically valuable put and take trout fishery. Water quality restoration efforts undertaken at Center Hill Dam in the early 2000’s have led to improved DO levels in much of the river through use of turbine venting techniques and sluicing. In addition to the cold water fishery, the Caney Fork River below Center Hill Dam supports a benthic macroinvertebrate fauna capable of exploiting the continually cold water environment. Dominant organisms include midges (such as Chironomidae spp.), sowbugs (Oniscus spp.), amphipods, and a few other organisms. As is typical in an unbalanced aquatic community, densities are dominated by a few types of organisms. This type of aquatic community exists down to the confluence with the Smith Fork, however aquatic diversity of the benthic macroinvertebrate community gradually increases further from the dam, so that mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera) begin to appear in larger numbers. Throughout the 26.5 mile reach below the dam however the Caney Fork River remains profoundly influenced by the cold water discharges from Center Hill. The

25 pre-impoundment native mussel fauna is virtually extirpated from the river and is unlikely to return without a major change in the temperature regime. In addition, the cold water from Center Hill and two other upstream storage projects, influences native mussel communities in the mainstem Cumberland River below the confluence with the Caney Fork River.

Center Hill Lake has a surface water management program that would following four classifications: Restricted, Designated No-Wake, Fish and Wildlife Sanctuary, and Open Recreation. Acreages for each water surface classification can be found in Table 5.

Restricted These are water areas restricted for project operations, safety and security purposes. This would include the waters directly adjacent to the Center Hill Dam that are restricted during certain operational conditions. There are three designated swim areas that are open only to swimmers, and boat traffic is restricted.

Designated No-Wake Water areas designated to protect environmentally sensitive shoreline areas, recreational water access areas from disturbance and for public safety. Typically these areas are located around Commercial Marinas and public boat ramps. These areas are designated with guidance from state boating guidelines.

Fish and Wildlife Sanctuary Water areas with annual or seasonal restrictions to protect fish and wildlife species during periods of migration, resting, feeding, nesting and/or spawning.

Open Recreation The remainder of the lake is open to recreational use. There is no specific zoning for these areas, but there is a buoy system in place to help aid in public safety. Regulatory buoys are maintained by the Center Hill Lake Resource Manager’s Office, except for in marina areas where the marina operators are responsible for buoys designating their approved no wake zones.

Table 5. Center Hill Surface Water Designations Percentage of Water Classification Acreage Area Restricted 30 0.2 % Designated No-Wake 372 2.3 % Fish and Wildlife Sanctuary 0 0 % Open Recreation 15,989 97.5 % Total Water Surface Acres 16,391 100%

4.3.1.4 Aquatic Invasive Species Asian carp (Cyprinus carpio) were accidentally released in Arkansas during floods on the Mississippi River in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Both bighead and silver carp are at large throughout the basin. Substantial numbers of silver carp were discovered in the Mississippi River in the early 2000s. To date, they are abundant in reservoirs on the lower Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. They are most abundant the downstream portions of Lake Barkley but are

26 spreading through locks up the Cumberland River. Populations of invasive carp species are not currently at levels to substantially impact native fish populations in Center Hill Lake or the Caney Fork River. Since there is no lock at Center Hill Dam for fish to migrate upstream from the tailwater, the Caney Fork River would eventually be at higher risk for invasion by exotic fish species such as the Asian carp.

Historically, USACE Resource Managers, state agencies and adjacent landowners have tried to reduce the abundance and prevent the spread of exotic, invasive aquatic plants such as hydrilla, Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). However, exotic species are not as problematic at Center Hill Lake as those projects on the lower Cumberland River since the steep shoreline gradients, seasonal pool fluctuations, and greater water depths do not provide large areas of shallow water necessary to facilitate the species.

4.3.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision The aquatic environment, specifically the lake’s water quality and aquatic fauna, is less likely to receive direct impacts from a proposed MP Revision. However, secondary impacts to this resource would be realized. These impacts would be concentrated to the transitional zone adjacent to the shoreline. With approximately 3,898 acres of land classified as environmentally sensitive areas, impacts can be more easily avoided or minimized. Protection or conservation of these areas around the lake provides positive impacts to aquatic resources. Where these areas are islands or provide riparian corridors, benefits include canopy cover/vegetation, thereby reducing temperatures near the shoreline, increasing habitat at the water’s edge, and providing a source of detritus, as well as tree roots holding the banks in place. In addition, a wider riparian corridor with mature trees serves to filter runoff before reaching the reservoir. Overall, implementation of the plan would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to aquatic resources.

4.3.3 No Action Impacts to hydrology, water quality and aquatic resources would most likely be affected with increased land disturbance on adjacent, private lands, creating non-point source pollution from areas within the watershed, but beyond USACE control. Management of project lands would continue as outlined in the 1984 MP and the Resource Manager would continue to work with local municipalities and interest groups to alleviate concerns to water quality and the aquatic resources outside USACE control which influence the condition of the reservoir. The pre-1996 guidance would be maintained, which is not as protective of land and water resources as the proposed alternative. The No Action alternative would have no effect on aquatic resources.

4.4 Terrestrial Resources and Land Use

4.4.1 Existing Conditions

4.4.1.1 Vegetation The existing vegetative pattern is primarily a product of human alteration of the land as opposed to natural succession. The vegetative pattern is the result of previous timber harvests, farming, and livestock grazing. The Shoreline Management Plan (2012) and the Forest Management Plan (found in Part 1 of the Operational Management Plan), are designed to improve or maintain the vegetation surrounding Center Hill Lake. The vegetation on Center Hill Lake is classified by the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) (Figure 9), with the goal

27 being to understand the composition and vegetation of project lands using a consistent national system. Knowledge of what lands are available allows for better management of that land.

Figure 9. Vegetation Classification Acreage Records for Center Hill Lake, as designated by the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS)

Non-populated or unfarmed upland areas around generally fall within one of four forest types commonly found on Center Hill Lake: oak-hickory, eastern red cedar grove, mixed mesophytic, and cove hardwood forests.

Oak-Hickory Type. The oak-hickory type tends to be "dominant" in central Tennessee in that the representative species associated with this type have the ability to spread into and maintain dominance over other forest types in the area. In general, the oak hickory forest type can occur on all types of terrain on undisturbed landscapes throughout the project; from well drained, thin soiled slopes to dry ridges. The exact composition of a particular stand is determined by a variety of related environmental factors such as aspect, depth to bedrock, and soil characteristics. Dominant canopy species which characterize this forest type include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), black oak (Quercus velutina), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), black walnut (Juglans nigra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Common understory trees include redbud (Cercis canadensis), sourwood (Asimina triloba) and dogwood (Cornus florida).

28

Eastern Red Cedar Type. Next to the oak-hickory forest type, the eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) type is the most prevalent plant community on the project. The eastern red cedar forest type is prevalent on old fields and rocky areas that are too poor to support other forms of vegetation. Red cedar may occur in pure stands or it may include other woody and herbaceous plant species such as broom sedge honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.) and eastern redbud.

Mixed Mesophytic. Mixed mesophytic is a climax forest type that favors moist coves, lower slopes, flats, and hollows where the soils are deep, fertile, and moist. Species occurring within this type include American beech, various oaks and hickories, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum) and box elder (Acer negundo). Common understory species include pawpaw, sourwood (Oxydendron arboretum), redbud, and dogwood (Cornus florida).

Cove Hardwood Type. The cove hardwood forest type requires deep, fertile, moist soils that are found on lower slopes, creek bottoms, coves, and flats within the project. This type of habitat is generally limited to the heads of small creeks and streams that flow into the lake. Trees commonly found in this community type include sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and basswood (Tilia americana)

Open Lands. Only a small percentage (1.4% as shown in Figure 9) of the USACE property on Center Hill Lake would be considered as open lands, lacking forested vegetation. The majority open lands are most likely attributed to USACE recreational developments or commercial concessionaires, such as marinas.

As noted above several acres of project lands are outgranted to individual farmers for agricultural uses--cattle grazing and/or hay pastures. Natural regeneration and succession will occur on those leases that are no longer active.

Invasive plants occurring within project lands and waters are a concern. The Nashville District is faced with numerous and diverse issues concerning invasive species. These problems occur on USACE managed lands and waters and on USACE lands utilized for outgrants and permits. Invasive species are serious threats impacting wildlife and fisheries habitat as well as human health. They may impose enormous costs for eradication and management efforts. The management of invasive species requires steps to be taken against them. These include prevention, early detection and rapid response, eradication, and control. Early detection is a key goal in managing invasive species.

Invasive species have been introduced through routes called invasion "pathways." Transported by air, water, rail, or road, invasive species move beyond natural geographic barriers and inhabit new sites. By altering species diversity, hydrology, nutrient cycling, and other ecosystem processes, invasive species can change whole ecosystems and irreparably damage natural resources. Recreational boaters introduce invasive species by, for example, transporting vegetation on trailers. Table 6 is a list of common invasive plants that occur on project lands. Even though some of these plants may provide food and habitat for wildlife, the lack of plant diversity inhibits the wildlife and productivity.

Tree vandalism on public lands has become more common in recent years. Some encroachments occur from individuals or adjacent landowners failing to understand boundary line demarcations. Other offenses have been blatant violations. This not only results in loss of

29 vegetation providing habitat and aesthetics for the lake, damages incurred can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars to public property. The Center Hill Lake Resource Manager and project staff educate landowners and lake users on the USACE boundary line policy. Similarly there are several avenues instituted to address vandalism: warnings, restitution agreements, citations and court actions.

Table 6. Common Invasive Plants Trees Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin Durazz) Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa (Thunb.) Sieb. & Zucc.Stevd.) Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill) Swingle) Shrubs Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb.) Japanese Bush honeysuckles (Lonicera japonica.) Amur Bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii.) Marrows Bush honeysuckle (Lonicera marrowii.) Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.) Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora Thunb. Ex Murr.) Privet (Ligustrum spp.)

Herbaceous Plants *Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande) Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus) Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc.) Japanese spiraea (Spiraea japonica L.f.) Musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) *Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) Vines Climbing euonymus (Euonymus fortunei (Turcz.) Hand.-Mazz.) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb.) Japanese wisteria (Wisteria floribunda (Willd.)DC.) Kudzu (Pueraria montana (Lour.)Merr.) Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculata Thunb.) *aquatic nuisance species

4.4.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Center Hill Lake provides a suitable environment for a variety of birds, amphibians, and mammals. Given that Center Hill is a large, flood control project with over 23,000 acres of primarily forested land, the project provides additional habitat for feeding, nesting, and cover.

Major mammals found on project fee lands include: whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), squirrel (Sciurus niger and S. carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), coyote (Canis latrans), and numerous species of gamebirds-bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Numerous non-game songbirds, raptors, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals are known to inhabit project lands as well.

The State of Tennessee passed legislation in 1974 entitled the “Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974” (Tennessee Code Annotated, Sections 70-8-105 and 70-8-107) that contains a listing of animals considered threatened, endangered or in need of protection and management. The legislation is implemented by TWRA and the listing contains nearly 700 species of animals.

30

Also, the Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Program, a part of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Natural Areas (TDNA), publishes the state’s rare plant list. The ability to legally list plants as Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern is granted by the State of Tennessee Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1985. The list contains over 530 species of plants and fungi (TDNA, 2017). On 23 August 2017, the TDNA provided the USACE with a map of rare plant and animal species listed under the aforementioned State legislation. The map included species that were on Center Hill Lake fee/easement lands, or within a one-mile vicinity of the project. The species and State listing status are included below in Table 7. Species that are also federally listed were excluded from this table as they are described in Section 4.5 (Table 10).

Table 7. State Listed Species Within One Mile of Center Hill Lake Boundaries State Category Scientific Name Common Name Status Cryptobranchus Amphibian Hellbender D alleganiensis Aneides aeneus Green Salamander R

Haliaeetus Bird Bald Eagle D leucocephalus Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler D

Fish Etheostoma olivaceum Sooty darter D Typhlichtyhys Southern Cavefish D subterraneus

Flowering Acalypha deamii Deam's Copperleaf S Plant Allium burdickii Narrow-leaf Ramps T Allium tricoccum Ramps S Apios priceana Price's Potato-bean E Dalea candida White Prairie-Clover T Draba ramosissima Branching Whitlow-grass S Elymus svensonii Svenson's Wild-rye T Eriogonum harperi Harper's Umbrella-plant E Erysimum capitatum Western Wallflower E Erythronium rostratum Beaked Trout-lily S Juglans cinerea Butternut T Juncus brachycephalus Small-headed rush S Liparis loeselii Fen Orchis T Listeria australis Southern Twayblade E Muhlenbergia cuspidata Plains Muhly E Packera plattensis Prairie Ragwort S Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng S

31

State Category Scientific Name Common Name Status Large-leaved Grass-of- Parnassia grandifolia S parnassus Spiranthes lucida Shining Ladies'-tresses T Thuja occidentalis Northern white cedar S Trillium pusillum Least Trillium E

Non-vascular Palamocladium Palamocladium moss T Plant leskeoides Tortula fragilis Fragile Tortula E

Mammal Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat D Sorex fumeus Smoky Shrew D Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse D

Mollusc Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox R Helicodiscus Punctate Coil R punctatellus Lithasia geniculata Small Geniculate River Snail R pinguis Obovaria subrotunda Round Hickorynut R Quadrula cylindrica Rabbitsfoot R cylindrica Vertigo clappi Cupped Vertigo R Obovaria subrotunda Round Hickorynut R Explanation of State Status Codes: E-Endangered; T-Threatened; D-Deemed in Need of Management; S-Special Concern; R-Rare (not state listed)

TWRA has primary jurisdiction for wildlife management on public lands at Center Hill Lake. In order to implement state management practices on USACE property, lands and waters are licensed to TWRA for the purpose of implementing, operating, and managing a wildlife program. Lands managed by TWRA provide excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife species while providing excellent hunting and wildlife observation opportunities for people.

4.4.1.3 Invasive Terrestrial Fauna When possible, cultural, mechanical, or biological means to control invasive species will be used in lieu of chemical control. However, if populations pose serious problems, chemical applications may be required. Biological control is defined as the reduction of pest populations by natural enemies and typically involves an active human role. Natural enemies may include parasitoids, predators, and/or pathogenic microorganisms. For instance, three species of parasitoid wasps – Spathius agrili, Tetrastichus planipennisi and Oobius agrili, are reared and provided by the USDA as biological control agents for the emerald ash borer.

The USACE has coordinated with State agencies, as well as other Federal natural resource agencies and non-governmental organizations, to develop Policy Letter #32 as an appropriate firewood policy for USACE lands. Consistent policy and management actions among natural

32 resource agencies within a State are critical to delivering a clear message to users of public facilities.

This policy will prevent or slow the introduction and transportation of invasive forest pest and insects (such as emerald ash borer) to project lands. These pests are generally slow moving when left to their own movement patterns; however, all can move great distances as hitchhikers on firewood transported from one location to another. While the threat of pest movement exists with local firewood, it is greatly reduced.

The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, attacks only ash trees. It is believed to have been introduced into Michigan 15 to 20 years ago on wood packing material carried in cargo ships or airplanes originating in its native Asia. Since then, the destructive insect has been found in numerous states including Tennessee. Typically, the emerald ash borer beetles can kill an ash tree within three years of the initial infestation. The larvae (the immature stage) feed on the inner bark of ash trees, disrupting the tree's ability to transport water and nutrients. Adults are dark green, one-half inch in length and one-eighth inch wide, and fly only from April until September, depending on the climate of the area. In Tennessee, most EAB adults would fly in May and June. Larvae spend the rest of the year beneath the bark of ash trees. When they emerge as adults, they leave D-shaped holes in the bark about one-eighth inch wide. Extensive information about this forest pest, including photos of its various life stages and identifying damage to living trees, can be found at: http://www.emeraldashborer.info/ and other related web sites. In order to prevent the spread of the emerald ash borer, non-local firewood is prohibited in Center Hill Lake campgrounds. The closest confirmed finding to the Center Hill Lake area in 2016 was in White County, Tennessee.

Under the authority of Title 36 Rules and Regulations, Section 327.12(a), the District Commander established a restriction on Nashville District project lands that prohibits the possession, transportation, use, or storage of non-certified heat-treated firewood, or the current State limit, whichever is more restrictive, or from across State or national boundaries, unless the firewood has been officially certified heat – treated firewood. This restriction will be enforced by USACEstaff with citation authority using the lowest level of enforcement necessary, as per ER 1130-2-550, Section 6-2.f.

4.4.1.4 Land Classification Project staff completed a thorough evaluation of the identified recreation areas at Center Hill Lake. This evaluation included consideration of the 1984 MP use classifications and reallocating sites to the revised classification system now required by guidance.

Land Classification for fee property is the primary use for which project lands are managed. Project lands are zoned for development and resource management consistent with authorized project purposes and the provisions of NEPA and other Federal laws. However, the zoning classification of lands and waters has changed since the previous update in 1984. There are currently five categories of classification identified as: Project Operations, High Density Recreation, Mitigation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Multiple Resource Management Lands. Project maps delineating land according to the following classifications are organized by site number in Appendix B. Proposed acreages for each classification under the MP revision are listed in Table 9.

33

Proposed Classifications:

Project Operations This category includes those lands required for the dam, powerhouse, switchyard, saddle dam area, resource shop compound and other facilities that are protected by fences and/or gates. The management goal for these areas is to provide basic safety and security of USACE facilities to protect and insure proper operations of the project.

High Density Recreation Lands developed for intensive recreational activities for the visiting public including USACE maintained boat ramps, day use areas and campgrounds such as Buffalo Valley Recreation Area, Long Branch Recreation Area, Center Hill Recreation Area, Floating Mill Recreation Area, Johnson Chapel Recreation Area, Holmes Creek Recreation Area, Center Hill Dam Overlook. These could include areas for commercial concessionaires, marinas and comprehensive resorts such as Center Hill Marina, Hurricane Marina, Cookeville Boat Dock, Sligo Marina, Pates Ford Marina and Horseshoe Bend Marina, Four Seasons Marina, Hidden Harbor Marina, and quasi-public development. Quasi- public developments include The Retreat at Center Hill Lake, Joe L. Evins Appalachian Craft Center and Indian Creek Youth Camp Site. There are also two State Parks under this designation including Edgar Evins and Rock Island State Parks. After combining the aforementioned recreational facilities, Center Hill Lake has 2,379 acres classified as High Density Recreation.

Mitigation This classification will only be used for lands acquired specifically for the purposes of offsetting losses associated with development of the project. Center Hill Lake does not have any lands classified for this use.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas Areas where scientific, ecological, cultural or aesthetic features have been identified. Designation of these lands is not limited to just lands that are otherwise protected by laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act or applicable State statues. These areas must be considered by management to ensure they are not adversely impacted. Typically, limited or no development of public use is allowed on these lands. No agricultural or grazing uses are permitted on these lands unless necessary for a specific resource management benefit. Center Hill Lake is proposing to list 293 acres classified as Environmentally Sensitive.

Criteria for Environmentally Sensitive Areas • Federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. • Rich species diversity, large mature native tree species or ecologically sensitive plant/animal species. • High value as nesting, resting, feeding or roosting areas for sensitive neotropical songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles. • Visual buffer to adjacent private development, wildflower/wildlife viewing areas or natural landscape appeal. • Important water quality function – serves to buffer runoff for streams, wetlands and erosion sensitive areas. • Presence or high probability for presence of archeological, historical or geological significance.

34

Center Hill Lake currently has several identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, including various project islands (approximately 150 acres designated for unique aesthetic and habitat types), Davies Island (10 acres of the 594 acres site), Fancher Falls, Burgess Falls, and Window Cliffs State Natural Area).

Multiple Resource Management Lands This classification allows for the designation of a predominate use as described below, with the understanding that other compatible uses described below may also occur on these lands. (e.g. a trail through an area designated as Wildlife Management). Land classification maps reflect the predominant sub-classification (Vegetative Management, Wildlife Management, Low Density Recreation or Future/Inactive Recreation Areas) rather than just Multiple Resource Management.

Low Density Recreation Lands with minimal development or infrastructure that support passive public recreational use. The specific objective for these areas is to provide lake access for primitive camping, boating, fishing, hunting, sightseeing and other outdoor activities. There are 14 lake access areas (178 acres) proposed for classification as a Low Density Recreation area on Center Hill Lake. Table 8 provides a summary of these areas including site number, managing agency, acreage and development needs. All areas include a parking area (gravel or paved) and a concrete boat ramp.

Wildlife Management The majority of these lands, designated for stewardship of fish and wildlife resources, in this classification are outgranted to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) for the purposes of active wildlife management and public hunting or fishing, including: Edgar Evins State Park WMA, Britch Creek WMA, Davies Island WMA.

Vegetative Management Lands designated for stewardship of forest, prairie and other native vegetative cover.

Future or Inactive Recreation Areas Areas with site characteristics compatible for potential future recreational development or recreation areas that are closed. Until these lands are developed by others or funding is obtained by the USACE, they will be managed for multiple resources. If proposals for future development arise by state or local governments, further analysis of these sites would be conducted to ensure compatibility of proposed actions with statutory requirements. Only one area on Center Hill Lake, Cane Hollow Recreation Area (Site 181), which is approximately 114 acres in size, is classified under this designation.

35

Table 8. Low Density Recreation Areas on Center Hill Lake Area Site # Site Name Managing Agency Development Needs (Acres) South Shore Limit vehicular access to 220 USACE 7.2 Access Area shoreline Center Point 228 USACE 6.3 Improve Parking Access Area Puckett’s 233 Point Access DeKalb Co 4.7 Improve Parking Area Hickey Access 240 USACE 2.9 Repair ramp Area Improve Parking/limit Austin Bottom 241 USACE 2.1 vehicular access to Access Area shoreline Holiday Haven 243 DeKalb Co 4.8 Repair Ramp Access Area Falling Water 244 Retreat DeKalb Co 6.4 Improve Parking Access Area Still Point 247 DeKalb Co .98 Improve Parking Access Area White Co. Install Ramp/Improve 249 USACE 3.8 Access Area Parking Lakeview Mountain 251 DeKalb Co 2.8 Improve Parking Launching Area Pin Hook Install Ramp/Improve 255 USACE 4.7 Access Area Parking Aaron Install Ramp/Improve 256 Webb/Potts USACE 3.1 Parking Camp Access Putco Access Install Ramp/Improve 246 USACE 1 Area Parking Install Hwy 56 260 TDOT .5 educational/information Overlook* bulletin board *No boat ramp access; overlook only

4.4.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Classification or reclassification of project lands as proposed in the revision would allow proper designation of lands as they are currently being used or have future potential for use. By properly designating the lands, protection and most appropriate uses could more easily be accomplished. The revision also more accurately demonstrates the activities and actions project staff utilizes for implementing conservation and management of the land resources of Center Hill Lake. Potential impacts from land use activities such as vandalism and vegetative management would continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis and in accordance with existing guidance. Where vegetation is permitted for removal or alteration, impacts are minimized by what is allowable and conditions are incorporated that result in positive impacts such as additional plantings of native vegetation. In cases of vandalism, tree loss is remediated with replanting where possible or natural regeneration occurs.

36

Additional sites may be added as Environmentally Sensitive Areas in the future, or the designations may be removed if changes occur that would substantially alter the conditions for which a site was originally selected. Proposed designation changes, inclusion or removal of designation, would include notification to the public and federal, state and local agencies before final decisions were made. The intention of Environmentally Sensitive Area designation is to ensure environmental, aesthetic, or historic values of the sites are documented and considered in any potential decisions involving use of project lands and waters. Sites designated as inactive and/or future recreation areas (Section 5-04 in the MP Revision) would require further environmental review beyond the scope of the EA if development of the site for specific use was identified. Implementation of the plan would have a major, long term, beneficial effect to terrestrial resources on Center Hill Lake.

Table 9. Proposed Designation of Project Lands Percentage of Fee Land (above normal Classification Acreage pool) Project Operations 193 0.9 % High Density Recreation 2,379 11.7 % Environmentally Sensitive Areas 293 1.4 %

Multiple Resource Management Lands Vegetative Management 14,597 71.8 %

Multiple Resource Management Lands Wildlife Management 6,231 30.6 %

Multiple Resource Management Lands Low Density Recreation 178 0.9 %

Multiple Resource Management Lands Future/Inactive Recreation Area 114 0.6 % Total Land Acres 23,286 100%

4.4.3 No Action With no implementation of a MP Revision, there would be no classification or reclassification of project lands to better represent current or future uses. Project staff would continue to operate and maintain the lands and waters as outlined in previous planning documents. The No Action Alternative would have no effect to terrestrial resources.

4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

4.5.1 Existing Conditions There are currently 718 species of animal and 941 species of plant in the United States listed as federally threatened or endangered under Section 4 of the ESA (Environmental Conservation Online System, 2015). In Tennessee alone, 73 species of animal and 21 species of plant were listed as either federally threatened or endangered. Only five states (Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii and Texas) have more federally listed species. These numbers may increase significantly in the future as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) continues to list

37 additional species and critical habitat. For instance, in May 2017, there are 30 species of animals and plants in the United States (one in Tennessee) that are candidate species, for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability to support issuance of proposal to list but issuance of proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Another 29 species (0 in Tennessee) have been proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under Section 4 of the ESA.

Any Federal actions which may directly or indirectly affect a federally listed threatened or endangered species, or the critical habitat of a listed species, would require consultation with USFWS to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Consultation could be formal or informal depending on whether or not a Federal action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or critical habitat. During consultation, the potential effects of the action to Federally-listed species would be addressed.

A list of endangered species within USACE fee and easement properties on Center Hill Lake (shown in Table 10)was generated by using the USFWS online iPac tool. The list contains three mammals, five species of plant, and nine species of mussels, which may still survive in reaches of the river or historically occurred prior to impoundment. Also, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) which have been delisted from the Endangered Species Act, are present throughout the area (US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2017).

Table 10. Federally Listed Species Recorded in the Center Hill Lake Project Area Group Species Common Name Mammals Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Myotis grisescens Gray bat Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat

Mussels Pleurobema clava Clubshell Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean Pleurobema gibberum Cumberland pigtoe Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian combshell Dromus dromus Dromedary pearlymussel Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel Lampsilis abrupta Pink mucket Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose mussel Pleuronaia dolabelloides Slabside mussel Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase Plethobasus cicatricosus White wartyback

Plants Conradina verticillata Cumberland rosemary Apios priceana Price’s potato bean Spirea virginiana Virginia spirea Platanthera integrilabia White fringeless orchid Source: (USFWS, 2017)

38

It should be noted that although several species of mussels are listed in both the State and Federal species list, they have most likely been extirpated by impoundment of Center Hill Lake and the cold temperatures in the Caney Fork River caused by releases from the dam. A mussel survey performed by Lewis Environmental Consulting in 2011 concluded that the Caney Fork River no longer supports populations of freshwater mussels downstream of Center Hill Dam, only a few scattered, non-reproducing individuals. The report cited temperature fluctuations associated with hydropower generation as preventing growth, reproduction, recruitment and survival of mussel populations (LEC, 2011)

4.5.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Threatened and endangered species would benefit most from implementation of a proposed MP Revision with the designation of Environmental Sensitive Areas. With this special designation there would be limitations and restrictions to land uses that would further protect and conserve species of concern. The designations would require a more detailed evaluation of areas proposed for various public or concessionaire uses to ensure impacts were avoided and/or minimized. Implementation of the plan would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to endangered species.

4.5.3 No Action Threatened and endangered species would continue to be protected. In addition, sensitive areas would still be considered areas of special significance. Project staff would continue to work with state and federal staffs for access and monitoring of threatened and endangered species. However, without the MP Revision, there would not be a formal designation for Environmental Sensitive Areas to afford the species extra protection. The No Action alternative would have no effect to federally listed threatened/endangered species.

4.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources.

4.6.1 Existing Conditions The record of human settlement extends in the Cumberland River Basin to at least 10,000 B.C. In the mid-south, human occupation is generally divided into five broad cultural-chronological periods: Paleoindian (10,000-8,000 B.C.), Archaic (8,000-1,000 B.C.), Woodland (1,000 B.C.- A.D. 1000), Mississippian (A.D. 900-1000 - 1700-1750), and Historic (A.D. 1700- present). Cultural resources of all periods exist at Center Hill Lake (Gregory and Lowry 2012; Gregory et al. 2012). Archaeological sites include small prehistoric campsites, Woodland and Mississippian villages, and Historic homesteads.

Numerous Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations provide guidance on identification, consideration, and management of cultural resources on federal lands. The most prominent of these laws include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, as amended (ARPA), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1989, (NAGPRA), Executive Order 11593, and ER 1130-2- 540.

Prior to the inundation of Center Hill Lake, the Smithsonian Institution, River Basins Survey completed a reconnaissance survey of the inundation zone (Willey 1947). This survey recorded 39 archaeological sites that were easily identifiable on the land surface through the presence of mounds, organically rich midden soils, and dense lithic scatters. In 2008, site files were created from the 1947 survey notes that are curated at the Smithsonian Institution (Kerns-Nocerito et al, 2008). Additional cultural resource inventories for Center Hill Lake did not occur until 1998.

39

Most cultural resource surveys were completed in advance of a small projects or developments. However, a comprehensive shoreline survey of the lake was conducted in 2011 while lake levels were low in association with the construction of the dam cutoff wall (Gregory and Lowery 2012).

In 2012 (Gregory et al. 2012), a cultural resource management plan documents that 65 archaeological sites are recorded for Center Hill Lake. Sampling the shoreline suggests that sites within the drawdown zone lack integrity. However, the artifacts are still subject to the protections of the ARPA. Inundated and upland sites may retain integrity and developments in previously unsurveyed lands likely require additional investigations for NHPA compliance. In addition to the archaeological sites, the Center Hill dam and hydropower plant is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2012, a Historic American Engineering Record was completed and submitted to the Library of Congress (McCormick 2012).

New developments within the Center Hill Lake would likely require a cultural resource inventory survey to identify previously unknown historic properties. Information from these surveys would be used to plan projects and comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA the USACE shall continue a program that identifies, evaluates, and nominates properties to the National Register. In addition, the USACE preservation related activities shall be carried out in consultation with other Federal, State, local agencies, and Indian tribes.

4.6.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Management and protection of archeological and historic resources would benefit with implementation of a proposed MP Revision. Each request for land use would also be further evaluated to ensure consideration of historic resources. Coordination with Tennessee State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribes would occur as needed. Implementation of the plan would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to cultural resources.

4.6.3 No Action Management and protection of archeological and historic resources would continue without a revised MP. However, implementation of the proposed MP Revision would provide the greatest protection for these non-renewable resources.

4.7 Air Quality

4.7.1 Existing Conditions The proposed project is subject to the Clean Air Act, as amended (432 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards website: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl3.html provided state information effective June 12, 2017. The project area is in attainment with regard to national air quality standards.

4.7.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision or No Action There are no large scale activities implemented by the USACE that would affect air quality conditions or local area attainment status. Management of Center Hill Lake fee lands currently promotes, and would continue to promote under both alternatives, conservation of natural areas, which in turn, encourages vegetation that can help buffer air quality concerns.

40

4.8 Socio-Economic Resources

4.8.1 Existing Conditions Center Hill Dam and the majority of the reservoir lies within DeKalb County with the reservoir extending into surrounding Putnam, Warren, and White counties. The tailwaters of Center Hill Lake lies within Smith, Putnam, and DeKalb Counties. These five counties, or the primary market area, are considered the area of greatest impact and will be the focus of the following demographic and economic analysis.

4.8.1.1 Demographics Slightly over half of the population age 16 or older are in the labor force within the primary market area. More specifically, out of approximately 143,100 people ages 16 years or over in the primary market area, an estimated 71,950 of them are civilian (not in armed forces) employees. Smith County has the highest labor force participation and lowest unemployment rate of all counties within the primary market area at 5.2% unemployment, and White County has the lowest labor force participation and the highest unemployment rate at 10.5% unemployment. In comparison, the state’s unemployment rate is 8.4% and the national rate is 8.3%. Other labor force data for the primary market area can be found in Table 11.

Table 11. Labor Force Populations and Unemployment Rates Population 16 years Unemployment Rate Population 16 years Counties and over and over in for those in the labor and over Labor Force force DeKalb 15,336 52.3% 7.6% Putnam 60,062 55.2% 8.4% Smith 15,053 57.0% 5.2% Warren 31,540 56.2% 8.0% White 21,118 51.7% 10.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

4.8.1.2 Economics Table 12 shows civilian employment by industry for each county. The “Educational Services, and health care and social assistance” industry is the largest employer in the primary market area followed by “Manufacturing” and then “Retail trade.” These are the top 3 industries in the primary market area and together account for slightly over half of total employment. These 3 industries are the largest employers, in various orders, within each individual county with the exception of Putnam County where the “Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services” industry takes a slight lead over “Retail trade.” Notably, agriculture, forestry, and mining as well as the manufacturing industry have seen a decline in total number of employees since the original MP (1980 data). These drops in numbers are indicative of the advancements in technology and automation accomplished since the original study. In accordance with the original MP, Putnam and Warren still remain the top two employing counties within the primary market area accounting for nearly 65% of total employment. Among the different counties, future economic development is targeted in the manufacturing, healthcare, automotive supply, and information technology fields.

41

Table 12. Employment by Industry Industry White DeKalb Putnam Smith Warren Total Civilian employed population 16 9,769 7,409 30,346 8,121 16,304 71,949 years and over Agriculture, forestry, fishing and 259 146 294 322 525 1,546 hunting, and mining Construction 685 540 2,338 631 975 5,169 Manufacturing 2,102 2,170 4,033 2,064 4,265 14,634 Wholesale trade 198 273 853 230 430 1,984 Retail trade 1,005 813 3,526 818 2,277 8,439 Transportation and warehousing, 720 262 1,373 487 901 3,743 and utilities Information 83 95 353 51 225 807 Finance and insurance, and real 336 339 1,215 233 682 2,805 estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative 378 383 2,075 538 944 4,318 and waste management services Educational services, and health 2,226 1,457 7,633 1,510 3,121 15,947 care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food 739 369 3,972 448 684 6,212 services Other services, except public 373 288 1,379 424 612 3,076 administration Public administration 665 274 1,302 365 663 3,269 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Mean household income is highest in DeKalb County. White County has the lowest mean household income which correlates with the county’s labor force participation and unemployment rate. The primary market area has an average mean household income that is lower than the state of Tennessee’s mean which is $63,339. Tennessee’s mean is also lower than the national average which is $75,558. Overall, households in the primary market area are generating less income than the state and national average with the exception of DeKalb County which is higher than the state average though still lower than the national average. With lower incomes in mind, it is not surprising that the primary market area has higher rates of individuals whose income is below the poverty line compared to the state and national percentages of 17.6% and 15.5%. Table 13. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Individuals Whose Non-institutionalized Mean Income in the Past 12 population with no County Household Months is Below the health insurance Income Poverty Level coverage DeKalb $64,327 20.9% 15.0% Putnam $53,623 25.2% 14.4% Smith $58,478 16.3% 10.4% Warren $50,538 21.2% 13.8% White $44,595 19.6% 13.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

42

It is also not surprising that the primary market area has higher rates of those without health insurance coverage compared to the state percentage of 12.8% and national percentage of 13%. Table 13 provides mean household incomes, health insurance coverage, and poverty information for each respective county.

4.8.1.3 Recreational Zone of Economic Influence and Visitation Profile Center Hill Lake is located within 500 miles, or a day’s travel, of the main population base of the United States. Actual visitation to the lake however, consists largely of visitors across Middle and East Tennessee. Customer survey cards from 2004-2013 polled nearly 2400 visitors to USACE recreation areas around the lake. The large majority (over 90%) of the survey responses reside in zip codes within a 50 mile drive of Center Hill, with the highest concentration residing in communities immediately surrounding the lake. However, the survey data indicates that some guests travel from much further away to enjoy the lake with survey data from guests across the eastern part of the nation as far as New York and the Florida Keys. It should be noted that the surveys for this information were only done in Corps of Engineers recreation areas and does not include data from visitors via campground reservations or at the very popular marinas.

Figure 10. Density of visitor home zip codes based on nearly 2,400 customer comment surveys.

The overall trend in population growth for counties surrounding Center Hill Lake is increasing steadily (see Chapter 4.8.1.1 on demographics). Center Hill’s location along I-40 is right in between the rapidly growing metropolises of Nashville and Knoxville makes the lake an increasingly in-demand natural haven for city dwellers to escape and enjoy fresh air and blue waters. Based on population growth trends in the primary market areas, it is anticipated that

43 demand for recreation opportunities will likely experience a continual increase, and an increase in use of recreation facilities. Visitation to Center Hill Lake is discussed in more detail in Section 9 of this document.

4.8.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Implementation of the proposed MP Revision would accurately reflect project facilities inventory and conditions. In addition this would allow allocation of resources to project facilities that are used most by project visitors. This in turn addresses socioeconomic benefits gained from project visitation. Municipalities in proximity to Center Hill Lake receive economic benefits from visitors to the lake. Furthermore, the MP updating process has solicited and incorporated comments from tourism and recreation managers in affected municipalities and counties, as well as state officials who manage tourism. As project facilities are best managed to provide for recreation and environmental conservation, adjacent municipalities could continue to benefit from visitation. Implementation of the plan would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to socioeconomic resources.

4.8.3 No Action Under the No Action alternative, the MP would not be revised to accurately reflect current project inventories, classification, and future needs. Project facilities in need of reallocation would remain as outlined in the 1984 MP Revision. Therefore optimization of project resources would be limited. Economic benefits to surrounding municipalities would continue based on visitation to Center Lake.

4.9 Recreation Resources

4.9.1 Existing Conditions Visitors to Center Hill Lake are a diverse group ranging from campers who enjoy the three campgrounds at the lake, hunters who use the Wildlife Management Areas associated with Center Hill, day users who picnic and use playgrounds, marina customers accessing the water, and many other user groups. Visitation on Center Lake is at its highest during the months of April to September, and is significantly lower during the cold months of November to March (OMBIL, 2017. Visitation to Center Hill Lake is consistently one top fifty most visited Corps of Engineers lakes in the nation, ranked the twenty-third most visited in fiscal year 2012.

Table 14. Visitation Data by FY (Oct-Sep) Fiscal Year (October to September) Number of Visits to Center Hill Lake FY 1999 3,982,000 FY 2000 3,859,251 FY 2001 3,611,090 FY 2002 3,931,990 FY 2003 3,333,413 FY 2004 2,861,448 FY 2005 3,272,534 FY 2006 3,313,437 FY 2007 3,887,031 FY 2008 3,186,561 FY 2009 3,160,359 FY 2010 3,280,872 FY 2011 3,281,165 FY 2012 3,121,146

44

In addition to overall visitation numbers, utilization data gives a picture of how frequently the campground facilities are being occupied. Figure 12 shows campground utilization data for Center Hill’s campgrounds, Floating Mill, Long Branch, and Ragland Bottom. This data is from the National Recreation Reservation System (NRRS). Nationally speaking in FY16, Long Branch and Ragland Bottom were in the top 20% of most utilized Corps of Engineers campgrounds in the nation with over 600 campgrounds reporting use rates. The high utilization of these areas speaks to the value and importance the public places on these amenities and the enjoyment they offer to visitors.

CAMPGROUND UTILIZATION

53.78%

53.76%

53.13%

52.64%

49.55%

49.09%

48.83%

47.71%

44.13%

42.87%

42.85%

41.29%

36.82%

36.58%

36.18%

32.76%

32.20% 29.57%

FLOATING MILL LONG BRANCH RAGLAND BOTTOM

FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY17

Figure 11. Campground Total Percent Usage (Days Available/Days Occupied) by Fiscal Year

It should be noted that at the time of publication of this MP, the Corps of Engineers is undergoing a reassessment and modification of the way visitation counts are calculated across the nation. USACE visitation data is “frozen” at FY 2012, and no new visitation data will be released until the update to the visitation modification and collection processes are finalized. New visitation data collection will be more detailed and is anticipated to drop visitation numbers at Center Hill Lake and across the USACE based just on the new procedures used to collect and calculate visitation numbers going into future years.

4.9.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Recreation needs of the visiting public would be better accommodated with implementation of a MP Revision. Reallocation of facilities and services would be reflected in the MP by having an inventory and assessment that accurately reflects existing project facilities as well as those proposed to accommodate future needs and demands. If non-USACE entities expressed an interest in assuming operation and maintenance of existing recreation facilities, these requests

45 would be considered. With this consideration would be a case by case evaluation, including NEPA compliance and further coordination. Implementation of the plan would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to recreation resources.

4.9.3 No Action Provision of recreational facilities and services would continue at Center Hill Lake without a revision to the 1984 MP. However, the plan by which the Resource Manager and staff operate would not accurately reflect the current status of project facilities. Nor would there be additional measures in place, such as land use designations, to better accommodate recreational needs while protecting the natural resources. The No Action Alternative would have on effect on recreational resources.

4.10 Health and Safety

4.10.1 Existing Conditions With over 250 million annual visits, the USACE is one of the largest federal provider of outdoor recreation. Since a large majority of these visitors engage in water related activities, water safety education is top priority. The USACE in the Nashville District started an organization in 1951 that became the National Water Safety Congress. In the mid-1970's, the Chief of Engineers issued the first official directive for the USACE to amplify its water safety educational efforts after nearly 500 lives were lost at USACE lakes in a single year. In 1986, the USACE National Water Safety Program was started with a mission is to increase public awareness of boating and water safety through educational materials and products.

With public safety as a primary concern, Center Hill Lake implements the water safety program at the project level to reduce public accidents and fatalities through education, publicity, patrols on land and water and teamwork with partners. Education is provided through information in recreation areas, bulletin boards, posters, signs, banners, and brochures. The water safety promotional materials provided by the HQUSACE Water Safety Committee are used extensively to leave a lasting impression. Web pages (like the National Water Safety Congress and the National Safe Boating Council), fishing reports, and exhibits in the Visitor Center provide educational information. The Center Hill Lake staff routinely conducts water safety programs for schools, summer camps and various civic groups. Social media is also heavily utilized to disseminate the water safety message. The Center Hill Lake staff also participates in the Nashville District Water Safety Task Force to review ways to promote water safety, share information and develop strategies for reducing public accidents and fatalities at Nashville District lakes, locks and dams.

In addition to public awareness efforts, safety of project visitors and staff is regarded as the highest priority in daily project operations. Facilities and recreational areas are routinely evaluated to ensure sites are safe for visitor use. In implementing the Recreation Excellence at Army Lakes (REAL) program, safety is better achieved where resources are allocated to areas most needed. Project staff conducts numerous water safety programs and public announcements to educate children and project visitors about ways to be safe on the lake.

In coordination with TWRA, water safety hazards and no wake zones are marked with buoys. Park Rangers provide visitor assistance and work with the state and county law enforcement agencies to ensure public safety. The USACE and TWRA also provide water safety patrols on the reservoir.

46

4.10.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision As status and classification of project land and facilities are revised and future needs and demands are outlined, resource staff at the reservoir would be more readily prepared to address health and safety issues with a revision to the MP. As outlined, health and safety of project visitors and staff have been considered in the analysis of current and future needs of project resources. Therefore, implementation of the revision would assist resource staff in ensuring health and safety is addressed and would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to aquatic resources.

4.10.3 No Action Safety would remain highest priority for daily park operations. Projects and programs to promote visitor safety and awareness, and coordination with other Federal, state, and local agencies, would continue even with no implementation of a MP Revision. The No Action Plan would have no effect on project safety.

4.11 Aesthetics

4.11.1 Existing Conditions

Before completion of the project, a large buffer area of federal lands above the normal lake pool was purchased by the USACE. Thus, adjacent property owners are separated from the lake by several hundred feet of forested uplands in most locations. Management of fee lands on Center Hill Lake provide a wooded buffer between private lands and the reservoir, which significantly enhance the natural, aesthetic properties of the lake. Tree vandalism and other unauthorized encroachments on public fee lands can diminish the aesthetic qualities of the lake if continued on a widespread basis. Populations in Dekalb, Putnam, White, Smith and Warren counties are expected to climb as the rapidly expanding Nashville metropolitan area expands development in the entire region (See Table 15, Section 4.12.2).

4.11.2 Implementation of Proposed MP Revision Requests for outgrants of project lands are common and will continue to increase as the population in Middle Tennessee continues to grow. Private, individual use facilities are managed through the Shoreline Management Plan. Implementation of the proposed MP revision would reduce potential impacts to the aesthetics of Center Hill Lake through the designation of land use areas and amount and type of development allowed. By designating environmentally sensitive areas and limiting disturbance and potential uses of these sites, the aesthetic qualities of these areas would be maintained or enhanced. Therefore, implementation of the plan would have a minor, long term, beneficial effect to aesthetics.

4.11.3 No Action Center Lake project lands and waters would continue to be managed in accordance with the 1984 update. Without updating site characteristics and classifications, areas needing special attention for protecting aesthetics or opportunities to concentrate activities in areas already aesthetically disturbed could be more difficult. Federal lands on the lake would continue to provide a buffer between growing residential developments and the lake itself.

4.12 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would result from the incremental impact of the proposed action added to those of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the local area.

47

Geographical boundaries for this discussion of cumulative impacts are the Caney Fork HUC-8 watershed (05130108). Temporal boundaries established span from reservoir impoundment (1954) to fifty year’s future projection.

4.12.1 Past and Present Actions The Caney Fork River was impounded for the creation of Center Hill Lake. Initially authorized purposes for construction were flood control and hydropower generation. Other project uses such as recreation; fish, wildlife, and natural resources management; and water quality have also placed a demand on project resources. Project purposes for recreation and associated natural resource management is the focus of the MP Revision. Although many portions of the Caney Fork watershed remain rural, areas around the reservoir have experienced impacts from logging and agriculture for many decades. Figure 13 shows land uses in the watershed with forested areas shown in green, pasture/row crops shown in yellow and developed areas shown in red. Lands with bare rock, sand or clay (including mined areas) are shown in white and low intensity (e.g residential) development is expressed with orange. Open water areas, such as Center Hill Lake, are shown in blue. The image was generated from the National Land Cover Dataset (2011).

48

Figure 12. NLCD (2011) Land Cover Data for the Caney Fork Watershed

A more detailed breakdown of land use in the watershed is listed Table 15, which clearly shows the two most predominant land covers are deciduous forest and pasture/hay agriculture.

Table 15. Land Use in Caney Fork Watershed Land Use Caney Fork Watershed (Acres and % Watershed)

Open Water 21,394 (1.88%)

Woody Wetlands 3,864 (0.34%)

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 355 (0.03%)

Deciduous Forest 536,148 (47.10%)

Mixed Forest 48,424 (4.25%)

Evergreen Forest 71,127 (6.24%)

Scrub/Shrub 33,803 (2.97)%

Grassland/Herbaceous 45,012 (3.95%)

Row Crops 60,742 (5.33%)

Pasture/Hay 225,546 (19.80%)

Low Intensity, Residential 22,910 (2.01 %)

Medium/High Intensity Residential 6,741 (0.59 %) High Intensity Residential 1,826 (0.16%) Commercial/Industrial/Trans. Bare Rock/ Sand/Clay (includes mines) 2,950 (0.26%)

TOTAL 414,225 (100%)

Source: TDEC, 2016

Recreational usage and tourism of Center Hill Lake is high, particularly in summer months. As stated in Section 4.9.1, Center Hill is consistently one top fifty most visited Corps of Engineers lakes in the nation, ranked the twenty-third most visited in fiscal year 2012. As a result, the reservoir contributes to the local economy in visitor spending and local jobs. Associated with the high volume of visitation is use of recreational facilities. Many areas reach and sometimes exceed capacities for parking, camping and picnicking facilities. Boat traffic on the reservoir is often heavy, primarily during summer months and holidays such as Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day. Not only have numbers of recreational users increased, but the type of recreational equipment being used has changed. Vehicles, such as campers and motor homes, have become larger, longer and truly can function as second homes given their amenities.

49

Given these changes, the electrical, water and sewage treatment demands at campgrounds have increased to accommodate capacities. There has been an increase in demand for wider, longer ramps to accommodate launching vessels that are becoming larger and faster.

The public land managed by the USACE is a large forested buffer around normal summer pool of Center Hill Lake. Some lands have been managed for recreation with establishment of day use areas, campgrounds, boat ramps, etc. or outgranted to entities to further provide recreational amenities (such as marinas). Most of the project lands (see Section 4.4.1) are designated Multiple Resource Management Lands (Vegetative and Wildlife Management) and have remained relatively undeveloped. Long range management of the shoreline resources of Center Hill Lake are established in the project SMP (Appendix H of the Operational Management Plan), which provides definitive guidance and balances certain private exclusive uses of public resources (e.g. vegetation management, construction of shoreline structures, and shoreline stabilization) while protecting and restoring the natural environment. This plan undergoes review and revision, if applicable, every five years. The SMP was updated in 2005 and therefore is not part of this review.

4.12.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Based on projections from the University of Tennessee, Boyd Center for Business and Economic Development (Tennessee State Data Center), the counties surrounding Center Hill Lake are expected to experience moderate growth between current conditions and 2070 (UT, 2017).

Table 16. Projected Population Growth between 2018 and 2070 in Area of Review Year DeKalb Putnam Smith Warren White Tennessee 2020 20,206 84,087 20,833 41,446 28,541 7,112,424 2030 21,392 92,266 22,135 42,882 30,760 7,846,308 2040 22,180 99,455 22,970 44,168 32,206 8,546,535 2050 22,885 106,268 23,480 45,561 33,164 9,254,557 2060 23,890 113,397 24,119 47,845 34,233 10,046,955 % Increase (2020-2060) 18% 35% 16% 15% 20% 41%

Therefore, pressures on the lake’s resources are expected to continue. Carrying capacities for recreational facilities would continue to be maximized and/or exceeded, especially during summer months and holidays. In addition, damages such as water quality due to runoff, continued requests for outgrants, and encroachments on public lands are expected to continue and possibly become worse. Necessary precautions would need to be implemented to ensure the resources are not overused or damaged to an unacceptable level. The MP Revision is one tool that Resource staff implements to ensure optimal use of facilities and resources and conservation and protection of natural resources while providing recreational opportunities to the visiting public. Along with the MP, project staff will continue to manage project resources in accordance with project Operational Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans; these documents will also continue to be evaluated and revised as necessary to provide the most effective management tools to balance resource protection and public use.

50

Climate Change. Climate change is a topic to be considered along with project area activities and factored into discussions for resource availability and potential impacts and consequences. Lands identified as vulnerable to extreme climate impact (flood and drought) would need to be managed to protect natural resources and human safety. Although information available for review specific to climate change varies, most will acknowledge similar expected trends. Noted generally for the Southeast section of the United States, thus applicable for the Center Hill Lake project area, temperatures are expected to increase over the next century. Regional average summer temperature increases (assuming a scenario with steadily rising emissions of greenhouse gasses) are projected to be approximately 4.9o by 2055 and 8.5o F by 2085 (NCA, 2014). Trends evaluated more directly to the Ohio River Basin estimate average temperature increases to be 5-70F looking outward through 2055 (USACE, 2015).

Views on changes in precipitation are less aligned among scientists than temperature changes (NCA 2014). Most agree with projections of decreased amounts of precipitation and increased storm frequencies (USACE, 2015, NCA, 2014). Thus, the rainfall that is received within the Center Hill drainage basin would be in more intense rainstorms, resulting in sudden and more extreme flooding.

4.12.3 Effects Despite the watershed impairments listed in Table 4, the Environmental Protection Agency “2012 Waterbody Report for Center Hill Lake” (EPA, 2017b) assessed Center Hill Lake for the following usage categories: domestic water supply, fish consumption, secondary contact recreation water and warm water aquatic habitat. Center Hill Lake was assessed a status of “good” for all categories and an overall status of “good”. The existing water quality impairments increase the need to maintain a forested buffer surrounding the lake where fee lands are available. Land use practices associated with agriculture and commercial/residential development have improved from past years and should continue to improve in the future as new best management practices (BMPs) are developed. However, the scale of development and impervious surfaces associated with buildings, roads and parking lots are expected to increase into the future. New technologies afforded by modern recreational vehicles, emissions and waste management/containment will likely continue to improve and minimize impacts to natural resources.

Water resources in the region are expected to be further compromised with increased temperatures resulting in increased plant transpiration and water evaporation. Population growth will also likely lead to an increase in impervious surfaces, making the watershed more flashy and increasing flood events. Managing water quality impacts associated with flashy storm events, potential flooding and surface water runoff will continue to be a challenge for land and water managers.

Terrestrial resources, specifically naturally vegetated lands, surrounding the reservoir will continue to be resources highly valued by the public. Center Hill Lake, along with the other adjacent state and federal landholdings, provides tremendous recreational opportunities for the permanent and visiting public. Tourism for this commodity will continue to be high and an important economic factor for this region. Demands for recreational facilities and amenities will also likely continue to increase. Facilities will need continual repair and upgrade to satisfactorily meet visitor expectations. In addition, there will be conflicting demands for recreational opportunities on the reservoir and project lands. The continued requests for various uses of

51 project lands by municipalities and other interests will also add more demands on the limited project lands and waters.

A MP Revision would provide a tool for the Resource Manager’s staff of Center Hill Lake to ensure natural resources and project facilities are being used while minimizing impacts to the resources. Revising existing data to reflect current status and classification, as well as project future uses, demands and potential challenges, would better provide for accommodating demands for varying recreational opportunities while avoiding potential conflicts.

5 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Compliance with Federal Acts (Acts) and Executive Orders (EO) are summarized in Table 17. For those identified as “not applicable (N/A)” under Compliance, there would be no effect from implementation of MP Revision as it is a planning document. Future land and water use requests would be further evaluated in accordance with each Act and/or EO.

Table 17. Federal Act/Executive Order Compliance Act/Executive Order Compliance* Wetlands (EO 11990) N/A Prime/Unique Farmlands N/A Floodplain Management (EO 11988) N/A Clean Water Act Section 404 N/A Section 401 N/A NPDES N/A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act C Endangered Species Act C National Historic Preservation Act C Environmental Justice (EO 12898) C Clean Air Act N/A Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation N/A and Liability Act (CERCLA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) N/A Wild and Scenic Rivers Act N/A Rivers and Harbors Act N/A Climate Change (EO 13653) N/A

5.1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The USACE is required to coordinate proposed federal actions with the USFWS and TWRA under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq.). Coordination is initiated with a scoping notice and continues with review of the EA. Comments received are summarized in Section 6.

5.2 Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act requires the determination of possible effects on or degradation of habitat critical to Federally-listed endangered or threatened species. Implementation of a revised MP would benefit listed species. Individual requests for use of project lands would be evaluated and coordinated as necessary to ensure compliance with this Act. Section 7 (a) (1) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to " utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of

52 endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to Section 4 of this Act". Therefore, USACE decisions concerning land use and other actions such as water quality (dissolved oxygen, temperature, etc.) of discharges from Center Hill Dam consider conservation measures for these species. A more detailed discussion of threatened and endangered species on Center Hill Lake is contained in Section 4.5 of this document.

5.3 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, requires Federal agencies to promote “nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and environment”. In response to this directive, Federal Agencies must identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The final step in the environmental justice evaluation process is to evaluate the impact of the project on the population and to ascertain whether target populations are affected more adversely than other residents. Implementing the proposed MP Revision would not disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Project lands are available for use by all members of the general public. There are no known adverse effects to a minority or low-income population from the proposed changes to the MP. As discussed in Section 4.8.1, the median household income within surrounding counties of Center Hill Lake is, on average, lower than Tennessee’s average household income. However, low-income populations are identified using the Census Bureau’s statistical poverty threshold. The Census Bureau defines a “poverty area” as a Census tract with 20% or more of its residents below the poverty threshold. None of the counties in the study area met the criteria of a “low-income population”. According to the information collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, populations within this area are principally Caucasian (Table 18). Based on 2016 census data, approximately 181,908 people lived in the counties surrounding Center Hill Lake and approximately 171,521 or 94.3% were classified as “white alone” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). A more detailed illustration of ethnicity of citizens within the study area is shown below in Table 18. Based on this information, Center Hill Lake is not located in a low income or high percentage minority area.

Table 18. Percentage of Caucasian Residents in Counties Surrounding Center Hill Lake

County Total Population % White (Alone)

DeKalb 18,451 95.3%

Putnam 75,931 93.7%

White 26,653 95.8%

Smith 19,447 95.3%

Warren 40,516 93.4% Cumulative (surrounding 181,908 counties) (171,521 Caucasian) 94.3%

Tennessee 6,651,194 78.7% Data current as of July 1, 2016 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017)

53

5.4 Cultural Resource Requirement The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) provide provisions for the management of significant cultural resources on federal lands. The Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan for Center Hill Lake (Gregory et al. 2012) provides guidance for cultural resource identification needs and compliance requirements. Undertakings with the potential to cause effects to historic properties would be reviewed under the Section 106 process promulgated at 36 CFR 800. ARPA violations would be recorded, processed, and prosecuted, as appropriate. Currently, there are no outstanding NAGPRA collections. However, should inadvertent discoveries occur, then consultation with appropriate tribes would be conducted in accordance with 43 CFR 10 to determine the final disposition for collections.

6 SCOPING AND PUBLIC CONCERN

6.1 Public Involvement Scoping letters were mailed to state and Federal governments with jurisdiction by law or special expertise and members of the public (see Appendix A for mailing list.) This EA, unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and MP Revision will be circulated for a thirty-day comment period. In addition, a stakeholders group was identified to provide input into the most relevant and current issues surrounding Center Hill Lake. The stakeholders group consisted of local city and county officials, state and Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and others with high interest in the management of Center Hill Lake, such as marina owners. This group met on March 30, 2017 and provided valuable information for developing the MP Revision. An open house/public workshop is planned to be held concurrent with the open comment period to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the MP Revision.

6.2 Scoping Responses A scoping letter, which is included in Appendix A, was issued on May 1, 2017. Comments received from the Scoping Letter are discussed in this section.

Comment 1: On May 3, 2017 EPA responded to the scoping notice via e-mail. EPA stated that the revised plan should consider changes in land use and the potential for the water resource becoming an emergency water supply during drought situations. The e-mail further stated that the lake is not currently designated as a drinking water source and that the shoreline management plan should be part of the Master Plan Revision as it could impact water quality of the lake.

Corps response: Changes in land use within the watershed are considered in this document when determining potential land classifications for the Corps lands surrounding Center Hill Lake. The public community water systems of Cookeville, Smithville, and Dekalb Utility districts all depend directly on Center Hill Lake for a water source. The Center Hill Shoreline Management Plan was last updated in 2016 and is evaluated separately from the Master Plan.

Comment 2: On May 10, 2017, the Smith County Mayor’s Office requested that the Caney Fork below Center Hill Lake be kept at a stable water elevation rather than fluctuate to benefit recreational boaters and to prevent erosion.

54

Corps response: As stated earlier in this document, flood control and generation of hydropower are original authorized purposes of Center Hill Dam. Releases from the dam that cause fluctuation in the tailwater are often in response to precipitation events to prevent flood damages downstream or to facilitate hydropower generation.

Comment 3: On June 21, 2017 the USFWS responded via e-mail that they did not have comments but looked forward to reviewing the Draft Environmental Assessment when it was published.

USACE response: The comment is noted.

Comment 4: On August 23, 2017 the Tennessee Division of Natural Areas (TDNA) submitted a map via e-mail, showing rare plant and animal species listed on the State Natural Heritage Database within one mile of Cheatham Lake fee property boundaries.

Corps response: The information submitted by the DNA was used to inform Section 4.4.1. of this document.

6.3 MP Revision Comments Scoping comments to the MP revision have been consolidated in Appendix A of the document. The revision was made available for a public review period as described in Section 6.2 and 6.3. The Center Hill Lake Resource Management Staff also hosted two workshops where the public was invited to meet with staff and provide comments.

7 CONCLUSIONS This Environmental Assessment did not reveal significant onsite impacts with the preferred alternative, implementation of the proposed MP revision. By adopting this preferred alternative, the resources at Center Hill Lake would be allocated to best provide services for public recreation as well as ensuring environmental protection and conservation. In addition, classification and inventory would be revised to reflect the most accurate use of project lands. The MP Revision has evaluated past, present, and anticipated future uses of project lands and resources. Implementation of this proposed revision would provide the best representation of how the project can best carry out its authorized purposes while ensuring best use and conservation of all natural, cultural, and man-made resources. Specific actions and requests for work within Center Hill Lake project lands and waters would continue to be evaluated on a case- by-case basis and all necessary coordination with Federal and state agencies with jurisdiction would occur to ensure project compliance.

55

8 REFERENCES

Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html

Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Conservation Online System, Species By County Report. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Accessed August 6, 2015.

Gregory, Danny and Sarah Lowry, 2012. Archaeological Reconnaissance, Survey, and Testing at Center Hill Lake, DeKalb and White Counties, Tennessee. Report prepared by New South Associates for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District.

Gregory, Danny, Robbie D. Jones, Valerie Davis, 2012. Cultural Resource Survey Pursuant to 36 CFR 900, Caney Fork River Boat Ramp Project, Smith County TN. Report prepared by New South Associates for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District.

Kerns-Nocerito, Mechelle, Alvin Banguilan, Varna Boyd 2008. Report of Investigations: Archival Research Concerning Center Hill Lake. Report prepared by URS Group Inc. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District.

McCormack, Mary, 2012. Center Hill Dam, Historic American Engineering Record No. TN-45. Document prepared by the USACE Technical Center of Expertise for the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Structures.

Moore, G., & Wilson, J. (n.d.), 1972. Water Resources of the Center Hill Lake Region. Water Resources Series No. 9: Tennessee Division of water Resources. National Climate Assessment, 2014. US Global Change Research Program. www.globalchange.gov

NOAA, National Weather Service Forecast Office, Smithville, TN. Climatological Report accessed at http://w2.weather.gov/climate/ on December 27, 2018.

Steila, Donald and Thomas E. Pond, 1989. The Geography of Soils Formation, Distribution and Management, 2nd edition. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Savage, Maryland.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), 2012. 2012 305(b) Report-- The Status of Water Quality in Tennessee. Planning and Standards Section, Nashville, TN.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), 2014. Final 2014 303(d) List. Planning and Standards Section, Nashville, TN. https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/environment/attachments/2014-draft-303d-list.pdf

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), November 15, 2016. Final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for E. coli in the Caney Fork River Watershed (HUC 05130108) Bledsoe, Cannon, Cumberland, DeKalb, Putnam, Sequatchie, Smith Van Buren, Warren, White and Wilson Counties, Tennessee.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2017 (a), Center Hill Master Plan (Draft).

56

USACE, 2015. Recent US Climate Change and Hydrology Literature Applicable to US Army Corps of Engineers Missions-Ohio Region 5. Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS 2015-05, USACE, Washington, DC.

USACE, 2014. Value to the Nation web site at www.CorpsResults.us

USACE, Nashville District, May 2005. Appendix H to Park Management (Shoreline Management Plan). Center Hill Lake.

USACE, 1996a. Engineering Regulation (ER) 1130-2-550, Recreation Operations and Maintenance Policies. Chapter 3: Project Master Plans and Operational Management Plans. Washington, DC.

USACE, 1996b. Engineering Pamphlet (EP) 1130-2-550, Recreation Operations and Maintenance Policies. Chapter 3: Project Master Plans and Operational Management Plans. Washington, DC.

USACE, Nashville District, 1984. Master Plan, Center Hill Lake, Tennessee.

US Census Bureau 2017. QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts

U.S. Climate Data (USCD). Weather Data for Cookeville, Tennessee https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/cookeville/tennessee/united-states/ustn0107 . Site Accessed December 27, 2017.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017 (a). Ecoregions of Tennessee. ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/tn/tn_eco_lg.pdf . Accessed June 26, 2017.

US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017 (b). Water Quality Assessment Webpage for Center Hill Lake, Tennessee. https://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=TN05130108013_1000&p_ cycle=2014&p_state=TN&p_report_type= Accessed December 13, 2017.

US Government Printing Office, 2017. Public Law 113-121; Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ121 Website accessed August 7, 2017.

University of Tennessee, 2017. Tennessee State Data Center website. Boyd Center for Business and Economic Research, Tennessee Population Projections: 2016-2070. http://tndata.utk.edu/sdcpopulationprojections.htm Website Accessed December 27, 2017.

WeatherSpark. Average Weather for Cookeville, Tennessee https://weatherspark.com/y/15151/Average-Weather-in-Cookeville-Tennessee-United-States- Year-Round Site Accessed December 27, 2017.

Willey, Gordon, 1947. Appraisal of the Archeological Resources of the Center Hill Reservoir, Tennessee. Report prepared by River Basin Surveys, Smithsonian Institution.

57

9 LIST OF PREPARERS

Travis Wiley, Biologist EA Preparation

Valerie McCormack, Archeologist Cultural Resources Discussions

58

APPENDIX A

Scoping Letter and Responses Mailing Lists

59

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NASHVILLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 110 9TH AVENUE SOUTH, ROOM A-405 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37203

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: MAY 0 1 2017 Project Planning Branch

To All Interested Parties:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess impacts of a proposed revision to the Center Hill Lake Master Plan. Center Hill Lake was authorized for flood control, hydropower production, recreation, water quality and fish/ wildlife conservation. Center Hill Dam is located at mile 26.6 of the Caney Fork River, near Lancaster, Tennessee (Figure 1) and Center Hill Lake extends 64 river miles upstream to Great Falls Dam, near Rock Island, Tennessee. The project contains approximately 37,721 acres of public land and 18,220 acres of water at normal summer pool elevation of 648' above mean sea level. Project lands and water provide recreation and natural resources to the public.

The Center Hill Lake Master Plan was last updated in 1984. This document serves as a guide for coordination of project development and management of all project land and water resources. The intent of an updated Master Plan is to present a current inventory and assessment of resources, provide an analysis of resource use, and evaluate existing and future needs required to protect and improve the value of resources at Center Hill Lake.

By way of this letter, we are soliciting public and agency comments concerning social and environmental issues that should be addressed. We encourage comments not only about project lands and waters, but also of plans or proposals for any other development that may impact or influence project resources.

The following alternatives will be evaluated: Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 - (Revision of the Existing Master Plan). The term "No Action" means that there would be no change to the existing 1984 Master Plan and no new resource classification, assessment, and inventory would occur. Revising the Master Plan would mean permanent changes to the existing document.

This letter also serves to initiate public involvement that is an integral part of supplementing or updating Nashville District project master plans. This evaluation will not include the Center Hill Lake Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) which outlines private use of project lands and waters. The SMP was updated in 2005 and included public input; therefore, this management plan will not be revisited in the Master Plan update. - 2-

If you have any information, comments, or questions concerning the EA, please submit written comments no later than 30 days from the date of this letter to ensure consideration in the EA. Send your written comments to the address above, ATTN: CELRN-PM-P (Travis Wiley), or email your commentsto [email protected]. If you have comments or questions specific to Center Hill Lake, you can contact the Resource Manager's Office at (931) 858-3125. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, c.,\:) .c ...~. Craig 0 . Carrington Acting Chief, Project Planning Branch -3-

ll_i! <~ ~ Cf\cs~Jull I Mwn- { _ ,' t ,\~""'~~ ' 1_ '":: .:..l v. ~ · ~ · I""'•I I' I !

' l!..!:. i ' ' ',

, ' ' I ' 5 10 I/ 2.5 --+---..des-[__-;--_ ~

"'" ' ' · Map Figure.• 1 · Center H'llI Lake Vicinity From: Long, Larry To: Wiley, Travis A CIV USARMY CELRN (US) Cc: Militscher, Chris Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Center Hill Lake Master Plan Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 11:57:29 AM

Travis:

I have reviewed the Army Corps’ one-page solicitation for public comments in reference to the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Center Hill Lakes Master Plan. The Region 4 NEPA Office provides the following comments for your considerations. The request letter state that this document will “…serve as a guide for coordination of project development and management of all project land and water resources..”, with “the intent to present the current inventory and assessment of resources…” We would request that the updated plan also conduct the evaluation as a comparison of the 1984 Master Plan alternative with the new Master Plan. The new plan could consider the changes in land uses, the potential for the water resource becoming an emergency drinking water supply during future extreme or drought situations, and how the current land use and potential future uses would be impacted. We note that the lake is not currently designated as a drinking water source. We would also like to point out that the Center Hill Lake Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) has the potential to directly and indirectly impact water quality of the lake and should be part of the evaluation for the Center Hill Lake Master Plan. Please provide us with a copy (electronic, CD or hardcopy) of the EA when it becomes available.

Thank you for your time.

Larry Long

Physical Scientist/Sr. Principle Reviewer

NEPA Resource Conservation & Restoration Division EPA Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404-562-9460

404-562-9598(FAX) [email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is being sent by or on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is intended exclusively for the individuals(s) or entity(s) to whom or to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempted from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete all copies of the message. From: Michael Nesbitt To: Wiley, Travis A CIV USARMY CELRN (US) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:04:43 PM

Travis,

I would like to comment on the Center Hill Lake Master Plan.

The Caney Fork River is a great asset for Smith County for kayaks and canoes. It would be good for both kayakers and canoers to have a stable water elevation instead of the high and low water level. This would also help with erosion on the Caney Fork River Stream Banks. There is a continued need to clear downed trees from the river and cleanup of Tires and Litter.

Smith County Mayor

Michael F Nesbitt This map should not be used to determine where rare species are absent. Many areas of Tennessee have not Rare Species Observations Within One Mile been surveyed for rare species. Turquoise polygons represent the most probable location of a rare plant or Center Hill Lake - US Army Corps of Engineers animal population. In general, the larger polygons represent observations with high locational uncertainty. Date: 8/23/2017 SSvveennssoonn''ss Water Stitchwort Fanshell Prairie Pink Mucket Limestone Sheepnose Ragwort WWiilldd--rryyee Blue Star Fragile Tortula Round Hickorynut Clubshell Slabside Spectaclecase Pearlymussel Western Branching Svenson's Wild-rye Wallflower Whitlow-grass Sooty Darter Rabbitsfoot Harper''s Umbrelllla-pllant Cumberland Bean Meadow Dromedary Pearlymussel Jumping Price's Potato-bean Mouse Snuffbox Armored Rocksnail Cumberlandian Combshell Northern Harper's Umbrella-plant White Wartyback Harper''s Umbrelllla-pllant White Cedar Rabbitsfoot Narrow-leaf Ramps CCCeeerrruruullleeleaaannn W WWaaarrrbrbbllleelerrrr Mountain Fen Orchis Honeysuckle Ramps Beaked Trout-lily Western Wallflower Plains Muhly

Cerulean Warbler Butternut Bald Eagle American Ginseng Allegheny Deam's Copperleaf Woodrat

GGrraayy MMyyoottiiss Least Trillium

Svenson's Wild-rye CCCeeerrruuulleleeaaannn WWWaaarrrbbblleleerrr Allegheny Woodrat Green Salamander Shorrtt Mounttaiin Crrayffiish Branching Whitlow-grass Short Mountain Crayfish Short Mountain Crayfish r e f f u B

e l i M Gray Myotis Butternut e Smoky Shrew n O Allegheny Woodrat Large-leaved Grass-of-parnassus Short Mountain Crayfish Short Mountain Crayfish American Ginseng

Punctate Coil Shining Ladies'-tresses Cupped Vertigo White Prairie-clover Small-headed Rush Southern Cavefish

0 2.5 5 Hellbender Small Geniculate River Snail I Miles Southern Twayblade A Moss TENNESSEE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Rare Species William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2 Floor Center Hill Lake Property Boundary Nashville, TN 37243 Phone: (615) 532-4799

APPENDIX B

Project Land Use Classification Maps

60

Legend of Classifications High Density Recreation WS-Open Recreation Project Operations WS-Designated No-Wake Environmentally Sensitive Area WS-Fish and Wildlife Sanctuary MR-Future/Inactive Recreation Area WS-Restricted MR-Low Density Recreation Flowage Easement MR-Vegetative Management Operations Easement MR-Wildlife Management 4/18/2018

99 101 235 102 103

240 104 306

439 104 104

656 241 438 655 113 260 314 437 104 181 115 246 110 436 104b 335 251 652 652

652 244 121 322 311 652 654

233 220

243

125

183 327

182

334 253

Center Hill Area Labels High Density Recreation Environmentally Sensitive Area 101 - Buffalo Valley Recreation Area 652 - Davies Island 102 - Long Branch Recreation Area 654 - Fancher Falls 103 - Center Hill Recreation Area 655 - Adjacent to Burgess Falls State Natural Area 104 - Edgar Evins State Park 656 - Window Cliffs State Natural Area 255 256 104b - Indian Creek Ramp Not Labeled - Islands 113 - Floating Mill Recreation Area MR-Future/Inactive Recreation Area 115 - Hurricane Bridge Recreation Area 181 - Cane Hollow 121 - Johnson's Chapel MR-Low Density Recreation 249 125 - Ragland Bottom Recreation Area 220 - South Shore Access Area 329 247 132 - Rock Island State Park 228 - Three Island Access Area 235 - Center Hill Dam Overlook 233 - Puckett's Point Access Area 253 - Dubland Launching Area 240 - Hickey Access Area 306 - Center Hill Marina & Yacht Club 241 - Austin Bottom Access Area 311 - Holmes Creek Recreation Area 243 - Holiday Haven Access Area 314 - Hurricane Marina 244 - Falling Water Retreat Access Area 228 322 - Cookeville Boat Dock 246 - Putco Access Area 327 - Sligo Marina 247 - Still Point Access Area 329 - Pates Ford Resort and Marina 249 - White County Access Area 331 - Horseshoe Bend Marina 251 - Lakeview Mountain Access Area 334 - Four Seasons Marina 255 - Pin Hook Access Area 335 - Hidden Harbor Marina 256 - Aaron Webb/Potts Camp Access Area 436 - The Retreat at Center Hill Lake 260 - Highway 56 Overlook 331 437 - Joe L Evins Appalachian Center for Craft 439 - Cove Hollow 438 - Indian Creek Youth Camp MR-Vegetative Management Project Operations 182 - Cane Hollow Proposed Recreation Area 99 - Center Hill Damsite 110 - Holmes Creek 132 Not Labeled - Other Areas MR - Wildlife Management 104 - Edgar Evins State Park WMA 183 - Britch Creek WMA 652 - Davies Island WMA Not Labeled - Other Areas ¬