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