United States Department of Environmental Agriculture Forest Assessment Service June 2007 Buck Bald Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts, Cherokee National Forest Polk and Monroe Counties, Tennessee For Information Contact: Janan Hay 250 Ranger Station Road Tellico Plains, TN 37385 423-253-8405 southernregion.fs.fed.us/cherokee The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Document Structure .................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 9 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 9 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 17 Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ............................................................. 18 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 18 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...................................................................................... 19 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................... 19 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 20 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 21 Biological Factors ..................................................................................................................... 22 Social/Economic Factors ........................................................................................................... 64 Physical Factors ........................................................................................................................ 79 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................... 98 References ................................................................................................................... 100 i INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: • Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of analysis-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tellico Ranger District Office in Tellico Plains, TN. Background _____________________________________ The following information is derived from the Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) (USDA 2004a) and the Upper Hiwassee River Watershed Assessment (USDA Unpublished); key points pertinent to the Buck Bald Area are recapped here. For millennia the Southern Appalachian forest ecosystem, of which the Cherokee National Forest and this analysis area (Compartments 114, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 137 which are located, roughly, five miles south of Tellico Plains, TN - see Figure 1) are a 1 Figure 1. Vicinity Map 2 part, existed in a state of dynamic equilibrium. The permanent composition of most forest canopy types was determined spatially by the natural factors of slope, elevation, aspect, soil characteristics, and canopy shade. Forest canopy composition on dry ridge crests and slopes was influenced by these same factors but also by low-intensity fire. Euro-American land-use practices carried out during the late 19th and early 20th centuries significantly altered the forest ecosystem. These activities and their effects were not discrete but cumulative. Among the more destructive practices were unregulated logging; intensive, cyclical, fires instigated for grazing and wildlife habitat improvement; extirpation of native wildlife species (beaver, otter, and passenger pigeon); and introduction of non-native diseases (chestnut blight). Collectively, the massive adverse environmental effects these practices and land-use patterns produced compelled the acquisition of much of the Southern Appalachian Mountains by the Forest Service in order to halt the rampant environmental degradation. The most significant historic effects of Forest Service management have been: restoring and maintaining watersheds; managing wildlife habitats; abating soil erosion and restoring duff layers; suppressing fires; and managing a sustained-yield merchantable timber program. The present canopy composition and regime have been altered significantly as a consequence of these past land management practices. White pine, a fire-intolerant species, which grew best in moist coves and northern aspects of lower slopes, is now found reproducing generally throughout the forest. While, fire-tolerant or “fire-dependant” species such as shortleaf, pitch and table mountain pine, previously documented in the canopies of the dry ridge crests often as “pure” canopy types (>66%) have now been much reduced or virtually extirpated from their former sites. The presence today of prolifically-seeding, fast-growing, fire- and shade intolerant, short-lived Virginia pine in the canopy of much of the Southern Appalachians clearly illustrates the effects these past activities and historic management policies have had on the forest ecosystem. Virginia pine was documented as a minor component of the canopy types of the upper slopes and ridge crests. It was, typically, a minor, species in the forest canopy, serving, like locust and pin cherry, as a temporary type that occupied places of “intermission” in the regime of the canopy types resulting from disturbance events. Its emergence in the forest canopy subsequent to Euro- American-induced disturbances, serves as a benchmark for the overall alteration of the ecosystem. As a consequence of unregulated logging and fire suppression, literally tens of thousands of acres are covered with Virginia pine. As these trees succumb to southern pine beetles or die of old age they, increase the fire fuel load on sites where fire would normally not be a significant factor. Game habitat management has been both a mandate and an important function of national forest land management since the inception of the agency. Hunting was an integral use of the forest prior to acquisition into the National