Devil’s Backbone Project Proposal for Notice and Comment

U.S. Forest Service

Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area

January 2009

/s/ William P. Lisowksy January 16, 2009 William P. Lisowsky Date Area Supervisor

Table of Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4

Document Structure ................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 5 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 6 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................. 8 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................... 8 Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Alternatives, including the Proposed Action .............................................................. 9 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 9 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives .................................................................................. 13 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 14 How to Comment …………………………………………………………………….………..15

2

SUMMARY The Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area (LBL) proposes to do the following in Alternative 2 for The Devil’s Backbone Project: - Amend the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). This amendment would increase the acreage of the designated State Natural Area and shortleaf pine cover type listed in objective 5f on page 53. - Implement integrated vegetation treatments which includes timber harvests, fire, site preparation with herbicide, and non-commercial thinning to diversify habitat conditions associated with the native shortleaf pine community at Devil’s Backbone - Herbicide control and monitoring of non-native invasive species (NNIS) within the project area - Improve dispersed recreational opportunities for sections of the existing Fort Henry Trail System - Integrate environmental education into LBL’s natural resource management The project area is located in Stewart County, Tennessee, south of the Fort Henry Road, east of Artillery Trail, north of U.S. Hwy. 79, and west of the south fork of Panther Creek.

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service is also evaluating the following alternatives:

Alternative 1; the "no action" alternative. Under this alternative, there would be no plan amendment, timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, NNIS control, prescribed fire, or any other proposed activity in the project area. Alternative 3; the “reduced management” alternative; There would be no plan amendment, but timber harvest, prescribed burning, site preparation, and NNIS treatment would occur at a reduced scale. All recreation and environmental education actions would be the same as Alternative 2.

Environmental impacts and effects related to all alternatives will be addressed in the Devil’s Backbone Project Environmental Assessment (EA).

3

INTRODUCTION Document Structure The Forest Service is preparing this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA will disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into two parts:

• Introduction: This 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 issues raised by the public, the Forest Service, 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.

• How to Comment: This section explains and gives specific information on how and

when comments should be submitted in response to this proposal. Definitions of forestry terms can be found in “The Dictionary of Forestry” published by the Society of American Foresters.

Background Shortleaf pine (Pinus enchiata) is a declining species not only at LBL where it occurs in the southwest portion of the national recreation area, but also, across its natural range. The proposed project area is recognized as a Tennessee State Natural Area (SNA) and is managed in cooperation with the State of Tennessee to restore and promote the shortleaf pine community.

A lack of disturbance within the project area has led to a gradual succession of shortleaf pine dominated stands to the upland oak forest types. Historically, fire was the primary disturbance regime that established and maintained favorable site conditions for southern yellow pine species, including shortleaf pine. In removing the leaf litter and exposing areas of bare mineral soil, the disturbance enhanced soil/site conditions for sufficient shortleaf pine regeneration. It is also likely that previous land use, such as timber removal, created a disturbance regime favorable to shortleaf pine over upland hardwood species within the project area.

4

Even after shortleaf pine regeneration is established, fire stills plays a critical role in perpetuating shortleaf pine as a dominate feature of the landscape. Many hardwood species, particularly within the sapling stage, have a thin bark that is more susceptible to heat induced above-ground mortality. The thicker bark of shortleaf pine is better adapted to withstand this heat, thereby giving it a competitive advantage over hardwoods during and after the passing of a fire through the forest. This disturbance cycle would have produced canopy openings of various shapes and sizes. Periodic burning thereby creates conditions that facilitate the recruitment of shortleaf pine (a shade intolerant species) into the canopy layer before being suppressed by canopy closure. This would have resulted in a patchy, uneven-aged forest with several age classes and structure types represented along the various topographic matrices. Understory composition would have included dense patches of shortleaf pine regeneration in some areas with other areas covered in a herbaceous assemblage that was numerous in both species diversity and richness.

Fire suppression policies of the last century have hindered fire in performing its natural ecological role in the now relic shortleaf pine forest. As a result, the more shade tolerant hardwoods have succeeded into the understory beneath the remnants of the shortleaf pine canopy. A landscape in which fire is allowed to burn as part of a natural disturbance process will eventually discourage much of the upland hardwood regeneration. Since, fuel loads and fire regimes have been altered for decades, prescribed burning alone in this area is not a strong enough agent of change to affect shortleaf pine regeneration within a reasonable time frame.

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this initiative is to: 1) Amend Objective 5f on page 53 of the 2004 LBL LRMP A detailed field survey in the summer of 2007 revealed that there were more isolated pockets of scattered shortleaf pine located around Devil’s Backbone SNA than accounted for in both the 1988 SNA agreement and in the LRMP. Because of this, the Forest Service and the State of TN, mutually agreed to expand the size of the SNA designation in early 2008. The current LRMP does not include this larger SNA or the greater opportunity for shortleaf pine promotion in the area. 2) Regenerate and improve stand composition associated with the only population of shortleaf pine, at LBL, using an uneven aged management strategy that moves the project area toward the desired conditions noted in the 2004 LRMP. The proposed regeneration and intermediate treatments for the Devil’s Backbone SNA are essential for the development of a diverse set of habitat conditions relating to the shortleaf pine community in respect to both age class and structure. The succesional shift toward an oak forest type represents the loss of habitat diversity at LBL. Approximately 82% of the forested acres of LBL are considered oak forest cover type while shortleaf pine cover type represents less than 1% of the total forested acres. The Devil’s Backbone

5

project area is the only concentration of native pine located at LBL and represents a valuable genotype concentrated along the northern fringe of the species’ natural range. 3) Address specific NNIS threats to the shortleaf pine community. These NNIS are located along travel routes and openings in project area vicinity. The spread of NNIS is a major threat to the displacement of many endemic, rare, and even common native plant species. The Devil’s Backbone SNA is no exception to this threat, and actually represents an area where the implementation of early detection and rapid response could prove effective in finding new infestations and eliminating them before they become established. Data gathered in the summer of 2008 confirmed the presence of several NNIS species along travel corridors, while monitoring plots beneath closed canopy forest consistently showed no presence of NNIS. By treating the trail corridors and monitoring for new populations, the proposed NNIS action would limit the displacement of native plant species that are associated with the Devil’s Backbone SNA.

An internal Forest Service document entitled “Panther Creek Watershed Assessment” characterized the Panther Creek Watershed and will serve, in part, as the baseline for environmental analysis in this watershed. This assessment identified potential management issues, information gaps, and recommended a list of actions intended to mitigate or remove key threats to forest and watershed health and diversity.

Integration of educational, recreational, and interpretational components will help to support other Goals and Objectives outlined in the 2004 LRMP. These programs will serve as a medium to continue the further understanding and importance of native plant communities and natural resource management long after regeneration and improvement treatments are completed.

Proposed Action The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is to increase and distribute a balance in the amount of shortleaf pine acreage represented by multiple age and structural classes described in the LBL Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS for the LRMP disclosed the optimal benchmarks for sustaining diversity of plant and animal communities and viability of associated species on LBL. Table 3.2.4A on page 99 of the FEIS puts the optimum amount of shortleaf pine-oak forest at 1% of forest acreage or approximately 1,600 acres. Page 100 also mentions that there is a potential to restore up to 1,300-1,600 acres of this forest type. The current proposed action for the Devil’s Backbone project would involve periodic prescribed fire across about 1,500 acres. Within the project area, a total of about 567 acres of thinning and regeneration treatment is proposed. The stands where this vegetation management occurs can be expected to transition to the shortleaf pine-oak forest type more rapidly than those areas that are only burned; this supports the proposed amendment of 600 acres of shortleaf pine-oak maintained or restored this decade. As a

6

result of periodic fire, much of the project area will have a variable response and some areas with no mechanical treatment will move slowly toward a shortleaf pine – oak forest type. The LRMP 5f objective set the goal of 250 acres of shortleaf pine total, however, the FEIS indicator levels for the stated acreage would only receive a rating of “poor” (FEIS pg. 130). On the other hand, the proposed LRMP amendment would shift indicator levels and ratings all the way into the “very good” category (FEIS pg. 129). Under this proposed action, objective 5F of the 2004 LRMP would be amended to read: “Create and maintain at least 600 acres of shortleaf pine forest by developing desired mature open forest and woodland structural conditions over the first decade with a long-term objective of 1,400 acres of shortleaf pine.” The proposed NNIS treatment is a proactive approach to dealing with known and potential NNIS populations within the trail corridors, which have the ability to spread after a disturbance such as, the proposed burning, thinning, or trail system improvement activities. Herbicide use for the treatment of NNIS, targets all invasive species located on the trail and road corridors (approximately 20 feet on each side of the trail or road) in the project area. The proposal for NNIS herbicide control includes approximately 100 acres. Because NNIS plants typically exhibit rapid growth rates, lack natural predators, are very good competitors, and produce abundant and early seed, control methods like fire, and hand/mechanical control are usually fruitless. Most NNIS are also perennials, with extensive tough runners or roots which readily re-sprout after cutting, making the case for herbicide applications that will control root stock permanently. Through a comprehensive on-the-ground botany survey, 15 NNIS were identified along the trail and road corridors in the project area. These populations would be targeted with herbicide before any timber harvest or trail reroute occurs in an effort to reduce the spread of NNIS with equipment. All trails in the project area are designated as hiker only and a true single-track trail is non-existent. The two proposed re-routes, totaling 0.9 miles, associated with Artillery will eliminate sections that currently lay perpendicular to the slope. The rerouting of the trail would also result in the construction of a true single-track trail that follows the contour of the land. This serves two purposes; it would eliminate many future maintenance costs and inhibit later gully formation that would result in severe soil erosion. The 0.1 mile re-route associated with Telegraph also has a dual purpose. It will reroute a section of trail that currently does not contour the slope, while, moving the corridor out of a sensitive riparian area. The existing Shortleaf Trail is 1.75 miles and is proposed to be decommissioned in order to reduce maintenance cost, eliminate a parallel trail to Devil’s Backbone and Artillery, but, still maintaining a larger loop trail system within the Ft. Henry Trail System. The proposed trailhead construction (less than 1 acre) would provide users with a safe and designated parking area with better accessibility to the Ft. Henry trail system. In forming a partnership with a local high school, the Forest Service proposes to establish learning opportunities for a science class (Physical science, Biology, or Forestry units possibly). If this partnership is successful and there is continuing interest at the school, this opportunity could be provided annually. Students will study and compare forest

7

management actions and results by establishing study plots located in the project area. Examples of possible data collection by students include counting and measuring seedlings, documenting tree growth, shortleaf pine cone collection, and/or identifying invasive species among other actions. The Forest Service would form a partnership agreement with the school district in order to formulate a natural resource curriculum, with built-in assessments and would cooperate to resolve any funding issues as they relate to the environmental education actions, more specifically the costs related to transporting students to and from the project area.

Decision Framework The purpose of the EA will be to disclose environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives. The Responsible Official, the Area Supervisor, will make a decision based on a review of the EA. The Area Supervisor will decide:

1). Whether to proceed with an action alternative or the “No Action” alternative.

2). Whether the decision that is selected will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment or not. If a determination were made that the impact is not significant then a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) would be prepared. Significant impacts on the quality of the human environment would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement [NEPA, 1501.4 (c) and (e)].

The decision of the Area Supervisor will be documented in a Decision Notice (FSH, 1909.15, Chapter 40)

Public Involvement The proposal for the Devil’s Backbone Project was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the period of July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during two separate scoping periods: June 21, 2008 to July 22, 2008 and October 21, 2008 to November 21, 2008. The June 21 scoping letter received 61 comments via e-mail. Out of those 61 responses, 58 arrived as identical form letters. There were 78 e-mail comments received in response to the scoping letter dated October 21. These comments included 76 identical form letters. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency posted project updates and responses to scoping comments received on the website. We also attempted to contact each scoping responder that submitted a unique comment via email or telephone to discuss their responses to the scoping letters.

Using the comments from the public, and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.

Issues The Forest Service has not identified any significant issues through scoping to date, although several comments have led to a revision of the original proposed action. Most comments were general concern of using timber harvest, fire, and herbicide in a core

8

area. Other comments were directed toward NNIS control strategy and concern for any heritage resources.

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Devil’s Backbone project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., cut and leave thinning versus the use of skidders to remove some timber) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the amount of erosion or the cost associated with cut and leave thinning versus the use of skidders to remove some timber).

Alternatives Considered but Not Fully Developed One comment received in response to scoping proposed that the Forest Service should consider an additional alternative. This alternative would include shortleaf pine seed collection and propagation of these seeds in a nursery. Then these seedlings would be planted in “strategic locations” where survival could be assisted by removing the canopy on case by case basis. This alternative was not fully developed on the basis that shortleaf seedlings would have to be exposed to direct sunlight within a few years of being established. The amount of small openings needed to fulfill the plan objectives would be very difficult to locate and maintain considering the amount of closed and multilayered canopy conditions throughout the project area. The alternative also fails to recognize the competitive ability of hardwood tree species. It would take decades of continued chainsaw cutting of hardwoods before any shortleaf seedlings reached a dominant or co-dominant position in the canopy. Furthermore, the alternative fails to address fire’s ecological role on the development of the herbaceous layer. In short, this alternative would fail to meet the purpose and need of the project.

Alternative 1 - No Action The "no action" alternative is defined as a continuation of current management activities in the area. It serves as a baseline from which to compare the action alternatives. The Proposed Action would not be implemented under this alternative. Management activities already approved under other environmental documents will continue to be implemented. Recreational activities such as hunting, camping, sightseeing, hiking, and gathering firewood will continue. Current dispersed recreational sites, trails,

9

and parking areas will continue to be used. This alternative is substantially different from the direction in the LRMP.

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action • The Plan Amendment

For the reasons mentioned earlier in this document, the Forest Service proposes, as part of the proposed action of the Devil’s Backbone Project, to amend Objective 5f on page 53 of the 2004 LBL LRMP. The amended OBJ5f in the 2004 LRMP would read: “Create and maintain at least 600 acres of shortleaf pine forest by developing desired mature open forest and woodland structural conditions over the first decade with a long-term objective of 1,400 acres of shortleaf pine.”

• Vegetation Management Actions The following proposed actions all support Objective 5f of the 2004 LMRP.

A. Prescribed Fire – A combination of dormant and growing season prescribed burns on about 1,400 acres, multiple times over the next 20 years. Fire and canopy gaps created through timber harvest are the main agents of disturbance that will reset succession back to the shortleaf pine community type. Prescribed fire is critical in reducing the litter layer and preparing the seedbed for natural regeneration of shortleaf pine and will also stimulate the growth of rare native plants in the herbaceous layer. Fire will also play an important role in the growing season, by reducing the sprouting of top-killed hardwood saplings. Once a new generation of shortleaf pine is established and of sufficient size, fire will be needed to maintain an open understory in order to recruit new pine seedlings and minimize hardwood understory competition.

Connected Action - This alternative would include mechanical construction of about .75 mile of fireline within an old logging road.

B. Regeneration harvest –harvest of approximately 218 acres of currently closed canopy forest with a shortleaf pine-oak mix present on dry and xeric sites. This action would create small openings in the forest canopy to enable light penetration to the ground for shortleaf pine regeneration. Two harvest methods are part of this action and would include about 50 acres of “seed tree with reserves” and about 168 acres modified group shelterwood harvests. The seed tree method would leave 15-20 of the best seed producing trees per acre that would remain on the site. The “modified group shelterwood” method would create 0.5-1.0 acre sized, irregularly spaced openings in the forest canopy. In between these group shelterwood openings, the forest would be thinned to about 60 sq. ft. (60 trees per acre) of basal area. If the natural regeneration standard of

10

at least 150 seedlings per acre is not met by the third year after the regeneration harvests, then spot planting of shortleaf pine within the harvest area will be used to accomplish this goal.

Connected Action - The selective application of Imazapyr herbicide using the “hack and squirt” method is connected to the regeneration harvests. This method involves chopping hardwood trees with a hatchet and dispensing the herbicide into the tree with a spray bottle. Most hardwood trees 1”-6” in diameter at breast height (dbh) would be targeted. To acquire more general information on this herbicide method visit http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1058/ANR-1058three.html. This treatment will control the advanced hardwood regeneration present in the understory and midstory levels. The hardwood competition will otherwise hinder growth and shade out the newly developed shortleaf pine regeneration before establishment is possible. This action is proposed on a maximum of 100 acres. These treatments will only be implemented in stands where monitoring suggests that the burns have not been effective in controlling understory hardwoods. Each stand will be evaluated individually and monitoring criteria will be documented in the EA.

Another connected action is a liberation release treatment with the use of chainsaw or other brush cutting device on up to 100 acres of the regeneration areas within 8-10 years after harvest. Fire may not be a viable method for selective hardwood control during this time because small shortleaf pine could be susceptible to fire at this stage. This action is directly connected to the regeneration harvests because it will liberate established shortleaf pine seedlings from hardwood competition.

C. Intermediate Thinning Harvest – This harvest would occur on about 236 acres of shortleaf pine and shortleaf-oak mixed forest types. This action would remove less than 50% of the basal area density in these stands starting with the smallest merchantable diameter classes. This will reduce the midstory and would move the species composition and forest structure toward the LRMP desired condition of an open forest and woodland conditions. This method will also leave a stand structure in place for these stands to be considered for old growth designation.

D. Non-Commercial Thin From Below - non-commercial thin from below on about 113 acres of mature oak stands that have sparse mature shortleaf pine and are in the vicinity of existing shortleaf community types. These stands typically don’t contain enough quality timber volume to support a timber sale. Using a chainsaw or other brush cutting device, most hardwood trees 3”-8” at dbh will be cut and left on site. This will move these stands more toward the LRMP desired condition of an open woodland condition that periodic fire will continue to form and maintain.

11

E. NNIS Control – Selective herbicide control and monitoring of existing non-native invasive plants located in generally open areas along the existing roads and trails of the project area. This will proactively limit the spread of invasive plant species that occur within and at the edge of the project boundary. Herbicide treatment will not exceed a total of 100 acres in size for this action. The active ingredient used and method employed will vary according to the target species. A list of the target species and possible chemicals used can be found in the October 21, 2008 scoping letter located at: http://www.lbl.org/LRMPProjects.html.

• Dispersed Recreation Management Actions

F. Fort Henry Trail Management – Implement three trail re-routes for a total of 1 mile within the project area, close the 1.75 miles of Shortleaf Trail, and create a trailhead of about 1 acre at the intersection of Telegraph Trail and FS RD 400. Currently there is no proposed action relating to any other trails inside the project area boundary.

• Environmental Education Actions G. Proposed Action - Partner with a local high school to enhance learning opportunities in a science class (Research or Forestry units possibly) by initially providing two fall field trips. Students will study and compare forest management actions and results by establishing study plots located in the project area. Examples of data possibly collected by the students include counting and measuring seedlings, documenting tree growth, Shortleaf Pine cone collection, and/or identifying invasive species among other actions. The Forest Service would form a partnership agreement with the School District in order to formulate a natural resource curriculum, with built-in assessments and cooperate to resolve any funding issues as they relate to the environmental education actions, more specifically the costs related to transporting students to and from the project area.

Alternative 3 – Reduced Management

This alternative addresses some needs of the Devil’s Backbone Project but at a smaller scale. The same methods of vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, and NNIS treatment in alternative 2, would be employed except that non-commercial thinning would not be implemented. The total acreage of each of these vegetation treatments would be lower and their location would be centered on the 250 acres currently discussed in the LRMP. Under this alternative, the LRMP FEIS indicator level for acreage of shortleaf pine forest types would receive a rating of “poor” because it would only create about 250 acres of this cover type (FEIS pg. 130). There would be no LRMP amendment needed for this alternative, even though the recent forest inventory has revealed that there is an opportunity to manage for more shortleaf pine. The project area size would be the same as alternative 2, because of trail management and NNIS actions. Under this

12

alternative, all other proposed actions related to dispersed recreation and environmental education would be the same as alternative 2.

• Vegetation Management Actions

A. Prescribed Fire – A combination of dormant and growing season prescribed burns of 405 acres around the 1988 state natural area would be conducted multiple times during the next 20 years. The prescribe burn acreage was derived from the specific ground condition and represents the closest match to the 250 acres currently discussed in the LRMP while factoring in prescribe burn operation feasibility and firefighter safety. This would be the same action as alternative 2 but on a smaller scale. Connected Actions - This alternative would increase construction of fireline to a total of 1.9 miles, of which 1.5 miles would be bulldozer construction, and 0.4 miles would be hand-line construction. B. Regeneration harvest – About 50 acres (36 acres modified group shelterwood and 14 acres seed tree with reserves) of harvest consisting of currently closed canopy shortleaf-oak mix cover type forest. Harvest methods would be the same as described in alternative 2 but would be implemented within the 250 acre area currently identified in the LRMP. Connected Actions - The selective application of Imazapyr herbicide using the “hack and squirt” method would be used on a total of 30 acres in this alternative. C. Intermediate Thinning Harvest – This harvest would occur on about 150 acres of shortleaf pine and shortleaf-oak mixed forest types. The other action connected to the regeneration harvests in alternative 3, is a liberation release treatment with the use of chainsaw or other brush cutting device on up to 64 acres of the regeneration areas within 8-10 years after harvest. D. NNIS Control – Selective herbicide control and monitoring of existing non-native invasive plants located in generally open areas along the existing roads and trails of the project area. The total area treated under this alternative would not exceed 30 acres because the project area would only involve 405 acres of vegetation management. Again, the dispersed recreation and environmental education actions are exactly the same for alternatives 2 and 3. Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives In response to public comments on the original proposed action in the Devil’s Backbone Project area, design criteria were developed to respond to some of the concern about

13

potential resource impacts the various alternatives may cause. The criteria may be applied to any of the action alternatives.

• All Mechanical fireline construction will stop 100 feet from any system trail and then use a hand constructed fireline in order to maintain visual quality standards and reduce confusion that may arise from mistaking the fireline as a system trail.

• All approved herbicide application will follow the design criteria described in the

2004 LRMP and undergo an analysis of effects. The analysis may include reference to an already published Forest Service Risk Assessment with the acceptable specific analyzed rates applied.

• Only native species and native genotype seed and plant material will be used for any vegetation management requirements.

Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary table of the alternatives. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different outputs will be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Alternative 3

Reduced management

2004 LRMP Amendment none

Increase Obj.5f to 600 and 1,400 acres respectively

none

Project Area None ≈1,500 acres ≈1,500 acres

Intermediate Thinnings None ≈ 236 acres ≈ 150 acres

Regeneration Harvest None ≈ 218 acres ≈ 50 acres

Non-commercial thinning (cut and leave)

None ≈ 113 acres ≈ None

Prescribe Burn Area None ≈ 1,400 acres ≈ 405 acres

14

15

Fireline Construction None

0.75 miles mechanical construction and 100 feet of handline construction

1.5 miles mechanical construction and 0.4 miles handline construction

Site Preparation with Herbicide None Up to 100

acres Up to 30 acres

NNIS Treatment None Up to 100 acres of NNIS Treatment.

Up to 30 acres of NNIS Treatment

Trail Relocation None 1 mile 1mile

Trail Decommissioning None ≈ 1.75 miles ≈ 1.75 miles

Trailhead Construction None

one trailhead constructed < 1 acre in area

one trailhead constructed < 1 acre in area

Environment Education None

Partner with one local high school class and provide two field trips a year for the study of the shortleaf pine community

Partner with one local high school class and provide two field trips a year for the study of the shortleaf pine community

How to Comment Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.5, the Area Supervisor, William P. Lisowsky, is requesting comments on the proposed Devil’s Backbone Project. Please send or deliver (M-F, 8 am - 4:30 pm) your comments for the Devil’s Backbone Project to: Mr. Jaime Hernandez, Forester, Land Between The Lakes NRA, 100 Van Morgan Drive; Golden Pond, KY 42211; or e-mail with the project title in the subject to: comments-southern-land-between-lakes@fs.fed.us. For technical project information, call (270) 924-2073, or email jahernandez@fs.fed.us. Comments must be postmarked or received within 30 days following the date of publication of this legal notice in The Paducah Sun. Only those who submit timely comments or other expressions of interest will have eligibility for appeal purposes. In order to have appeal eligibility, each individual or representative from each organization submitting comments, must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request. In accordance with regulations, all written comments received, including those submitted electronically, will be placed in the project file and will become a matter of public record.

LegendAlt. 2 & 3 Project Area

Existing Trails

Alt.2 Prescribed Fire - Action A

Alt. 2 NNIS Control - Action E

Alt. 2 Regeneration Harvest - Action B

Alt. 2 Thinning Harvest - Action C

Alt.2 Non-commercial Thinning - Action D

Alt. 2 & 3 Trailhead Construction - Action F

Alt 2 & 3 Trail Closure - Action F

Trail Re-routes - Action F

Devil's Backbone Alt. 2 - Proposed Action

¯0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125Miles

0

LegendAlt. 2 & 3 Project Area

Existing Trails

State Natural Area - 1988

Alt 3 Prescribed Fire- Action A

Alt.3 Regeneration Harvest - Action B

Alt.3.Thinning Harvest-Action C

Alt.3 NNIS Control - Action D

Alt. 2 & 3 Trail Closure - Action F

Trail Re-routes - Action F

Alt. 2 & 3 Trailhead Construction - Action F

Devil's Backbone Alt. 3 - Reduced Management

¯0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125Miles