Biological Evaluation for Southern Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species NORTH SHENANDOAH MOUNTAIN RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT Rockingham County, Virginia – Pendleton County, WV North River Ranger District, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

INTRODUCTION Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2672.41 requires a biological evaluation (BE) and/or biological assessment (BA) for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities. For this project, the Biological Evaluation (BE) and the Biological Assessment (BA) were completed as separate documents. The objectives of this Biological Evaluation (BE) are to: 1) ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native species or contribute to trends toward federal listing, 2) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that federal agencies do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat (as defined in ESA) of federally listed species, and 3) provide a process and standard to ensure that Regional Forester’s Sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process using the best available science. The North River Ranger District supports known occurrences and suitable habitat for several R8 Sensitive species, all of which were considered in this analysis. This BE documents the analysis of potential impacts of the proposed project to Sensitive species and associated habitat. It also serves as biological input into the environmental analysis for project-level decision-making to ensure compliance with the ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Forest Management Act (NFMA). PROJECT AREA & EFFECT ANALYSIS AREA The North Shenandoah Mountain Project is located within Rockingham County, Virginia and Pendleton County, West Virginia, approximately 12 miles northwest of Bridgewater, Virginia (see Figure 1). Within the 128,000-acre greater project area of intermingled private and National Forest System (NFS) ownership, approximately 103,000 acres are NFS lands and 25,000 acres are in private land or other ownership. The project area is bounded on the east by State Routes 259 and 763, on the north by the Virginia and West Virginia state boundary, on the west by West Virginia State Route 3, and on the south by US Highway 33, except for one decommissioned road proposal south of US Highway 33. The geographic scope of this biological evaluation for terrestrial plants and animals is the project area (project disturbance area). With regards to impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, the geographic scope of this analysis will be identical to that analyzed for the water quantity and sedimentation aspect of the water resource. The boundary of the analysis will be the watersheds draining the project area down to their confluence with either the South Fork South Branch Potomac River, North Fork Shenandoah River, or the Dry River watershed. This analysis area was chosen because it is estimated that effects below these points would be insignificant and immeasurable.

1 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

The project area lies within the South Fork South Branch Potomac River (183,440 acres), Shoemaker River – North Fork Shenandoah River (133,155 acres), and Dry River (76,848 acres) 5th level HUC watersheds in Rockingham County, Virginia, and Pendleton and Hardy Counties, West Virginia. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The Forest Service proposes to harvest timber, conduct prescribed burning, and complete other ancillary resource/habitat improvement projects within the next one to five years. The North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management (NSM) Project is designed to implement the strategic direction described in the 2014 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the George Washington National Forest (GWNF). More specifically, the proposed action includes the following:

• provide early successional habitat through vegetation treatments including timber removal, grassy area enhancements, and prescribed fire; • provide open canopy conditions through timber harvest and prescribed burning; • release desired tree species in previously regenerated stands from competition • provide new and maintain existing wildlife clearings, open grasslands, and open savannah and woodlands habitat; • use herbicides to treat non-native invasive plant species across the project area and native plant competitors to promote release of desired tree species (oak, pine, and hickory, etc.); • decommission about 14 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads to improve road conditions creating resource impacts, compliant with the Travel Analysis Plan; • construct, reconstruct, and maintain several Forest System Roads (FSR) and temporary roads (about 2.15 miles new system roads; 19.1 miles reconstruction; 25-30 miles maintenance; and 15 miles temporary, respectively); • protect riparian habitat for aquatic species by buffering certain streams from recreation impacts; • replace up to about 15 culverts with aquatic organism passage structures; • establish new prescribed-fire burn blocks to restore fire-dependent plant communities; • restore yellow pine species and habitat via planting, a combination of thinning and regeneration treatments, and prescribed fire; • provide waterholes habitat for wildlife and amphibians; • provide additional wood turtle nesting habitat and instream large woody debris (LWD) for overwintering habitat; • plant American chestnut that is resistant to the Asian chestnut blight; • provide patch openings nested in thinning prescriptions for grouse habitat.

NOTE: Proposed Actions and associated acreages detailed below and summarized in Table 1. Need For The Proposed Action(s) This proposed action is located on the North River Ranger District of the George Washington National Forest (GWNF) and is designed to meet the direction set forth in the 2014 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest (Forest Plan). The proposed treatments

2 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

follow the Forest-wide vision for the desired condition for forested ecological systems with an emphasis to forested structural diversity. As stated in the Forest Plan, an appropriate balance of vertical structure within forested communities provides habitat for associated terrestrial species that require various forest age/structural stages. Departure from the desired vegetation structure and composition is influencing the ecological sustainability within the project area. The current conditions do not reflect the desired biological, physical, and watershed conditions as described in Forest Plan. If left unaddressed, they will decrease the health, diversity, and productivity of the forest. The Forest Plan’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) page E-19 defines forested structural classes as follows: • Early Successional or Regenerating Forest: Forest stands developing after a major disturbance (such as a regeneration harvest) generally less than 11 years in age. • Late Successional Open Canopy Forest: Forest stands reaching older ages of mature trees (50- 100 years or greater) and more lasting structural conditions with an overall open canopy (canopy closure of 25-60 percent: typical of thinned forests). Fire, wind, and ice damage were previous disturbance regime drivers that affected about 10% of the landscape and typically occurred in 5-20-acre blocks. These mosaics increase biodiversity in the area, and early seral species can increase the carrying capacity of species that benefit from open habitat or early-seral habitat types (Harper et.al., 2016). Fire was an important system driver that has been removed from the landscape for some time (Delcourt et.al., 1998; Vander Yacht et.al., 2017). Additionally, invasive species are a more recent threat to habitat biodiversity and landscape resilience. Under climate change conditions and current stand trajectories, these risks are likely to persist. Therefore, active management, including commercial, non-commercial, and prescribed fire vegetation treatments are required in order to address conditions in the planning area. To move toward the desired ecological systems diversity and species diversity, there is a considerable need to establish additional early-successional habitat, younger forest habitat, and to improve stand health, vigor and diversity via thinning. There also is a need to create additional open habitat that is lacking for certain species. This, in turn, would provide forest products to the local economy. To move toward the desired conditions for watersheds, there is need to replace impassible culverts with structures that are passable for aquatic organisms, and to decommission several Forest System roads that are no longer needed, or that are causing stream sedimentation.

3 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Figure 1. North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project planning area and location of working areas

4 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Activities such as timber harvest, prescribed burns, wildlife clearings and other applicable habitat management techniques would primarily promote ecological restoration by: 1) promoting desired structural conditions for ecological systems, 2) promoting oak and pine reproduction, 3) enhancing habitat conditions for declining early successional species and other species of greatest conservation need in Virginia and West Virginia, 4) restoring low diversity stands and systems severely altered from their historic range of variability (e.g., stands <40 years old, systems converted to white pine plantations, fire-dependent systems), and 5) promoting resilient ecological systems capable of absorbing negative effects associated with various natural and human-caused stresses. Other management activities, such as culvert removal and replacement of standard culverts with crossing structures that allow for full passage of all aquatic organisms would primarily serve to promote watershed restoration by improving connectivity of streams. Road maintenance, road decommissioning, and habitat creation also would improve conditions for aquatic species. Proposed Project Action(s) Reforestation - In appropriate locations and units described below, disease-resistant American chestnut would be planted as a minor species component (<2,000 over entire area). This would occur in cooperation with the Forest Service Southern Research Station. Thinning Treatments - Approximately 2,027 acres would be thinned (comprised of variable density thinning and savannah creation, see acreage breakdown below) to various stocking levels based on site- specific objectives described below. Based on the site-specific objectives, variable thinning will reduce stand basal stocking by 40 to 75%. The objective is to create “open” canopy conditions over a large area to encourage the growth and development of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Residual stocking would vary across units to create diverse conditions, including maintaining patches of closed-canopy forest. Leave trees would generally be co-dominant and dominant trees and meet one of three criteria: a) species such as white oak, chestnut oak, hickory species (important for bats); b) other species important for wildlife (black gum, serviceberry, dogwood and other fruit producers); and c) trees which have pre- existing dens, or will likely provide cavity nesting or bat roosting opportunities in the future. To create more snags, roosting habitat, and down large woody debris some retained trees may be deadened by double-girdling or chemical injection. Maintaining a diversity of age classes in thinned stands is also an objective where conditions exist. Regeneration Treatments 1. Patch Openings - Within several areas proposed for thinning, seven patch openings would be created (total 41 acres), ranging in size from 4 to 10 acres. These patches would provide important grouse habitat. These areas would be allowed to regenerate into a new forest stand. 2. Coppice with Reserves - Approximately 1,218 acres would be regenerated to create early successional habitat using a coppice with reserves treatment. Regeneration objectives are site- specific; however, in most cases the goal would be to return stands to an oak-dominated

5 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

condition. Harvesting will retain approximately 10 to 40 trees per acre, maintaining a viable second age class. Coppice with Reserves treatments would leave a partial stand of approximately 15 - 30 ft2 of basal area. Yellow Pine Ecosystem Restoration - This project would restore the yellow pine ecosystem by establishing viable communities of shortleaf pine on 434 acres across 34 locations and establishing 158 acres with Table Mountain pine and pitch pine across seven locations. The treatments are a combination of heavy thinning and partial regeneration, in addition to planting. In proposed areas, the stand would be variably thinned to a residual stocking of 15 to 60 square feet (ft2). Much of the area would be reduced to 10 to 30 ft2 per acre basal area in order provide enough sunlight for the successful establishment. In many areas, a prescribed burning regime would be established to maintain open stand conditions and promote natural regeneration of shortleaf pine. The first burn will occur after the shortleaf pine becomes fire resistant, about 8 years of age. Periodic fire would be variable and occur at a return interval of about 6 to 12 years. Forest Stand Improvement - Approximately 1,412 acres of forest stand improvement would be performed as part of the project. This will entail mechanical and chemical treatments in 55 immature stands to encourage the establishment of oak species and other species important to wildlife. These would entail non-commercial treatment (hand tools or chemical “hack and squirt” treatments) of already harvested, immature stands that are growing back (about 10 to 25 years old). It could also entail crop tree release to reduce inter-tree competition and to remove undesirable trees in favor of desirable trees. Grassy Area Enhancements - These enhancements would occur within variable density, yellow pine and timber stand improvement treatment units to promote open canopy conditions at nine locations, for a total of 158 acres, to enhance the existing herbaceous understory. Work could entail herbicide application, native grass seeding, and removal of undesirable overstory vegetation. The following acreages overlay the above mechanical treatments, therefore are not additional acreage of treatment. Open Habitat Creation and Rehabilitation - This project would rehabilitate existing and create new permanently open habitat, known as “wildlife openings.” These openings are semi-annually maintained through disking, burning, seeding, herbicide application, and mowing. Proposed actions would include construction of up to 36 acres of new permanent wildlife openings. The project would rehabilitate up to 238 acres of existing permanent wildlife openings or old field habitat to provide early seral grassland/forb habitat. Connected Actions 1. Logging System Methods - All proposed timber harvesting will be conducted by ground-based operations. Trees will either be felled by hand using chainsaws or felled by a mechanical harvester. Felled trees will be skidded to landings for processing using tracked or rubber-tired skidders. Processed logs will be loaded onto trucks using a mechanical loader at landings. Trucks will haul timber products off of Forest Service lands. No cable-yarding or other advance logging systems are proposed for this project.

6 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

2. Prescribed Burn Blocks - A total of about 5,249 acres of the project area is proposed for prescribed fire in three large burn blocks and seven smaller burn blocks. The three large burn blocks include: Hogpen (1,608 acres), Gauley Ridge Extension (1,350 acres), and Blue Hole (1,501 acres). Hogpen is to the south of and Gauley Ridge Extension is to the east of the existing Gauley Ridge burn block (1,400 acres), which was implemented under a prior decision. The 7 smaller areas outside of the 3 large burn blocks total about 790 acres. These areas are slated for yellow pine restoration. About 25 to 30 percent of mechanical treatments described above overlap and are included in these blocks. Most of the burn units will use existing roads, trails, and burn boundaries as boundaries. In addition, there is a need to construct approximately 6.7 miles of dozer line. Existing natural and manmade features (such as streams, roads, and newly proposed treatment units) would be used as fire control lines, as much as practicable to reduce the need for new lines. Dozer lines would typically be comprised of one dozer blade width scraped to mineral soil; they could be seeded depending on existing canopy cover; waterbar placement would be installed dependent on slopes. Hand-dug lines also would be constructed no deeper than 6-inches at site specific locations not indicated on maps; this would be about 0.6 miles. 3. Aquatic Habitat and Watershed Improvements Up to 15 impassible culverts or road crossings would be replaced with aquatic organism passable structures. These would be identified in each project activity area by a forest fish biologist or forest hydrologist and prioritized for replacement based on availability of funding. Summary of Proposed Actions Table 1. Proposed vegetation treatment by management area (MA)

Timber Areas with Harvesting Wildlife Prescription Harvesting Areas with 1 2 3 (no Fire) Openings of only Fire and Fire FSI and Fire Totals – All Management Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Treatments MA 13- Mosaics of 2,653 32 2,557 880 182 6,304 Wildlife Habitat 592MA 7G – Pastoral 124 12 541 221 56 954 Landscape MA 7E 1 - Dispersed NA NA 811 NA NA 811 Recreation (unsuitable) Totals – By Treatment 2,777 44 3,909 1,101 238 8,069

1. Timber harvest includes: thinning, regeneration, and yellow pine restoration. Savannah and grassy area enhancement actions overlay these treatments. 2. Wildlife openings overlay various mechanical commercial treatments and are permanent, open and grassy. 3. Prescription of fire in both large and small blocks.

7 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Table 2. Proposed action summary table Extent Treatment Action1 (acres, miles)

Regeneration/even aged management Coppice with reserves (each unit up to 40 acres) 1,218 acres

Patch openings (7 patch cuts embedded within various Regeneration/even aged management variable density thinning units, range from 4 - 10 acres in 41 acres size each)

= 1,259 total Regeneration/even aged management Total regeneration harvest acres acres

Pre-harvest Injections occurring throughout coppice with Regeneration/even aged management reserves treatment acres (overlays a mechanical <500 acres treatment)

Mosaic of commercial thinning and regeneration silvicultural treatments for Shortleaf pine 434 acres yellow pine restoration

Mosaic of commercial thinning and regeneration silvicultural treatments for Table mountain, pitch pine 158 acres yellow pine restoration

Mosaic of commercial thinning and = 592 total regeneration silvicultural treatments for Total yellow pine restoration acres acres yellow pine restoration

Thinning treatments Savannah / variable density thinning 195 acres

Thinning treatments Variable density thinning 1,832 acres

= 2,027 total Thinning treatments Total variable density thinning acres acres

Grassy area enhancement within within variable density thinning units 71 acres understory

Grassy area enhancement within within forest stand improvement units 13 acres understory

Grassy area enhancement within within table mountain and pitch pine restoration units 30 acres understory

Grassy area enhancement within within shortleaf pine restoration units 44 acres understory

Grassy area enhancement within Total grassy area enhancement acres (all overlay = 158 total understory mechanical treatments) acres

Forest stand improvement Forest stand improvement 1,412 acres

New permanent wildlife openings (overlay commercial Wildlife openings 44 acres mechanical treatments)

Wildlife openings Rehabilitated existing wildlife openings1 238 acres

8 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Extent Treatment Action1 (acres, miles)

= 281 total Wildlife openings Total wildlife opening acres acres

Prescribed fire Large burn units (# = 3) 4,459 acres

Prescribed fire Smaller burn units (# = 7) 790 acres

= 5,249 total Prescribed fire Total burn unit acres acres

Prescribed fire Dozer lines 6.7 miles

Prescribed fire Hand lines 0.6 miles

Roads, skid trails, and landings2 Temporary road 15 miles

Existing road template proposed to be added to Forest Roads, skid trails, and landings2 0.8 miles System Roads

New roads to be constructed & proposed to be added to Roads, skid trails, and landings2 1.35 miles Forest System Roads

= 2.15 total Roads, skid trails, and landings2 Total miles added to Forest System Roads miles

Roads, skid trails, and landings2 Bladed skid trails 56 miles

Roads, skid trails, and landings2 Log landings (# = 96) 25 acres

Roads, skid trails, and landings2 Road reconstruction 19 miles

Roads, skid trails, and landings2 System road maintenance 25-30 miles

Roads, skid trails, and landings2 Road decommissioning ~14 miles

Improvements to 15 culverts to allow aquatic organism Roads, skid trails, and landing 15 culverts passage

Ancillary vegetative treatments and Herbicide management of non-native invasive species ~5,000 acres restoration actions within treatment stands

Ancillary vegetative treatments and Herbicide management of non-native invasive species 2,250 acres restoration actions along roads

Chemical site prep after harvest and before planting (in Ancillary vegetative treatments and half of yellow pine stands; and release ~3 years after 296 acres restoration actions planting) for management of competing undesirable species

Manual site prep after harvest and before planting (in Ancillary vegetative treatments and regeneration units and half of yellow pine stands) using 1,503 acres restoration actions hand tools

9 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Extent Treatment Action1 (acres, miles)

Southern yellow pine and disease-resistant American Ancillary vegetative treatments and Chestnut planting (in harvested stands; ~100,000 single ~350 acres restoration actions leaf pine, about 2,000 American Chestnut) over life of project)

1.*Italicized actions total the items in bold. 2. Including feathering the edges / cutback field borders, overseeding a wildlife friendly mix and managing for non-native invasive species. 3. Estimates based on proposed treatment unit layout. Actual length and area are subject to site-specific variables.

SPECIES REVIEWED FOR ANALYSIS Southern Region sensitive species (TES) that may potentially be impacted by this project were examined using the following existing available information: 1. Reviewing the list of R8 Sensitive plant and animal species known or likely to occur on the George Washington National Forest, and their habitat preferences. This review included the current Southern Region Sensitive Species list for the Forest, dated March 15, 2018 with Forest- specific updates current as of May 28, 2019 (attached as OAR table in App. A). 2. Consulting element occurrence records (EORs) for Sensitive species as maintained by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (VDNH) and supplied to the Forest. 3. Consulting species information, including county occurrence records, as maintained in the online database (http://vafwis.org/fwis/?Menu=Home.Visitor+Options) titled Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VAFWIS) of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 4. Consulting with individuals in the private and public sector who are knowledgeable about the area and its flora and fauna. 5. Reviewing sources listed in the reference portion of this report. 6. Reviewing the results of past field surveys that may have been conducted in the area. Most TES species known to occur on the Forest have unique habitat requirements, such as shale barrens, rock outcrops, bogs, caves, and natural ponds. Information gathered, analyzed, and presented in the Southern Appalachian Assessment dated July 1996 states that approximately 74% of sensitive species are associated with rare or unique habitats, often referred to as rare communities. Ten (10) Regional Forester’s Sensitive species are known to occur within the NSM project area (Table 4 below). Rare Communities – Special Biological Areas Special Biological Areas (SBA) have been identified on the Forest and delineated in the George Washington Forest Plan as Special Biological Areas. These areas were identified in cooperation with the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources as part of the Forest Plan revision process and include vital natural communities or vegetative types along with the rare species they support. There are a total of about 121,000 acres of land identified as Special

10 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Biological Areas across the Forest (Botanical-Zoological Areas - MA 4D). This includes about 58,000 acres of Cow Knob Salamander habitat within the Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob Salamander Management Area (MA 8E7). These areas typically include high quality ecological communities such as high elevation mountain tops, shale barrens, caves and karst features, wetlands, and diverse habitat for threatened and endangered species, sensitive and locally rare species. Timber harvest and prescribed fire are allowed only as management tools to maintain or enhance the focal species of these areas. Special Biological Areas have standards in the Forest Plan that serve to protect them from negative impacts.

Table 3. Special Biological Areas within the North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration Project working areas. Special Biological Area Type Acreage Camp Run Prairie Special Biological Area 163 Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Special Interest Area Cow Knob Salamander 17,205 Total

Additionally, the Forest has two Research Natural Areas (RNAs) that are part of a national network of ecological resources designated for research, education and maintenance of biological diversity on National Forest System lands. These areas are designated by the Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service. Research Natural Areas are principally for non-manipulative research, observation, and study (USDA Forest Plan, 2014). The Little Laurel Run RNA (2,092 acres) was established in 1938 and is located on the North River Ranger District, within the NSM Project area. This area is managed for natural processes and native species, and is unsuitable for timber production, non-timber collection permits, and road development. Within the NSM Project area, there are 20,155 acres total of protected rare communities including delineated SBAs and the Little Laurel Run Research Natural Area (MA 4B), which overlaps Cow Knob Salamander SBA (MA 8E7). Desktop Analysis Appendix A of this document lists all 199 TES species currently known, or expected to occur, on or near the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. All species on the list were considered during the analysis for this project. A “step down” process was followed to eliminate species from further analysis and focus on those species that may be affected by proposed project activities. Species not eliminated are then analyzed in greater detail. Results of this step-down analysis process are displayed in the Occurrence Analysis Results (OAR) column of the table in Appendix A. First, the range of a species was considered. Species’ ranges on the Forest are based on county records contained in such documents as the “Atlas of the Virginia Flora,” but are further refined when additional information is available, such as more recent occurrences documented in scientific literature or in Natural Heritage databases. Many times, range information clearly indicates a species will not occur in the project area due to the restricted geographic distribution of most TES species. When the

11 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

project area is outside a known species range, that species is eliminated from further consideration by being coded as OAR code "1" in the Appendix A table. For this project, 155 species were eliminated from further consideration because the project area is not within the species’ known range. For the remaining species, after this first step, results from past surveys and knowledge of the areas and potential for suitable habitat were considered. The need to conduct site-specific surveys of R8 Sensitive species for this project was further assessed via desktop analysis by both USFS staff and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) staff using known databases. Desktop analysis included examination of the proposed activity units in a GIS environment and review of published Sensitive species range and distribution information. During this analysis, proposed activity unit locations were compared with locations of known Natural Heritage Resources (NHRs) and Sensitive species occurrences to determine if any intersections occurred. Even though no documented NHRs or records for Sensitive plant species intersected these areas, the presence of several rare plant species in the vicinity of the project area helped indicate broad zones of potential habitat for rare plants (pers. com. with John Townsend, DCR 2018). Some proposed units were close to the Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob Salamander SBA boundary. Thus, in accordance with the Cow Knob Conservation Agreement with USFWS and the Forest Plan Standards, it was determined that specific surveys for Cow Knob salamander (CKS) would be completed in areas of potential high-quality habitat within the project area, outside of the CKS SBA. In addition, topographic maps and aerial imagery were used to determine if any unusual landforms were present and if any outstanding habitats such as wetlands, shale barrens, talus slopes or rock outcrops occurred. Field Surveys and Results Based on the results of desktop assessments, affected potential habitats in the project areas were surveyed for R8 Sensitive species by qualified USFS biologists, DCR zoologists and botanists, and other specialists over a period of four years from 2016-2018. The survey method consisted of walking through the project area searching for different habitat types and potential T&E species or NHR occurrences. The plant, animal, and general habitat survey consisted of searching for individuals, signs of their presence and/or potential habitat. During field surveys, proposed activity units were traversed while using an iPad with ArcGIS Collector software to facilitate navigation and to provide access to topographic data and aerial imagery. Using this technology, all habitats and landforms with the potential to support T&E species or NHRs were inspected in the most efficient manner (pers. com. With John Townsend, DCR 2018). The project areas have been visited by Meg Riddle – District Wildlife Biologist, Mike Donahue - Forestry Technician, Fred Huber – Forest Botanist, Dawn Kirk – Forest Fisheries Biologist, Pauline Adams – Forest Hydrologist, John Townsend – DCR botanist, Christ Ludwig – DCR biologist, Steve Roble – DCR zoologist, Ellison Orcutt – DCR ecologist, DCR field technicians, VDGIF staff, and local contracted species experts (e.g. Dr. Flint - JMU). Botanical surveys were conducted May-September in 2016 - 2018. Bee/insect surveys were conducted in June-August of 2018 and focused on potential foraging locations for

12 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

pollinator species. Additional herpetological surveys were also conducted in 2018, in accordance with the Cow Knob Salamander Conservation Agreement with USFWS. From the field surveys and knowledge of the area, 34 species were eliminated from further consideration because of: a) a lack of suitable habitat in the project areas (OAR code “2”); b) habitat present and the species has been searched for, but has not been found (OAR code “3”); c) species occurs in the project areas, but out of the actual area of activity (OAR code “4”); d) aquatic species of habitat known or suspected downstream of project or activity areas but outside the identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as the point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant) (OAR code “7”); and e) historic records for this species only; or no known records on GWJ; or species considered extirpated from Virginia/West Virginia (OAR code “10”). Species Identified as Being in the Action Area or Potentially Affected by the Action From field surveys and knowledge of the area, and given the proposed action, those species which are analyzed and discussed further in this document are those that: a) are found to be located in the activity areas (OAR code “5”); b) were not seen during the survey(s), but possibly occur in the activity areas based on habitat observed during the survey(s) or field survey was not conducted when species is recognizable (OAR code “6”); c) for aquatic species, they are known or suspected downstream of project or activity areas and within identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (OAR code “8”) . Both the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage GIS database and the DGIF VAFWIS database (VDGIF, 2019) showed no known R8 Sensitive species occurring within proposed activity units during the desktop analysis process. However, field surveys detected the following six (6) Regional Forester’s Sensitive species within proposed activity units during project field visits 2016 through 2018: butternut, white alumroot, Shenandoah Mountain salamander, Cow Knob salamander, Monarch, and wood turtle which are coded as OAR code “5”. As a result of this process, ten (10) R8 Sensitive species are known or suspected to occur in or near the area or are potentially impacted by the proposed action and are coded OAR Code 5 or 6, shown in Table 4 below. Note: During the project development and analysis phase in 2018-2019, the proposed timber harvesting unit where white alumroot was detected in 2017 was dropped from the analysis and the final proposal for treatment activities. Thus, the OAR code changed from code 5 to code 4 – “species occurs within project area, but outside of the actual area of activity”.

Table 4. Species analyzed in further detail in this Biological Evaluation. OAR Code Scientific Name Common Name Taxa 6 Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat Mammal 6 Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored bat Mammal 5 Juglans cinerea Butternut Plant 5 Glyptemys insculpta Wood turtle Reptile 5 Plethodon punctatus Cow Knob salamander Amphibian

13 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

5 Plethodon virginia Shenandoah Mountain salamander Amphibian 5 Danaus plexippus Monarch butterfly Insect 6 Vertigo clappi Cupped Vertigo Mollusk 5/4 Heuchera alba White alumroot Plant 6 Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap Plant

Other than the 10 species above, no other Sensitive species or associated potential habitat was identified during field surveys or considered to exist within the project area or the aquatic cumulative effects boundary. EFFECT OF PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The analysis of possible effects to rare communities and R8 Sensitive species identified as known or expected to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project, or likely to be impacted by the action includes the following existing information: • Data on species/habitat relationships • Species range distribution • Occurrences developed from past field surveys or field observations • The amount, condition, and distribution of suitable habitat The cumulative effects considered for this analysis include past, present, and future actions which may include timber management, disease (e.g. chestnut blight), wildfires, prescribed burning activities, gypsy moth induced tree mortality, wildlife habitat projects, old field maintenance, NNIS treatments, and system road usage and maintenance. All these activities to some degree can have a cumulative effect on wildlife species and their habitats across the Forest. Data from past project records, on-going projects (e.g. prescribed burning), and the FACTS database for previous treatments within the project area were analyzed to assess the cumulative effects of this proposed project to the project area and the George Washington National Forest as a whole. A list of all cumulative effects projects is detailed in the Environmental Analysis for this project. Effects to Rare Communities The Forest Plan Standards for SBAs were reviewed as part of this analysis. Ten (10) SBAs fall within the greater NSM project boundary, however eight (8) of those are Appalachian Shale Barrens community types that were analyzed as part of the West Side Timber Sale EA (2015). No new management is proposed within or adjacent to these 8 shale barren SBAs. The Camp Run Prairie SBA is adjacent to proposed treatments within the Mitchell Knob/Camp Run working area of NSM project, and the Shenandoah Mountain Crest 8E7 MA/Cow Knob Salamander SBA covers the upper elevations of Shenandoah Mtn, running through the middle and southern portions of the overall project area. No timber harvest, Rx burning, road construction or any other ground-disturbing actions proposed in the NSM project will occur within designated Special Biological Areas (MA 4D), in the Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob Salamander (MA 8E7) Management Area or in the Little Laurel Run

14 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Research Natural Area (MA 4B), so there will be no negative effects from those activities in delineated rare communities. There is potential for continued targeted chemical treatments of non-native invasive plant species (e.g. autumn olive, ailanthus, Japanese stilt grass) to be implemented within Special Biological Areas and the Research Natural Area. This treatment is directed by the Forest Plan, and is needed to maintain, enhance or restore the habitat of threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species from non-native, invasive, species that could invade these unique communities and outcompete native species (USDA 2014). Insect infestations, weather events, or wildfires could still potentially have cumulative effects in these areas into the future, though these are not predictive and are outside the scope of this analysis. Effects to R8 Sensitive Species Effect of management on Sensitive species was also analyzed in the BE with the intent of avoiding or minimizing impacts to these species. If impacts cannot be avoided the BE analyzes the implication of potential adverse effects on the species habitat within the area of concern and on the species’ population. The following is the language used for effects and determinations for R8 Sensitive species: • No impact • Beneficial impact • May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. • Likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, in a trend to federal listing, or in a loss of species viability range-wide.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Butternut (Juglans cinerea) Effects to butternut were considered in this BE because it was found during project field surveys by USFS staff and because potential habitat occurs in the project area. All butternut trees found were documented, marked/flagged, and will be treated as leave trees per Forest Plan guidance (USDA, 2014). Butternut is shade-intolerant, growing best in full sunlight. Young trees can tolerate some competition from the side, but will not withstand shade from above, so species needs to be in the canopy in order to survive (NatureServe, 2019). This tree has a short life span of approximately 75 years and reaches maturity and its highest reproduction period between 20-25 years. Reproduction is successful only in areas where shade does not inhibit its growth, such as stand openings, in fields, or along roadsides. The abundance and condition of butternut trees are both in rapid decline due to butternut canker disease caused by the fungus Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum (NatureServe, 2019), which is the main reason for its listing as a Southern Regional Forester’s Sensitive species. The fungus disrupts nutrient flow through cambium, which is generally fatal. Though it can take butternut more than 40 years to die, in most cases death rapidly follows infection. After dieback, butternut does not leave live root sprouts or viable seed behind (NatureServe, 2019).

15 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

No butternuts should be removed or damaged though proposed timber harvest activities or road construction/reconstruction, while adhering to Forest Plan Standards. Any butternut found within the NSM project area will be treated per Forest Plan Standard FW 84 - “During silvicultural treatments, retain all live butternut with more than 50% live branches. Record the approximate location of these trees and notify the Forest Silviculturist”. Known healthy trees will be protected in compliance with the Forest Service Washington Office letter of March 11, 1993 which stated that healthy butternut trees are not to be cut, as they may be resistant to the butternut canker disease and may be included in a butternut genetic resistance study. It is possible that individuals of this species may have been inadvertently missed during past site visits, surveys, and field work in the area. However, if additional butternut trees are found during timber cruising, they will be identified as leave trees per Forest Plan Standards. This species would benefit indirectly however from tree release in proximity to occurrence records. Because butternut is such a shade-intolerant species, managing forests to create disturbance conditions (e.g., canopy gaps, openings, soil disturbance) will help to propagate the species. Reproduction is successful only in areas where shade does not inhibit its growth, such as forest stand openings, fields, or roadsides (NatureServe, 2019). There is also a chance that timber removal around butternut trees could indirectly expose them to more windthrow. Because butternut typically grows in rich, mesic, deep soils in cove and toe-slope positions or well drained, rocky soil of limestone (NatureServe, 2019), it is not likely to be impacted negatively by proposed prescribed fire activities. Prescribed fires often do not burn in these areas due to the usual presence of thick, green herbaceous vegetation and high moisture content in the often flat, compacted leaf litter and duff. Those fires that may burn through these areas usually have low flame heights and are low intensity. Mature butternuts also have a rough corky bark and are usually resistant to flame of low intensity and short duration; however, young trees with thinner bark are more susceptible to fire and are could be top-killed. Openings containing butternut should be made larger so existing trees can achieve full growth and development. (NatureServe, 2019). As such, many of the proposed treatments in the NSM project (e.g. thinning, fire, wildlife opening creation) will indirectly benefit butternut for the mid to long-term. In following Forest Plan guidance and project design elements, there are no impacts that should result from implementation of this project that would adversely impact viability of butternut nor result in a trend toward federal listing of this species under the Endangered Species Act. Implementation of the proposed action should have no direct negative impacts on butternut populations, though this species could experience indirect and cumulative beneficial impacts through more open canopy conditions. Botanical surveys for the NSM project and timber cruising/marking in the area helps USFS better locate butternut occurrence so that action can be taken to improve habitat conditions for this species and monitor butternut health. As butternut are documented as occurring in the project area and could be benefited or negatively indirectly impacted in the short to mid-term, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect the butternut. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the butternut from the proposed project.

16 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) The eastern small-footed bat (ESFB) is known or likely to occur in 32 Virginia counties and ranges from New England south to northern Georgia and west to Oklahoma. During the winter this bat species hibernates in caves. During the late spring, summer, and early fall ESFB forage at night in forest and open woodland habitat, usually along ridge crests, and roost during the day in crevices of large rock outcrops and cliffs. ESFBs are potentially present and roosting during summer months wherever large rock outcrops or cliffs are present (USDA, 2014). No small-footed bats were seen during field surveys within proposed activity units, though some potential preferred habitat (consisting of large rock outcrops and talus slopes) was discovered within the NSM project working areas. There are no known caves with the microclimate suitable for bat winter hibernation located within the NSM project area. The most serious threat to bats in eastern North America is white-nose syndrome (WNS), an often (but not always) lethal condition caused by a fungal pathogen that attacks hibernating bats. WNS has spread rapidly and now has been documented throughout the range of ESFB, and can affect this species (NatureServe, 2019). However, USFWS (2013) reviewed available information on population trends and WNS effects on small-footed bats and concluded that WNS does not appear to have caused significant population declines in hibernating ESFB. The proposed actions would have some beneficial indirect impacts on bat foraging habitats within the project area. Timber harvest activities will open the forest canopy by removal of trees, thus allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor causing new, brushy growth. This vegetation growth will attract a flush of insects which can then be eaten by the bats, and the more open forest will also mean easier foraging flight paths for the bats. The cutting of the trees should not negatively impact small-footed bats, since they typically roost in rocks or cliff-lines, which are considered in-operable ground for timber harvest activities. Although preferred habitat for this species (rock outcrops, cliffs) will not be impacted with timber operations, though they could fall within a larger prescribed fire unit. Though smoke could cause avoidance within the burn area briefly, fire does not carry within rocky ground conditions. Thus, adverse direct impacts to individual bats or their roosting habitats are not anticipated from implementation of the proposed activities. The proposed Rx fire and timber harvest actions will create forested openings, while maintaining 99% of the riparian buffers where these bats are known to forage (NatureServe, 2019). This species could indirectly benefit from thinning and regeneration cuts, as well as Rx burn implementation, via more efficient foraging due to reduced midstory clutter (Cox et al. 2016) and increased insect abundance and diversity. In addition, the Forest standards designed to benefit Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats will also benefit small-footed bats. USFWS (2013) determined that although several activities, such as construction of physical barriers at cave accesses, mining, flooding, vandalism, development, and timber harvest may modify or destroy ESFB habitat, these activities do not have significant, population-level effects on the species. Cumulative effects to WNS such as climate change, contaminants, and prescribed burning are not believed to be causing population declines in ESFB either (USFWS 2013). Considering this information, that eastern small-footed bats may occur in the project area, and that foraging habitat may be

17 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

positively affected in the short-term, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflaus) Effects to tricolored bats were considered in this BE because this area is likely to support occurrences of the tricolored bat and habitat features found in the project area could be utilized by this species. Tricolored bats have a widespread range across the eastern United States and southeastern Canada, south into Central America, extending west into the central Great Plains. This species is a small bat, reaching 3½ inches in length and has a wingspan of just over 9 inches. The fur color is variable, but typically is a reddish brown to yellowish brown, slightly lighter on the belly. Its back fur is unique being tricolored -- gray at the base, tan in the middle, and dark-tipped. The wing membranes are blackish, but the skin covering the larger wing bones, including the forearm, is flesh colored (NatureServe 2019). Tricolored bats will hibernate in a variety of sites including mines, rock shelters, and quarries, but they use caves most frequently. They are typically found hanging singly from the ceiling or along a wall. The bats prefer relatively warmer and more humid portions of caves for hibernation. They often have water droplets condensed on their fur that can make them sometimes appear white when a light is shined on them (VDGIF, 2019a). There are no known caves with the microclimate suitable for bat winter hibernation located within the NSM project area. Although most summer roosting sites are unknown in Virginia or West Virginia, this species has been observed roosting in high tree foliage, often in clumps of dead leaves or needles, in tree crevices and cavities, and human constructed structures such as buildings, homes, barns, sheds and bridges. Males likely roost in trees and/or manmade structures during summer. (VDGIF 2019a, NatureServe 2019). At maternity colonies, one to two pups are born to each female during June. There are currently no known maternity colony or roosting sites in Virginia (see Appendix B – Tricolored Bat Winter Habitat & Roosts Application map, DGIF 2019b). Tricolored bats are insectivores that feed almost entirely on small flying insects they capture along woodland edges, as well as along waterways and riparian areas, near forested habitat (NatureServe 2019). They forage in relatively small areas, at treetop level, usually over watercourses, and they are never found in deep woods or open fields unless large trees are nearby (VDGIF, 2019a). Suitable habitat for tricolored bat is known to occur on all GWJNF Districts and counties, and can be assumed to occur within the NSM project working areas. Once one of our most common bat species, tricolored bats have experienced substantial declines across Virginia and West Virginia, since the discovery of white-nosed syndrome (WNS) in 2009. This bat occurred commonly across GWJNF area in summer and during migration (NatureServe, 2019) before these population declines (pers com. Rick Reynolds DGIF). A few years ago, the population impact of WNS on tricolored bats appeared to be less severe than it was initially, but recent data indicates that a drastic decline has occurred, and the disease continues to spread across a substantial portion of the bat's range (NatureServe, 2019). In Virginia, winter hibernacula monitoring surveys have documented

18 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

a more than 95% decline across the State. Tricolored bat is now State listed as Endangered (VDGIF 2019a; VDGIF 2019c). The proposed project area is outside of known high priority hibernacula and roost sites for tricolored bats in Virginia (VDGIF 2019b). There were no tricolored bats seen during field visits and the closest known hibernaculum to project working areas is over 20 miles away near Staunton Dam (VDGIF 2019b). The proposed prescribed burning and timber harvest activities will create forested openings, while maintaining 99% of the riparian buffers where these bats are known to forage (NatureServe, 2019). Bats could fly along stream courses easier and food sources (insects) will be indirectly increased due to more sunlight hitting the forest floor, increasing understory vegetation growth and diversity. Prescribed fire could indirectly affect tricolored bats by destroying some potential snag roosting habitat, though fire will also indirectly benefit bats via snag creation through burn mortality and through the creation of openings and thinned out understory that bats need to forage. During the dormant season when tricolored bats are in their hibernacula (caves, mines), prescribed burning should have no direct effects. Late dormant season burns or growing season burns could drive the bats out of the burn unit briefly, but they should resettle in adjacent, unburned units. Timber thinning would also indirectly benefit tricolored bats by increasing sunlight/solar warmth on the remaining trees, which could improve them as temporary roosting habitat. Tree removal could occur throughout the calendar year. Therefore, individuals or small groups could be unintentionally harmed or killed during felling operations. However, the risk of inadvertently harming individuals directly is very low as there are no known maternity roosts within the project area (VDGIF, 2019b). In addition, this project-level analysis incorporates direction and standards designed to benefit Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats from the George Washington National Forest’s Revised Forest and Land Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). These standards also meet the best management practices recommended by the State of Virginia for tri- colored bats (VDGIF 2016). This species could indirectly benefit from thinning and regeneration cuts, as well as Rx burn implementation, via more efficient foraging due to reduced midstory clutter (Cox et al. 2016) and increased insect abundance and diversity. Overall, the likely outcome is no discernable impacts, ranging toward a net beneficial effect for the tricolored bats. Therefore, there are no known impacts that should result from implementation of this project, that would adversely impact species viability or result in a trend toward federal listing of this species under the Endangered Species Act. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect the tricolored bat. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the tricolored bat from the proposed project. Thus, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) The wood turtle is known to occur in the NSM project area (Rockingham county, VA and Pendleton county, WV) and their populations have been surveyed and monitored by USFS staff, various researchers (e.g. T. Akre, J. Yoder, S. Sweeten, S. Krichbaum), WVDNR staff, and VDGIF staff on both

19 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

the North River and Lee Ranger Districts over the years. This species is a Forest Service sensitive species as per the Regional Forester’s list of sensitive species for the Southern Region that was issued March 15, 2018. Because wood turtle has been a priority species for conservation on the Forest and in both West Virginia and Virginia, Forest biological staff with both Virginia and West Virginia state herpetologists put together the “George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Wood Turtle Species Conservation Strategy” to synthesize the scientific literature, to provide guidelines that conserve wood turtle populations, and to protect and enhance their habitat on the GWJNFs (Huber et al. 2009). The information and guidelines in this Conservation Plan were adopted into the Revised GW Forest Plan (2014). At present, the wood turtle is listed as “Endangered” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List, as “G3 - Vulnerable” by NatureServe, and is also listed in the State Wildlife Action Plans of all 13 states in the northeastern U.S. as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WV and VA included). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is also considering a petition submitted in 2012, to list the Wood Turtle as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Jones et.al., 2018). In Virginia, where the wood turtle reaches the southern margin of its distribution (see range map below), it was first listed as “Threatened” due to natural rarity and a shrinking distribution in 1992 and is now considered a Tier 1 species for conservation action in both VA and WV (VDGIF, 2019; Jones et.al., 2018).

Figure 2. Approximate current geographic range of the Wood Turtle in North America (Jones et.al, 2018). It is recognized that the primary limiting factors affecting the viability of the wood turtle in the region are: deterioration of stream integrity and water quality, illegal collection, habitat loss and fragmentation, predation on nests and juveniles by predators (e.g. raccoons), and vehicular mortality (Buhlmann et.al. 2008; Jones et.al., 2018). Most of the remaining known populations on the GWJNF are found in streams west of the Shenandoah River in the South Branch Potomac, Cacapon, and North Fork Shenandoah River watersheds. There, most known populations occur on private land historically used for small-scale crop and livestock farming, with the balance found on the U.S. Forest Service

20 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

(USFS)-managed lands. The GWJNF and adjacent properties afford the most immediate, and possibly the best, opportunity for conservation of wood turtle populations in Virginia because of its public ownership, overall size, contiguity, and low degree of land conversion. The wood turtle is a moderately sized (to 240 mm) semi-aquatic turtle with low-density populations found from Virginia to Nova Scotia along the Atlantic drainage. This species requires aquatic, upland forest, and riverine or riparian habitats which together meet all the essential habitat needs for nesting, foraging, and overwintering (Jones et.al., 2018). These low-density populations are typically located along streams and small rivers where they use a variety of plant types in the surrounding riparian and upland landscape during the warmer months. Diet for this species consists of a wide variety of soft herbaceous plants and berries and animals such as various worms, insects, tadpoles, or dead fish. The wood turtle is primarily terrestrial during the spring, summer, and fall (May to October), and aquatic during cool spells and winter hibernation. Even when terrestrial, they must remain near moist habitats as they experience a greater evaporative water loss than the more terrestrial box turtle. They hibernate in deep pools of streams, under the mud or sandy substrate, or under overhanging roots along the bank (VDGIF, 2019a). Nesting wood turtles require loose substrate on fully exposed (unshaded) sites, such as sandy banks or sand-gravel bars in streams, which is limited within the NSM project area. When natural nesting sites are unavailable, they may use such man-made disturbances as road grades, railroad grades, borrow pits, or tilled fields (NatureServe, 2019). Mating typically occurs in fall as turtles return to hibernation sites. Nesting season is the following year from May to early July and emergence dates of hatchlings from the moist, usually sandy, soil is late July to early October. Nesting success for wood turtles generally is very low, with egg predators taking a heavy toll. Overall reproductive success for a population depends on a high rate of adult survival, long-lived adults that reproduce many times during their lifetime, and the occasional good season when a nest survives (NatureServe, 2019). Wood turtle population viability is particularly sensitive to human encroachment, even among turtles, because they are equally dependent on both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, they are a wide-roaming species, and may occupy large home ranges (ca. 100 ha), and most importantly, they are long-lived and slow to reproduce (Jones et.al., 2018). In contrast to their vulnerability to direct human exploitation, wood turtles are fairly tolerant of moderate habitat alterations. For instance, though wood turtles are generally associated with wooded streams, they generally feed along the margins of woods, or in openings, where preferred berries grow. Selective cutting of trees and may open new areas for the turtles to use. Ernst et al. (1994) found wood turtles prefer openings in the streamside canopy over unbroken forest, which may suggest that selective removal of trees or shrubs (by hand or by equipment in the winter) may promote more herbaceous plant growth or create more nesting areas (Sweeten, 2008). Thus, some timber removal adjacent to streams may not be harmful to the population and could provide indirect beneficial effects in creating new foraging and nesting areas (NatureServe, 2019, Harding 1997). Wood turtles are known to be tolerant of moderate development/ disturbance, such as timber harvest, light grazing, and low-intensity agriculture as well (Harding 1997, NatureServe, 2019). Wood turtles may benefit indirectly from low-intensity agriculture, such as that used for maintaining

21 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

forest openings/wildlife clearings or old field habitat because they prefer forest-edge ecotones (NatureServe, 2019), though care needs to be taken using farm equipment in known wood turtle home ranges (e.g. mowing height) in order to avoid direct impacts. Habitat maintenance and improvement is where the Forest can make the biggest gains on conserving the wood turtle (USDA, 2014a). Below is the specific direction from the GW Forest Plan regarding wood turtle management and the additional Project Specific Design Criteria developed to protect wood turtle populations and enhance wood turtle habitat. Careful project implementation within these parameters will not lead to wood turtle habitat degradation or loss of viability. Riparian and aquatic habitat will be managed using the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan. Desired Conditions for Species Diversity (GW Plan page 2-20): DC SPD-13: Watersheds with known populations of wood turtles are managed to maintain or enhance the terrestrial summer foraging habitat, nesting habitat and overwintering habitat of wood turtles. Human interactions, such as motorized vehicle use and recreation, are managed to minimize impacts to wood turtles. The following goals and strategies apply to perennial streams, seeps, riparian areas, and adjacent upland areas on the Forest (GW) within the range of the wood turtle. Currently, this range includes the North Fork Shenandoah and the South Fork of the South Branch of the Potomac River and the Cacapon River watersheds on the Lee and North River Ranger Districts. Goal 1 Watersheds are managed to maintain or enhance the terrestrial summer foraging habitat of wood turtles. Goal 2 Watersheds are managed to maintain or enhance the nesting habitat of wood turtles. Goal 3 Watersheds are managed to maintain or enhance the overwintering aquatic habitat of wood turtles. Goal 4 Human interactions, such as motorized vehicle use and recreation, are managed to minimize impacts to wood turtles. Wood turtle Project-Specific Design Elements are: 1. No mechanical logging activities (including those for wood turtle enhancement) allowed within 300 feet (100 m) of the edge of perennial streams from May 1 to October 15 known to be occupied by wood turtles, as designated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) and West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR). Within the 300-foot buffer, hand felling and cabling of timber would be permitted during the May 1 to October 15 time period. In coordination with VDGIF or WVDNR and Forest Service biologists, logging activity restrictions in the 300 ft buffer zone may be modified on a case-by-case basis. 2. Place large woody debris and root wads into the stream channel to provide over-wintering habitat as appropriate.

22 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

3. Where feasible, and in accordance with Forest Plan soils direction, soil berms will be put in place along occupied stream reaches to serve as wood turtle nesting habitat. As wood turtles are found primarily in and near clear streams in deciduous forests and woodlands where they frequent spring seeps, marshy meadows associated with floodplains, and riparian areas, they should be less likely to be directly impacted by proposed project activities which will adhere to Forest Plan Standards for riparian area protection. In 2006, specific research was conducted on wood turtle populations in streams occurring on FS Lands (some within the NSM Project area) focusing on wood turtle movements, home ranges, and determining the best management practices for areas occupied by wood turtles (Sweeten, 2008) on the Forest. This study was conducted in coordination with George Washington National Forest staff, and data and results shared with the Forest to improve wood turtle conservation. Sweeten determined that seasonal buffer zones are critical for wood turtle management and will allow for certain land use activities near wood turtle populations while protecting those populations (Sweeten, 2008). Data gathered on wood turtle movements throughout 2006-2007 from these GWNF sites led Sweeten to recommend “90 m buffer zones for management activities in the summer (May 15 – September. 30), 30 m buffer zones in the spring and fall (April 1 – May 15 and October 1 – November 15), and 10 m buffer in the winter (November 15 – March 30). (Sweeten, 2008). Table 5 below is data from Sweeten’s thesis published in 2008, which shows that most wood turtles within the NSM Project Area stay within 10 meters of the stream in winter, within 30 meters of the stream in spring and fall, and within 90 meters of the stream in summer. Table 5. Percentage of all wood turtle recaptures within each buffer zone during each season within the Slate Lick Working Area (from Sweeten, 2008). Summer Fall Winter Spring

Instream 19.4 62.4 97.3 30.0

10 m 33.6 85.2 100.0 50.0

30 m 62.7 97.3 100.0 94.3

60 m 86.4 98.7 100.0 100.0

90 m 95.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Additionally, the Northeast Wood Turtle Working Group published “A Guide to Wood Turtle Habitat Management” in 2018, which states that “while turtles have been documented traveling >0.5 mi from streams, the vast majority of movements occur within 100 ft, with a high-activity zone of 300 ft from streams”. The project-specific design element creating protection buffers (300 ft) along known wood turtle occupied streams is based on this science available in the literature and site-specific research

23 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

(Sweeten, 2008). No harvest activity or road construction will occur in the riparian corridor as part of this project. In addition, spring seeps are wetlands considered part of the riparian corridor and are therefore avoided during any ground disturbing activity and have the appropriate buffer width. Wood turtles are long-lived species, typical of turtles, so that almost any increase in adult and juvenile mortality leads to a decrease in abundance. Such increased mortality can occur from increased exposure to road traffic, agricultural machinery, off-road vehicles, and collection for pets. An increased level of threat could be associated with new or increased access to areas by people. The NSM project proposes new temporary and permanent roads within known wood turtle home ranges, though following logging operations, the permanent access roads will be managed for administrative use only, and not open to the public for vehicle use; while the temporary roads will be put to bed. However, during logging operations, there could be direct mortality to turtles using the forested stands during the terrestrial phase of their annual life cycle. A couple ways to implement habitat improvements for this species is to create nesting, basking, and hibernating sites (Jones et.al., 2018). Creation of openings in the woods along streams, where herbaceous vegetation and berries can thrive can indirectly improve wood turtle habitat (NatureServe, 2019) by increasing foraging opportunities. The NSM project proposed to add large woody debris to known wood turtle streams (in accordance with habitat management guidance), to create additional deep stream pools and potential hibernation refugia. Additionally, the creation of artificial nesting habitat (sandy/soil berms) is also proposed in this project, where needed. Researchers and managers have successfully created wood turtle nesting habitat by constructing piles of sand/soil in open areas (Buhlmann and Osborn 2011). This action could increase suitable nest sites available to wood turtles within the wood turtle occupied watersheds to improve their chance of reproductive success. By following the recommendations set forth in “A Guide to Habitat Management for Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta)” (prepared by the Northeast Wood Turtle Working Group for USFWS, 2018), these new, anthropogenic nesting areas should avoid creating landscape configurations that result in attractive nuisances or ecological traps in which females are attracted to nesting areas that either result in decreased adult survival rates, decreased nest success, or decreased hatchling survivorship. Wood turtle expert, Dr. Tom Akre, and DGIF herpetologist, JD Kleopfer, will be advising the USFS on nesting needs, site suitability, and placement of any artificial nesting structures (pers. com. Tom Akre, 2019). Several proposed units in the project area are adjacent to streams known to support wood turtles. Thus, surveys were conducted in potential wood turtle occupied stream reaches adjacent to proposed timber harvest and Rx burning activity areas. In 2017, Dr. Akre (SCBI) had a crew survey in the Slate Lick Working Area of the Project to monitor and ID wood turtles in stream. That crew located 16 individuals; 5 were new captures, and 11 were recaptures from previous monitoring efforts (pers. com. Tom Akre). Additionally, in 2018, Dr. Yoder (EMU) was contracted through the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage (DNH) to conduct surveys on three different 1 km reaches of three lotic habitats in the Slate Lick Working Arre during 2018. Streams were identified by Dawn Kirk, GWJNF, and Steve Roble, VDNH, and surveys were to determine presence of wood turtles and to assess stream habitat conditions, including the quality of turtle winter hibernacula sites. Surveys

24 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

were conducted according to protocols and methods as outlined in the Wood Turtle Population Assessment Protocol developed by the Northeast Wood Turtle Working Group (2015). No wood turtles were detected during surveys on two stream reaches, and a total of 21 captures of 18 individual turtles were made during the species surveys. As previously stated, no harvest activity will occur in the riparian corridor. In addition, spring seeps are part of the riparian corridor and are therefore avoided during any harvest activity. The NSM project proposes to increase the amount of large woody debris (LWD) for wood turtle winter habitat (up to 20 pieces) within the range of the wood turtle in the project area. Additionally, protection of the riparian area would allow for the natural recruitment of LWD in the future. Future recruitment of LWD is expected to improve the amount and distribution of pool habitat in area streams in the future. This riparian area would also provide shading of the stream to maintain current thermal characteristics and microbial (algal, bacteria) structure and productivity. Wood turtles could be negatively directly impacted by heavy equipment (e.g. logging equipment, tractors) or increased road traffic. However, project actions will include indirect benefits to wood turtles, including foraging habitat improvements and increasing nesting and over-wintering in-stream refugia. This species does have desirable foraging habitat within the project area; thus the implementation of this project could have short-term negative impacts to this species and long-term beneficial impacts to this species. The GW Forest Plan gives specific guidance regarding wood turtle management (Forest Plan, p 2-20) and several additional Project-Specific Design Elements were formulated to mitigate negative impacts to this species from the implementation of proposed actions in the NSM Project Area. Careful project implementation within these parameters, and in cooperation with Forest biological staff and WVDNR and DGIF biologists, will not lead to wood turtle habitat degradation or a loss of species viability on the Forest, or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Thus, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect the wood turtle. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the wood turtle from the proposed project. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Cow Knob Salamander (Plethodon punctatus) Effects to Cow Knob salamander (CKS) were considered in this BE because it is known to occur within the project boundary, was located during project field surveys, and because potential habitat occurs in project working areas. The Cow Knob salamander is a Regional Forester’s Sensitive species as well as a GWJNF Management Indicator Species (MIS) because it is a narrow endemic that occurs almost entirely on the George Washington National Forest. In 1989, Cow Knob salamander was listed as a Candidate species for Federal Listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. However, in 1994 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the GWNF entered into the very first Conservation Agreement, under a multi- agency Memorandum of Understanding, designed to keep this at-risk species from needing to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. This Conservation Agreement, and accompanying Cow Knob salamander Habitat Conservation Assessment, acts as the guide for management of the Cow Knob salamander on National Forest Lands.

25 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Due to this salamander’s very restricted range, the majority of which falls on Forest lands on the North River Ranger District, the GWJNF in consultation with USFWS designated nearly all potential habitat for this species into a special MA prescription called 8E7 – Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob Salamander Special Biological Area. As described above (Rare Communities), the emphasis for management within this large area is to safeguard and maintain habitat for the Cow Knob salamander for the protection and restoration of this species and other outstanding natural biological values. The northern end of Shenandoah Mountain, approximately 30% of the salamander range, lies within the NSM project area boundary, including 17,205 acres of Management Area 8E7 – Shenandoah Mountain Crest, Cow Knob Salamander SBA. More details on Forest-wide direction for Cow Knob salamander management and MA 8E7 – Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob salamander SBA can be found here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3850464.docx The Cow Knob Salamander, formerly the white-spotted salamander, is a rare amphibian species narrowly endemic to the higher elevations of Shenandoah Mountain and Great North Mountain, where it prefers late successional hardwood dominated forests with abundant rock cover or “talus slopes” (USDA, 2014a). Cow Knob salamander is a medium-sized salamander with a length ranging 100-157 mm,50% of which is its tail length. It is a slender salamander with relatively thin legs, and moderately webbed feet. Its body a dark gray or brownish color with a row of white or yellow spots along the sides and on the back. Its belly is uniformly gray, and the underside of the throat is pinkish (VDGIF, 2019). Cow Knob salamander are active on moist, humid days from spring through fall, then retreat into deep burrows to hibernate from October to April. By day, Cow Knob salamander hide under woody debris, rocks, or in burrows and by night they forage in the open on invertebrates (Bean et al., 2010). Night surface foraging activity usually begins in April and ends by late June when they go underground in dry years. This activity is observed again in the fall with the return of cool moist weather. They are carnivorous, consuming virtually any insect or larvae they can capture (VDGIF, 2019). Compared to larger salamanders, the movements of plethodontids are more limited, thus home ranges tend to be very small, on the order of a few meters to a few dozen meters in diameter. On occasion, dispersing Cow Knob salamander could travel up to several hundred meters, but they are restricted from dispersing very far from their preferred high-elevation, moist, rocky, talus habitats (NatureServe, 2019; pers. comm. William Flint, 2019). Climate change modeling studies by Sutton et.al. in 2015 on eastern salamanders found that P. virginia (SMS) and P. punctatus (CKS) were two of the most sensitive salamander species to predicted climate trends and associated changes to their ecological niches by 2050. That study highlighted the importance of taking a proactive approach in establishing and maintaining ecological climate refugia for these species (Sutton et.al., 2015). The Forest Plan (2014) took this approach by delineating 58,000 acres into the 8E7 Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob Salamander SBA Management Area, which allows no timber harvest or any other ground disturbing activities, in order to maintain the integrity of potential Cow Knob salamander habitat. The most recent monitoring reports for the Forest indicate the habitat trend is one of an aging forest that benefits Cow Knob salamanders and should lead to a stable or increasing population for this

26 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

species (USDA FEIS, 2014). Currently, Cow Knob salamanders are listed as “G3 – Vulnerable “by NatureServe and are a Tier I (critical conservation need) Species of Greatest Conservation Need within the Virginia State Wildlife Action Plan (NatureServe, 2019; VDGIF, 2019). Climate change modeling studies by Sutton et.al. in 2015 on eastern salamanders found that P. virginia (SMS) and P. punctatus (CKS) were two of the most sensitive salamander species to predicted climate trends and associated changes to their ecological niches by 2050. That study highlighted the importance of taking a proactive approach in establishing and maintaining ecological climate refugia for these species (Sutton et.a., 2015). The Forest Plan (2014) took this approach by delineating 58,000acres into the– Cow Knob Salamander SBA Management Area, 24,000 acres of that is included in 8E7 Shenandoah Mountain Crest which allows no timber harvest or any other ground disturbing activities, in order to maintain the integrity of potential Cow Knob salamander habitat. The remaining 34,000 acres of Cow Knob Salamander habitat as identified in the Conservation Plan are allocated to recommended National Scenic Area (23,000 acres), and 11,000 acres to Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness Study or Research Natural Areas (Forest Plan page 4-113). Per the Conservation Agreement and Forest Plan Guidance, species-specific daylight and night surveys were conducted within NSM project proposed activity areas (e.g. timber harvest, road construction) in NSM project area to determine CKS presence and potential habitat by CKS expert, Dr. William Flint (James Madison University), in 2018. During surveys, Dr. Flint found several areas of likely habitat (talus slopes) and recorded presence of CKS in multiple areas outside of the designated Shenandoah Mountain Crest MA (elevations < 3,000 ft). Where CKS were detected, those locations and critical talus habitat associated with new Cow Knob salamander discoveries identified by Dr. Flint were added to the Forest-wide Cow Knob salamander inventoried special biological area and are to be treated as MA 8E7 Shenandoah Mountain Crest, per the guidance from the Conservation Agreement and 2014 Forest Plan (standard FW-45). Acreage added to the inventoried special biological area (MA prescription 4D) cannot by officially added to the 8E7 MA prescription however, until a Forest Plan amendment is completed (standard 4D-001). An additional Project Design Element was created to further protect CKS and the microhabitat surrounding areas outside of MA 8E7 where salamanders were found by expanding the inventoried Special Biological Area (SBA). Cow Knob salamander design elements for this project are: 1. Forest Plan FW-45 If Cow Knob salamanders are found in areas outside the Shenandoah Mountain Crest management prescription area, those areas will be subject to the same management measures as described in the Shenandoah Mountain Crest Management Prescription Area 8E7. 2. The inventoried special biological area layer will be expanded based on survey results that found Cow Knob salamander outside of the current Shenandoah Mountain Crest prescription boundary. All activities proposed originally for the NSM Restoration and Management Project that could impact CKS have been dropped from the final proposed actions. This project will follow the Cow Knob salamander Conservation Agreement, all Forest Plan direction for MA 8E7 and TES species protection, and the additional project-specific Design Element created to further protect Cow Know salamanders, identified critical talus habitat, and the microclimate surrounding their habitat. In doing so, the

27 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

restoration activities proposed in the NSM project will have no appreciable negative or beneficial direct or indirect effects to CKS. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect the Cow Knob salamander. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the CKS from the proposed project. Climate change, genetic bottlenecking, disease, wildfires, and severe weather events could still potentially have cumulative effects to Cow Knob salamander into the future, though these events and severity of effects are not predictive, are difficult to measure, and are outside the scope of this project analysis. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Shenandoah Mountain Salamander (Plethodon virginia) Effects to Shenandoah Mountain salamander (SMS) were considered in this BE because it is known to occur within the project boundary, was located during project field surveys, and because potential habitat occurs in project working areas. This species is a Regional Forester’s Sensitive species and ranked G2G3 globally (very rare, restricted range). The range of Shenandoah Mountain salamander is approximately 1,000 square miles and nearly the same as that of the Cow Knob salamander (CKS), though it is not restricted only to mesic, higher elevation, sites (Highton, 1999; AmphibiWeb, 2019). This range includes Shenandoah Mountain, plus South Branch and Nathaniel mountains, from central Rockingham County, Virginia, and Pendleton County, West Virginia, north to Hardy and Hampshire counties, West Virginia, and west to the South Fork of the South Branch of the Potomac River in western Hardy and southern Hampshire counties in West Virginia (Highton, 1999). See Figure 2a showing the IUCN’s estimated range of P.virginia from AmphibiWeb.com below. Within this range, there is a large amount of federal (GWJNF & MNF) and WV State-owned lands that contain suitable forested habitat for these salamanders. Several conservation measures have been implemented to ensure the viability of CKS populations (e.g. Conservation Agreement, Special Biological Area 8E7, Forest Plan Standards) that also should benefit Shenandoah Mountain salamanders at higher elevations. Shenandoah Mountain salamanders (Plethodon virginia) were recognized by Highton in 1999 as a new species of salamander from Valley and Ridge salamanders (P. hoffmani) based on molecular and distributional data. Previously, the two species had been regarded as one species (P. hoffmani), and there are no known morphological characteristics that distinguish them, though they are genetically different and occupy different ranges. The known range of Shenandoah Mountain salamanders (P. virginia) and its relation to the range of Valley and Ridge salamanders (P. hoffmani) is presented in Highton (1999).

28 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

A. B. Figures 2a & 2b - a) IUCN distribution map for P. virginia. b) Terrain map showing approximate NSM project working areas (purple polygons) and P. virginia range (orange polygon) and occurrence (blue dots). (AmphibiaWeb, 2019)

P. virginia occurs in western Virginia and eastern West Virginia between the South Branch of the Potomac River and the Cacapon River. P. hoffmani and P. virginia have a hybrid zone south of highway 33 to Reddish Knob, and P. hoffmani distributions persist south of Reddish knob on Shenandoah Mountain (pers. com. Dr. Flint, 2019). The distribution maps above show the range of Shenandoah Mountain salamanders and some occurrence data. The occurrence data (showing numerous ridgetop sites) overlaps quite a bit of the 8E7 Shenandoah Mtn Crest – Cow Knob Salamander Special Biological Area on the North River District that falls above 3,000 in elevation. Shenandoah Mountain salamander is described as a sibling species to P. hoffmani and these species are part of the Red-backed salamander (P. cinereus) group. Salamanders in this group are small and elongate woodland salamanders with two color morphs, striped and unstriped. Their venters are mottled with black and white. Brood sites include underground cavities or crevices, and hatching occurs in August to September, though juveniles only emerge the following spring (Beane et.al., 2010). Adults and juveniles eat a wide array of prey including worms, beetles, snails, millipedes, spiders, and other insects. Predators are unknown, but likely include forest birds, small mammals, and snakes (Fraser, 1976; Beane et.al., 2010). All Plethodon salamanders produce noxious skin secretions, and Shenandoah Mountain salamanders (P. viginia) frequently become immobile when contacted by predators or humans as well (NatureServe, 2019).

29 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

These salamanders prefer mature hardwood forested stands, though they are more habitat generalists, and will inhabit other forest types as well (Beane et.al., 2010 & pers. com Dr. Flint, 2019). Fraser (1976) described the habitat of adult P. virginia at a site in Rockingham County, Virginia, includes ridges and slopes. The ridges are characterized by deep soil with a predominant vegetation of white oak and late low blueberry. The slopes are characterized by shallow, rocky soil with a predominant vegetation of chestnut oak, red maple, late low blueberry, witch hazel and mountain laurel. They are one of the earlier salamanders to emerge in spring around March and go back underground when temperatures get too hot or cold (Fraser, 1976; pers. com. Dr. Flint 2019). These woodland salamanders make vertical migrations, moving from the forest floor to underground sites where they remain during cold or dry weather. They emerge on rainy nights to forage from March through July (Beane et.al., 2010 & pers. com. Dr. Flint, 2019), though only a small proportion of the population is at the surface at any given time (Fraser, 1976). During 2017 project surveys for CKS, Flint noted numerous occurrences of P. virginia, both during daylight and night surveys, throughout the NSM project area. He noted that P. virginia was “more a habitat generalist than Cow Knob salamander” with occurrences on various aspects, habitat types and from elevations of approximately 2000’ to 2800’. He also noted there was a trend of detecting Shenandoah Mountain salamanders in more xeric (dry) forest types than CKS and other Plethodon species prefer (pers. com. Dr. Flint, 2019). Flint reported that he was finding them “nearly everywhere I looked for salamanders” both inside and outside of the 8E7 – Shenandoah Mountain Crest, Cow Knob Salamander MA. Fraser (1976) studied the coexistence of Shenandoah Mountain salamanders (then called Ridge and Valley salamanders, p.hoffmani) and Cow Knob salamanders on USFS lands on Shenandoah Mountain in Rockingham County, VA. He noted high overlap of food resources and surface habitat utilization between adult Shenandoah Mountain salamanders and juvenile CKS. Staggered feeding schedules and partitioning of structural habitat by adults was reported to be important in reducing interspecific competition between these two species. Threats to Shenandoah Mountain salamanders mirror those of CKS, including climate change, disease, logging operations, loss of hemlock trees from hemlock woolly adelgid, as well as defoliation of canopy hardwood trees by gypsy moth (NatureServe, 2019). Climate change modeling studies by Sutton et.al. in 2015 on eastern salamanders found that P. virginia (SMS) and P. punctatus (CKS) were two of the most sensitive salamander species to predicted climate trends and associated changes to their ecological niches by 2050. That study highlighted the importance of taking a proactive approach in establishing and maintaining ecological climate refugia for these species (Sutton et.al., 2015). The Forest Plan (2014) took this approach by delineating 58,000 acres into the 8E7 Shenandoah Mountain Crest – Cow Knob Salamander SBA Management Area, which allows no timber harvest or any other ground disturbing activities, in order to maintain the integrity of potential Cow Knob salamander habitat. SMS also benefit from the 8E7 MA protections, though they are found both inside and outside of the 8E7 MA. Shenandoah Mountain salamanders are known to exist on slopes throughout the NSM project area from elevations of 2000-3000+ft. and could be negatively impacted directly (mortality) by logging

30 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

activities, creation of temporary or permanent forest roads, creation of Rx fire control lines, or other proposed ground disturbing activities that will coincide with this species’ above-ground activity spans from March-July. Rx burning activities will typically occur outside of the SMS above-ground activity period. While there is a chance that burning later in the spring could potentially kill some individuals on the surface, it is likely that weather conditions dry enough to be suitable for prescribed fire would be too dry for salamanders to be surface active, and they would be underground and not directly affected by fire. Indirectly, Rx burning will consume a large portion of the leaf litter, which will be an indirect short-term negative impact to this species’ foraging areas and food supply. However, new understory growth following Rx burns will bring greater insect abundance and diversity to the forest floor which could benefit SMS. Removal of overstory from proposed timber treatments will increase solar radiation and thus alter the microclimate at the forest floor in the short to mid-term as well, which could create unsuitable conditions for SMS survival in timber treatment units. However, Rx burning, timber operations, wildfires, insect outbreaks and other natural weather events have been occurring on Shenandoah Mountain for many decades, and p. virginia (SMS) are still readily found throughout the project area, perhaps due to their ability to seek refugia underground. This project will follow all Forest Plan direction for 8E7 MA, which will protect a large portion of the known range of Shenandoah Mountain salamanders within the project area. The total acreage of proposed actions is 8,069 acres for the NSM Project, which is equivalent to approximately 12 square miles or 1.2% of the known distribution range (1,000 sq. miles, IUCN) for Shenandoah Mountain salamanders. Given this, along with the limited season of above-ground activity and number of Shenandoah Mountain salamanders at the surface at any given time, the proposed actions are expected to negatively impact this species, though not cause a loss of species viability as a whole on the Forest. Thus, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect the Shenandoah Mountain salamander. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the Shenandoah Mountain salamander from the proposed project. Climate change, genetic bottlenecking, disease, wildfires, and severe weather events could still potentially have cumulative effects to Shenandoah Mountain salamander into the future, though these events and severity of effects are not predictive, are difficult to measure, and are outside the scope of this project analysis. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Effects to Monarch were considered in this BE because it is known to occur throughout the GWJNF, was found during project field surveys, and because potential habitat occurs in the project area. Monarch butterfly populations and those of many other pollinators have dramatically declined over the past few years because of habitat loss, use of pesticides, and a myriad of other factors. In 2018, the Monarch butterfly was added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list for Region 8. The Monarch butterfly is a well-known and wide spread species belonging to the family Nymphalidae. The butterfly is relatively large with a wingspan of 3.75 to 4.875 inches. Wings are orange to orange- brown with wide black borders and black veins. Males have a patch of scent scales on each hind wing

31 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

that appear as a black spot (NatureServe, 2019). The monarch butterfly is the only butterfly that annually migrates north and south. North America forms the core of the Monarch’s range, but the overall range extends through Central America to northern South America. Adult monarchs start to move south from their northern breeding sites in July, and large congregations can be seen on the move by September. They move by daylight, stopping to feed along the way. Research studies have found that monarchs regularly cover distances in excess of 1,180 miles, at speeds of up to 80 miles per day (although 20 miles is more typical for a day's flight). However, opinions differ as to how far most individuals fly and how much the migration may be made up of successive short trips by different individuals. Although butterflies are capable of directional movement, they are also influenced by the effect of wind and other air currents and may be blown off course (WVDNR, 2019). At night and when weather conditions are bad, monarchs roost in trees. The butterflies finally reach their destinations of either southern Florida, California or Mexico in late November. Along the way, however, an estimated more than half of those beginning the long migration will have perished due to wind or water damage, predators and a host of other causes. Those who do survive the arduous journey tend to collect at only a few sites. For instance, almost the entire population of monarch butterflies from the central United States can be found clustered together in large masses in a small area west of Mexico City. In 1986 the Mexican government formally designated this area as a permanently protected sanctuary to protect the butterflies (WVDNR, 2019). The summer range includes portions of the conterminous U.S and the southern portions of all Canadian provinces bordering the US where milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) occur. Monarchs are associated with open lands, including wildlife openings, native prairie patches, roadsides, open woodlands, early successional woody habitat, utility corridors and grassland/shrublands where host and nectar plants are found. Monarchs can be found foraging in suitable habitat, during the breeding season and fall migration, throughout the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. The Monarch caterpillar feeds on a variety of milkweed species, the most important of which are common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), swamp milkweed (A. incarnata), and green antelopehorn (A. viridis). The first two are used primarily in summer/fall and the last is used in spring and sometimes summer/fall. Eggs are laid singly on the underside of host plant leaves. Caterpillars, with circular strips of white/yellow and black feed on both leaves and flowers. The chrysalis is a bright light green with black and gold ornamentation. In general, breeding areas are virtually all patches of milkweed in North America. Any patch of milkweed is likely to be used by breeding or migrating Monarch butterflies in the vicinity. Within the NSM project, most of the milkweed and other floral resources used by Monarchs are found in early successional habitats such as permanently maintained wildlife clearings, old field habitat, along roads or trails, and within powerline or gas line right of ways. A critical conservation feature for North American populations is the overwintering habitats, which are certain high-altitude Mexican conifer forests or coastal California conifer or Eucalyptus groves as identified in literature. All adults are dependent on a variety of nectar sources along the above described migration routes. Population 2 is in drastic decline compared with numbers recorded 10-20

32 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

years ago (NatureServe 2019). Factors such as illegal logging and erratic and extreme weather in the very narrowly distributed wintering range, and loss of milkweed and nectars plants in the mid-western United States have led to declines (Pleasants 2015, Ramírez et al. 2015, NatureServe 2019). Widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides may also contribute to declines (Krischik et al. 2015, Percenka and Lundgren 2015). Population 2 has global rank of G4T1, indicating that while widespread, the population is critically imperiled. Proactive management of roadside corridors, right of ways, silvicultural management, prescribed fire, open grassland/shrublands, and trails to include a variety of milkweed and flowering nectar plants will provide help suitable habitat for monarch butterflies. All of these types of management actions are included within the NSM project proposed actions, including specific measures to improve pollinator habitat within Camp Run savannah, permanent wildlife clearings, old field habitat (e.g. Slate Lick fields), and in seeding disturbed areas such as roadsides or log landings. Though some Monarchs could be negatively impacted by heavier traffic along roadways or temporarily displaced from typical milkweed feeding patches during project implementation, it is anticipated that over-all the additional early successional habitat created from timber and Rx fire activities, plus the focus on planting of pollinator species will improve Monarch habitat for the short to long-term. As Monarch butterflies are documented as occurring in the project area and could be benefited or negatively indirectly impacted in the short to mid-term, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect the Monarch. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to the butternut from the proposed project. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Cupped Vertigo (Vertigo clappi) Effects to cupped vertigo (Vertigo clappi) were considered in this BE because potential habitat occurs in the project area, though this species is difficult to detect and was not found during project field surveys. Vertigo clappi is a tiny terrestrial land snail, body and shell approximately 1.5 mm high. It has a high, 5.5 coil helix. The aperture has 6 tiny, but well-developed teeth. The aperture wall contains a small, but noticeable dent (Dourson 2010, p.63). This snail species is found in well-decomposed leaf litter or fine soil on shaded boulders, talus, ledges and forested bedrock. Threats include loss of forest canopy and heavy soil disturbance. Short term population trends predict a 10-25% population increase, long term trends vary (NatureServe, 2019). Cupped Vertigo ranges from the mountains of southeastern Tennessee, north along the Appalachians to the north shore of Lake Ontario in southern Quebec. In Virginia, this species occurs in three counties in the northern and central mountains. It is expected to occur in cool, calcareous sites which while not wet, maintain high humidity (NatureServe, 2019). Cupped vertigo was formerly thought to be limited to only a 650 km extent of the southern Appalachians from western Tennessee to northern West Virginia, but reanalysis indicates the range is actually double what it had been thought; extending as far north as the northern shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario (NatureServe, 2019). On the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, it occurs within Greenbrier and Pendleton Counties, WV.

33 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

This snail species lives in decomposing leaf litter and is hard to detect, so it could be present but not picked up in project surveys. The project areas contain such habitats. It is possible that individuals may be crushed as a result of proposed ground disturbing activities, but the project area contains thousands of acres of potential habitat. Thus, any impacts to local populations(s) are expected to be minimal when compared to numerous potential populations elsewhere in the adjoining watersheds. Impacts from proposed action are not anticipated to cause loss of species viability as a whole on the Forest. Thus, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect cupped vertigo. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to this species from the proposed project. Effects to Sweet Pine-sap (Monotropsis odorata) Sweet pinesap is a saprophytic, vascular plant inhabiting pine dominated forests and pine-oak heaths. A monotypic endemic species centered in the Appalachian Mountains, it occurs more frequently in North Carolina and Virginia; becoming rarer towards the limits of its range. The range is from Maryland and West Virginia south to Alabama, Georgia and possibly Florida. This species is known to occur in at least 20 Virginia counties but has not been found on the North River Ranger District. There are no records for sweet pinesap documented in the project area, and this species was not recorded in botanical surveys. The botanical surveys were not conducted during the blooming season for this species; however, it is assumed to occur in the project area because oak-heath woodland habitat occurs in the project area. Sweet pinesap typically grows in well-drained, dry to mesic, acidic soil in oak-heath woodlands, often with white pine and rhododendron. Compared with other flowering plants, blooming occurs very early in the year (February to early April). Sweet pinesap grows well hidden under the leaf litter and is usually found by accident during activities that remove the leaf litter; such as fireline construction or trail and recreation maintenance activities. It is sometimes found by its unique smell, which is quite fragrant. Timber harvest and road construction could directly impact individuals through destruction of the soil environment by blading, tree skidding, log landing clearing, and other construction activities. Because the proposed management is designed to benefit oak species, long-term indirect effects should be beneficial, because the proposed management activities will promote oak regeneration and persistence (the sweet pinesap host) as well as yellow pine restoration. Prescribed fire could top-kill individuals, because implementation of the Rx fire generally coincides with the growing season for sweet pinesap (Feb-May). Some individual sweet pinesap plants may be directly impacted by equipment during fireline construction, though the likelihood of this is fairly low. Prescribed burning activities could directly and indirectly impact individuals, but there should be no long-term negative effects to the population, since prescribed burning would favor oak species, the sweet pinesap host. It is possible that individuals of sweet pinesap may be destroyed during temporary road construction or harvest activities within the entire project area, however, the NSM Project area contains thousands

34 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

of acres of potential habitat for sweet pinesap and there are thousands of acres of potential habitat in the surrounding landscape of the GWJNF. Thus, any impacts to local populations(s) are expected to be minimal when compared to numerous potential populations elsewhere in the watersheds and across the Forest. In addition, there are seven known populations on the Forest that are located on the Clinch, Eastern Divide, North River, Glenwood/Pedlar, and Warm Springs Ranger Districts. Any impacts to local populations(s) are expected to be minimal when compared to numerous potential populations elsewhere across the Forest. While proposed activities may impact individuals, the actions should not affect the species population entirely. Thus, the determination of effect for this species for the proposed actions is, “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”. There are no additional foreseeable activities in the area that would directly or indirectly affect sweet pinesap. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to this species from the proposed project. Summary of Determination of Effects to Species Table 6. Summary of determination of effects to R8 Sensitive species with implementation of proposed action. Determination Species Taxa Additional Information of Effects All Butternut found within proposed action areas are to be marked as leave trees and undisturbed. Identifying Butternut as a leave/crop tree will benefit this species by removing its shade Butternut producing competitors. There is a chance that timber removal Plant May Impact* Juglans cinerea around butternut trees to expose them to more windthrow, however, the implementation of this project will not have impacts that would cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. There is only one record for this species or preferred cliff/rock outcrop habitat occurring within the project boundary. All Forest Plan Standards for bats would be incorporated into the project. Risk of inadvertently harming individuals with proposed restoration activities is very low. This species does have desirable foraging Eastern small- habitat within the project area, thus the implementation of this footed bat Mammal May Impact* project could have potential to impact individuals of this species via Myotis leibii short-term disturbance. This species could also benefit indirectly from improvements to foraging habitat following canopy opening (thinning) and prescribed fire activities (e.g. increased bug diversity, ease of flight through stands). Impacts from proposed action would not cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. The proposed project area is outside of known high priority hibernacula and roost sites for tricolored bats in Virginia (VDGIF 2016). There were no tricolored bats seen during field visits and no caves or hibernacula recorded in the area. All Forest Plan Standards Tri-colored bat for bats would be incorporated into the project. Risk of Perimyotis Mammal May Impact* inadvertently harming individuals with proposed restoration subflavus activities is very low. This species does have desirable foraging habitat within the project area, thus the implementation of this project could have potential to impact individuals of this species via short-term disturbance. This species could also benefit indirectly from improvements to foraging habitat following canopy opening

35 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

(thinning) and prescribed fire activities (e.g. increased bug diversity, ease of flight through stands). Impacts from proposed action would not cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Wood turtles are known to occupy streams and upland habitats in the NSM project area and could be negatively impacted by heavy equipment (e.g. logging equipment, tractors), road traffic or be indirectly impacted positively or negatively from short-term impacts to their habitats from Rx burning or timber removal. Project-specific Design Elements have been created for this project, in addition to Forest-wide Standards for protecting streams, sensitive species, and riparian habitats, to promote nesting and Wood turtle pool habitats and to alleviate negative impacts to wood turtles. This Glyptemys Reptile May Impact* species could also benefit indirectly from improvements to foraging insculpta habitats, in-stream woody debris, and construction of artificial nesting habitat. This species does have desirable foraging habitat within the project area, thus the implementation of this project could have short-term negative impacts to this species and long- term beneficial impacts to this species. However, impacts from proposed action area not likely to cause a loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. This species occurs within the project area, but outside of proposed ground disturbing activities. This species forages at night and seeks underground shelter during the day and is closely associated with talus (rocky) slopes. Habitat management for Cow Knob Cow Knob Salamander is directed through establishment of the Shenandoah salamander Mountain Crest-Cow Knob Salamander Management Prescription Amphibian No Impact Plethodon Area. The direction was prepared as part of the Conservation punctatus Agreement and is expected to maintain or improve current populations. Project activities should not affect CKS by complying with the Conservation Agreement, Forest Plan Standards for 8E7 Management Area and TES species, and Project-specific Design Elements. Shenandoah Mountain salamanders (SMS) occupy a similar range to Cow Knob salamanders but are more widespread than CKS and not as closely linked with talus slopes. SMS are known to occur within the project area and were found during surveys. They were Shenandoah found inside and outside of the 8E7 MA during surveys. This species Mountain forages at night and seeks underground shelter during the day. Salamander Amphibian May Impact Ground disturbing project activities could negatively impact Plethodon individual SMS but impacts should be limited by complying with the virginia Forest Plan Standards for 8E7 Management Area and TES species, and Project-specific Design Elements. Impacts from proposed actions are not anticipated to cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Monarch habitats included open fields, roadsides, or small clearings containing milkweed and other pollinator plants. Monarchs will Monarch benefit from proposed planting of pollinator species in wildlife butterfly Insect May Impact* clearings and the creation of new habitat via open stands, wildlife Danaus clearings, and roadsides that will be added to the project area plexippus through proposed project implementation. Monarchs individuals could be negatively impacted by traffic on roads or short-term

36 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

disturbance from noise and human presence but impacts from proposed actions are not anticipated to cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are no records for this species within the project boundary and species was not observed during surveys, though it is known to occur in Pendleton Co, WV. This species lives in decomposing leaf litter and is hard to detect, so it could be present but not picked up Cupped Vertigo Mollusk/ May Impact* in surveys. The implementation of this project could have impacts Vertigo clappi Snail to this species where ground disturbing activities occur. However, impacts from proposed action are not anticipated to cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are no records for this species within the project area. This species has the potential to be present but was not detected during botanical surveys, which occurred outside the blooming season for this species. Ground disturbing project activities (e.g. timber Sweet pinesap harvest, Rx fire) could negatively impact individual plants but Monotropsis Plant May Impact* impacts should be limited by complying with the Forest Plan odorata Standards for TES species. In following Forest Plan direction to protect R8 Sensitive plant species, the implementation of this project will have no appreciable negative impacts that would cause loss of species viability on the Forest or cause a trend towards federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. This plant species is known to occupy high elevation rocky woods and bluff habitats. One detection of this species was recorded in White alumroot botanical surveys completed by Virginia DCR/DNH near the edge of Plant No Impact Heuchera alba unit 65. This unit is no longer proposed for harvesting for other reasons, so there will be no project impacts to this population. Species was therefore not analyzed in detail in this BE. *May impact = “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide.”

The project will have no impact on any other Southern Region Sensitive species.

Persons Consulted:

Fred Huber USFS, Forest Botanist (retired) Dawn Kirk USFS, Forest Fisheries Biologist Carol Croy USFS, Forest Wildlife Biologist Mike Donahue, USFS Forest Biological Science Technician Billy Flint, JMU Professor (CKS expert) Jim Yoder, EMU Professor (wood turtle) Dr. Tom Akre, SCBI Research Lead (wood turtle) Rick Reynolds, DGIF Bat Biologist P.J. Harmon, WVDNR Botanist Kevin Oxenrider, WNDNR Herptologist/Biologist S. Rene Hypes, DCR Project Review Coordinator Johnny Townsend, VADCR Field Botanist Ellison Orcutt, VADCR Field Zoologist

37 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Prepared by:

Meg Riddle Date: September 1, 2019 Meg Riddle District Biologist North River & Lee Ranger Districts

Attachments: References Appendix A – Forest TES Species List and Occurrence Analysis Results Appendix B – Tricolored Bat Winter Habitat & Roosts Application

38 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

REFERENCES

AmphibiaWeb. 2019. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Accessed 12 Jul 2019. http://amphibiaweb.org

Beane, J.C., Braswell, A.L., Mitchell, J.C., Palmer, W.M., and Harrsion, J.R. 2010. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, 2nd ed., rev. and updated. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 274 p. Buhlmann, K.A., T.D. Tuberville, and J.W. Gibbons. 2008. Turtles of the Southeast. University of Georgia Press; Athens, GA. Buhlmann, K.A., and C.P. Osborn. 2011. Use of an artificial nesting mound by wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta): A tool for turtle conservation. Northeastern Naturalist 18(3): 315–334. Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. Croy, Steven Q. 2013. Forest Ecologist & Fire Planner, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia, Roanoke Virginia. Records of Prescribed Burning on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia. Dourson, D.C. 2010. Kentucky’s land snails and their ecological communities. Goatslug Publications. Bakersville, NC. 298 p. Downer, R.H., 2009. "Distribution of Woodland Salamanders of the Valley and Ridge in West Virginia". Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 575. Erdle, S. Y. and C. Hobson. 2001. Current Status and Conservation Strategy for the Eastern Small- footed Myotis (Myotis leibii). Technical Report 00-19. VDCR-DNH. October 2001. 17 pp plus appendices. Ernst, C. H., J. E. Lovich, and R. W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Fraser, D.F. 1976. Coexistence of salamanders is the genus Plethodon: a variation of the Santa Rosalia theme. Ecology, 57: 238-251. Hamed, M. K., and F. J. Alsop, III. 2005. Distribution of the Tennessee dace, Phoxinus tennesseensis, in northeast Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 80(1):1-5. Harding, J.H., and T.J. Bloomer. 1979. The Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta … a natural history. Herp— Bulletin of the New York Herpetological Society 15:9–26. Harvill, A. M., Jr., et al. 1992. Atlas of the Virginia Flora. Third Edition. Burkeville, Virginia: Virginia Botanical Associated. Hicks, M.L. 1992. Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press. Durham, NC 239 pps.

39 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Highton, R. 1999. Geographic Protein Variation and Speciation in the Salamanders of the Plethodon cinereus Group with the Description of Two New Species. Herpetologica, 55(1), 43-90. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/3893067 Highton, R. 2009. Microgeographic protein and morphological variation in the woodland salamanders Plethodon hoffmani and Plethodon virginia, and hybridization between the two species. Pages 59-100 in S. M. Roble and J. C. Mitchell (eds.). A Lifetime of Contributions to Myriapodology and the Natural History of Virginia: A Festschrift in Honor of Richard L. Hoffman's 80th Birthday. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 16, Martinsville, VA. Huber, F., Kirk, D., Kleopfer, J., O’Malley, K. 2009. “George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Wood Turtle Conservation Strategy”. Report for the US Forest Service, George Washington and Jefferson National Forest. Roanoke, VA. Jacobsen, C. 2019. "Influence of climate change and prescribed fire on habitat suitability and abundance of the high-elevation endemic Cow Knob Salamander (Plethodon punctatus)". Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4051. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4051 Jenkins, R. E. and N. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society. Jones, M.T., H.P. Roberts, and L.L. Willey. 2018. Conservation Plan for the Wood Turtle in the Northeastern United States. Report to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 259 pp. Kain, Teta, editor. 1987. Virginia’s Birdlife - An Annotated Checklist. Virginia Avifauna Number 3. The Virginia Society of Ornithology. Krischik, V., M. Rogers, G. Gupta, and A. Varshney. 2015. Soil-applied imidacloprid translocates to ornamental flowers and reduces survival of adult Coleomegilla maculata, Harmonia axyridis, and Hippodamia convergens lady beetles, and larval Danaus plexippus and Vanessa cardui butterflies. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119133. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119133. 22 p. Linzey, D. W., ed. 1979. Proceedings of the Symposium on Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of Virginia. Blacksburg: Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Linzey, D. W. 1998. Mammals of Virginia. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company. Blacksburg, VA. NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version7.1. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Pecenka, J.R. and J.G. Lundgren. 2015. Non-target effects of clothianidin on monarch butterflies. Science of Nature 102(19). 4 p. Available at DOI:10.1007/s00114-015-1270-y.

40 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

Pleasants, J.M. 2015. Monarch butterflies and agriculture. Pp. 169-179. IN: Oberhauser, K.S., E.R. Nail, S. Altizer, eds. 2015. Monarchs in a changing world. Cornell University Press. Ithica, NY and London, England. 321 p. Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E., Bell, C.R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Ramírez, M.I., C. Sáenz-Romero, G. Rehfeldt, and L. Salas-Canela. 2015. Threats to the availability of overwintering habitat in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve. Pp. 107-168. IN: Oberhauser, K.S., E.R. Nail, S. Altizer, eds. 2015. Monarchs in a changing world. Cornell University Press. Ithica, NY and London, England. 321 p Roble, S. M. 2010. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animal Species. Natural Heritage Technical Report 10-12. VDCR-DNH, Richmond, VA. 45 pp + appendices. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. Starnes, W. C., and R. E. Jenkins. 1988. A new cyprinid fish of the genus PHOXINUS (Pisces: Cypriniformes) from the Tennessee River drainage with comments on relationships and biogeography. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 101:517-29. Strausbaugh, P. D., and E. L. Core. 1978. Flora of West Virginia. Second edition. Grantsville, West Virginia: Seneca Books. Sweeten, S.E. 2008. “Home Range, Hibernacula Fidelity, and Best Management Practices for Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in Virginia”. Doctoral thesis, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA. Terwilliger, Karen (coordinator). 1991. Virginia’s Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company. Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp. Townsend, John F. 2012. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Plants. Natural Heritage Technical Report 12-12. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. Unpublished report. December 2012. 55 pp + appendices. U.S.D.A., Forest Service (USFS). 2014a. Revised Land & Resource Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Supervisors Office, Roanoke, VA. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprd3799959 U.S.D.A., Forest Service (USFS). 2014b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the George Washington National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Supervisors Office, Roanoke, VA. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3822821.pdf U.S.D.A., Forest Service (USFS). 2014c. Decision Memo for Southern Region Caves and Abandoned Underground Mine Closure. June 2, 2014. Southern Regional Office, Atlanta, GA. (Updated with an additional 2-year closure DM, dated June 14, 2019. Southern Regional Office)

41 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

U.S.D.A., Forest Service (USFS). 2015 George Washington & Jefferson National Forests Transportation System Analysis Process (TAP) Report. Supervisors Office, Roanoke VA. September 24, 2015 U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 19 pp. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2 October 2013. 12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register 78(191):61046-61080. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. IPaC (Information, Planning and Consultation Service, http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/), “Natural Resources of Concern” Checklist. http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endspecies/Project_Reviews_Introduction.html. U.S.D.A., NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Internet Resource USDA Plants Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2018. Evaluation of the hydrology, bat use, and gate status of selected caves, karst areas, and mines on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, Virginia, 2017-18. Division of Natural Heritage Natural Heritage Technical Report 2018-12. June 29, 2018. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2019a. The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service. Website: http://vafwis.org/fwis/?Menu=Home.Visitor+Options Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2019b. The Little Brown Bat and Tri-colored Bat Winter Habitat and Roosts Application: https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/bats/little-brown-bat- tri-colored-bat-winter-habitat-roosts-application/ Weakley, A.S. November 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States – Working Draft. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 1225 pgs. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2019. Online database, http://www.wvdnr.gov/Wildlife/Butterflies.shtm

42 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

APPENDIX A. Documentation of Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species Occurrences for NORTH SHENANDOAH MOUNTAIN RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT Coding for Occurrence Analysis Results (OAR) for 199 species

Forest updated May 28, 2019 (based on Region 8 sensitive species list effective March 15, 2018) G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank VERTEBRATE Fish 1 - X Ammocrypta clara Western sand darter Clinch R, Powell R Aquatic-rivers. S G3 S1 - Upper Cumberland R, Upper Powell R, Poor Chrosomus S3 1 - X Blackside dace Fk Cumberland R, Clinch R drainage - Aquatic-streams. T G2 S1 cumberlandensis (KY) Staunton Ck McGhee Ck 1 - X Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub Lower N Fk Holston R Aquatic-streams. T G2 S1 - 1 - X Erimystax cahni Slender chub Two sites - Powell R, Lee Co Aquatic-rivers. T G1 S1 - 1 - X Erimystax insignis Blotched chub Clinch-Powell system, S Fk Holston R Aquatic-streams/rivers. S G4 S3 - 1 - X Etheostoma acuticeps Sharphead darter S and Middle Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. S G3 S1 - 1 - X Etheostoma cinereum Ashy Darter Upper Clinch R, Guest R gorge Aquatic-rivers. S G2G3 S1 - Big Stony Ck, Dismal Creek, Cripple Creek 1 - X Etheostoma osburni Candy darter Aquatic-streams. E G3 S1 S2 (New R watershed) Etheostoma 1 - X Duskytail darter Copper Ck, Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - percnurum Etheostoma Aquatic-rivers. Formerly: Tippecanoe darter, Etheostoma 1 - X Golden darter Four sites Clinch R, lower Copper Ck. S G3G4 S1 S2 denoncourti tippecanoe. Etheostoma 1 - X Wounded darter N & S Fk Holston R, Clinch R, Powell R. Aquatic-Rivers. S G3 S2S3 - vulneratum Mountain brook M, N Fk Holston R, Copper Ck, Indian Ck, 1 - X Icthyomyzon greeleyi Aquatic-rivers. S G3G4 S2 S1 lamprey Clinch R, Powell R 1 - X Notropis ariommus Popeye shiner N Fk Holston R, Clinch R, Powell R Aquatic-rivers. S G3 S2S3 S2 Upper James R watershed above Buchanan 1 X X Notropis semperasper Roughhead shiner Aquatic-rivers. S G2G3 S2S3 - (Cowpasture R, Jackson R, Craig Ck) Lower & Mid reaches of Copper Ck, Powell 1 - X Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom Aquatic-streams. T G1 S1 - R S Fk Roanoke R watershed, Roanoke R 1 X X Noturus gilberti Orangefin madtom above Salem, Craig Ck, Johns Ck, Aquatic-streams. S G2 S2 - Cowpasture R N Fk Holston R, Clinch R, Copper Ck, Little 1 - X Percina burtoni Blotchside logperch Aquatic-rivers. S G2G3 S1 - R 1 - X Percina rex Roanoke logperch Upper Roanoke R watershed Aquatic-rivers. E G1G2 S1S2 - S & N Fk Holston R above Saltville, Clinch 1 - X Percina williamsi Sickle darter Aquatic-rivers. Formerly: Percina macrocephala. S G2 S1S2 S2 R - lower Copper Ck. 1 - X Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha minnow Upper New R watershed Aquatic-streams. S G3G4 S2S3 S1 Amphibian Bland, Dickenson (Skegg Boulderfield), Lee, Damp (not wet) crevices in shaded rock outcrops and Russell, Scott, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, 1 - X Aneides aeneus Green salamander ledges; beneath loose bark; in cracks of standing or S G3G4 S3 S3 Wythe Cos VA; Greenbrier, Monroe, fallen trees; in or under logs on ground. Pendleton Cos WV Cryptobranchus N & S Fk Holston (Whitetop Laurel), Clinch 1 - X Hellbender Aquatic-rivers, streams. S G3G4 S2S3 S2 alleganiensis R, Copper Ck, Powell R. Northern pygmy Grayson, Smyth, Washington Cos. Spruce-fir forests and adjacent northern hardwoods, 1 - X Desmognathus organi S G3 S2 - salamander Whitetop Mt. and Mt. Rogers >3600’ Peaks of Otter Mixed oak, late successional with loose rocks and logs, 1 - X Plethodon hubrichti Peaks of Otter, Apple Orchard Mtn S G2 S2 - salamander >1800'. Cow Knob Mixed oak, late successional with loose rocks and logs, 5 X - Plethodon punctatus Shenandoah Mtn, VA & WV S G3 S2 S1 salamander >2500'. Big Levels 1 X - Plethodon sherando Big Levels, Augusta Co Forest and rocky talas slopes 1900’ – 3580’. S G2 S2 - salamander Inhabits spruce-fir, birch-hemlock, and primarily Shenandoah deciduous forests, and is also found in grassy spots and 5 X - Plethodon virginia Mountain Rockingham Co S G2G3 S2 SNR boulder fields. It tends to be associated with rocky salamander substrates. 1 - X Plethodon welleri Weller's salamander Mt Rogers & Whitetop Mtn Spruce-fir forests and adjacent northern hardwoods. S G3 S2 - Reptile

43 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank Mostly unpolluted, shallow bodies of water with a soft bottom and aquatic vegetation; small marshes, marshy 1 X - Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle Maple Flats, Augusta Co S G5 S4 S1 pastures, bogs, fens, woodland streams, swamps, small ponds, vernal pools, and lake margins. Along permanent streams during much of year; in summer may roam widely overland; variety of terrestrial Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah Cos; N 5 X - Glyptemys insculpta Wood turtle habitats adjacent to streams, including deciduous S G3 S2 S3 Shenandoah R watershed woods, cultivated fields, and woodland bogs, marshy fields and pastures. Overwinters in streams. Historic records from Alleghany, Augusta, Xeric, pine-dominated or pine-oak woodland with open, Pituophis Botetourt, Craig, Rockingham Cos., VA: low understory established on sandy soils; require forest 10 X X Pinesnake S G4 S1? SH melanoleucus Monroe Co, WV. No current records known openings, with level, well-drained sandy soils and little from GWJNF. shrub cover as nesting/hibernation sites. Bird Open fields, meadows with grass interspersed with Ammodramus Pulaski Co (Radford Arsenal). No nest 1 - X Henslow's Sparrow weeds or shrubby vegetation, especially in damp or low- S G4 S1B S3B henslowii records known on GWJNF. lying areas; unmowed hayfields. Mammal Has not been found in VA but has occurred nearby in WV, KY, & TN. In 1978, a large Caves in winter, large hollow trees summer, may also Corynorhinus Rafinesque’s big- 10 - - nursery colony was found in Hancock Co., use cliff-lines, buildings, and bridges in summer. Not on S G3G4 - S1 rafinesquii eared bat TN, very close to the VA-TN border. Only VADCR-NHP “Rare Animal” list. possible in Lee, Scott, Washington Co. Summer: VA - Tazewell Co (3 caves), Highland Co (1 cave); WV - Pendleton Co (4 Resides in caves winter and summer. Short distance caves); Winter: Highland, Rockingham, migrant (<40 miles) between winter and summer caves. Bland, and Tazewell Cos (6 caves); Forages primarily on moths and foraging habitat is Pendleton Co (6 caves). Largest VA common (fields, forests, meadows, etc.). Forages within Corynorhinus Virginia big-eared G3G4 6 X X population in Tazewell Co and largest WV 6 miles of summer caves. USFWS Critical Habitat is 5 E S1 S2 townsendii virginianus bat T2 population in Pendleton Co. Small numbers caves in WV (4 Pendleton Co and 1 Tucker Co). Closest of bats (usually <10) in a few other widely Critical Habitat cave to GWJNF is ~3 miles in Pendleton scattered caves during summer months. Co, WV. OAR code of “2” used when project further than Bath & Pulaski Co records are historic. No 6 miles from summer or winter occupied cave. occupied caves currently known on Forest. Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern 1 - X Mt Rogers & Whitetop area Spruce-fir forests and adjacent northern hardwoods. E G5T2 S1 - coloratus flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Virginia northern 1 X - Laurel Fork area, Highland Co Spruce forests and adjacent northern hardwoods. S G5T2 S1 S2 fuscus flying squirrel Ridge & Valley, Clinch R watershed; Russell 1 - X Myotis grisescens Gray bat Caves winter and summer, forages widely. E G3 S1 - Fk at Russell Fk/Pound R confluence. Hibernates in caves during winter, roosts in crevices of large rock outcrops, cliffs, and under large rocks in talus Eastern small-footed Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley, Cumberland & boulder-fields during summer, plus similar man-made 6 X X Myotis leibii S G1G3 S2 S1 bat Mtns structures like rip-rap and bridges, forages widely in all forested and open habitat types over both ridges and valleys. Hibernates in crevices and cracks of cave walls during winter (sometimes mines & tunnels), difficult to find and rarely seen. During summer, forages widely and roosts Northern long-eared Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley, Cumberland 6 X X Myotis septentrionalis singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in T G1G2 S3 S3 bat Mtns crevices of both live and dead trees. Also may roost in structures like barns, sheds, & houses. Decline due to WNS. Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley, Cumberland Caves winter, upland hardwoods summer, forages 6 X X Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E G2 S1 S1 Mtns widely along riparian areas and open woodlands. Caves in winter: Caves, trees, cliffs, barns during 6 X X Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored bat Every county in VA, WV, KY summer months. Decline due to WNS. Formally: Eastern S G3 S1S3 pipistrelle. INVERTEBRATE Snail (Mollusk, Class Gastropoda) Rock Camp Cave (1 mile from FS), McClung-Zenith Cave (1.5 mile from FS), 1 X - Fontigens tartarea Organ cavesnail Monroe Co, WV; Greenbrier, Pocahontas, Caves. Obligate troglobite. S G2 S1S2 S2 Randolph, Tucker Cos, WV; Bath, Highland Cos, VA Appalachia No known records on GWJ. Scott and Wise Damp, wooded environments, particularly in deep piles 1 - - Gastrodonta fonticula S G3G4 SU SNR bellytooth Co records need to be verified. of wet leaf litter and around rotting wood debris.

44 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank 1 X X Glyphyalinia raderi Maryland glyph Alleghany, Montgomery Cos Calciphile, edge of seeps within leaf litter. May burrow. S G2 S1S2 S2 Calciphile; semi-open, calcium-rich environments,

1 X Helicodiscus diadema Shaggy coil Alleghany Co especially limestone rubble/talus and thinly wooded S G1 S1 - - limestone hills. Calciphile, limestone rubble on wooded hillsides and 1 X X Helicodiscus triodus Talus coil Alleghany, Botetourt, Rockbridge Cos S G2 S1S2 SH near cave entrances. 1 - X Io fluvialis Spiny riversnail Clinch R, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. S G2 S2 - Steep forested slopes and in ravines, often among Breaks Interstate Park, Dickenson Co; woody debris, rocks, or deeper leaf litter; mixed eastern 1 - - Paravitrea septadens Brown supercoil Buchanan Co., VA. No known records on S G1 S1 - hemlock-hardwood forest, also in richer hardwood GWJ. stands. No known records on GWJ. Grayson and 1 - - Stenotrema altispira Highland slitmouth Higher elevations, in leaf litter and woody debris. S G3 S1 - Smyth Co records need to be verified. Ventridens No known records on GWJ. Scott Co High elevations, usually >3000’, in leaf litter, particularly 1 - - Crossed dome S G3 SU - decussatus records need to be verified. oak leaves. Leaf litter often under shrubs, on cliff-face ledges and No known records on GWJ. VA and WV 1 - - Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo boulder tops in mesic upland forest, and damp S G4 SU - records need to be verified. microsites in northern white cedar wetlands. Well-rotted, humid leaf litter and fine soil on shaded 6 X - Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo Greenbrier & Pendelton Cos, WV boulders, talus, ledges, and bases of forested lime-rich S G1G2 SU SNR bedrock outcrops. Mussel (Mollusk, Class Bivalvia) Greenbrier R & New R, WV. Upper New R; Alasmidonta Reed Creek; Sinking Creek (Giles Co.); 1 - X Elktoe Aquatic-rivers. S G4 S1S2 S2 marginata Wolf Creek (Bland Co.); upper S Fk Holston; historical Upper Clinch. 2 X - Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater Potomac drainage Aquatic-rivers. S G3 S1 S1 Historic in Upper Clinch R excluding Copper 1 - X Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell mussel Aquatic-rivers. S G4G5 S1 - Creek where extant; Upper S Fk Holston Cumberlandia 1 - X Spectaclecase 2 sites Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. E G3 S1 - monodonta 1 - X Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Lower Clinch R, Scott Co Aquatic-rivers. E G1Q S1 S1 Dromedary 1 - X Dromus dromas Clinch R, Powell R, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - pearlymussel 1 X X Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance Roanoke R, James R Aquatic-rivers. T G2G3 S2S3 - Cumberlandian 1 - X Epioblasma brevidens Clinch R, Powell R, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - combshell Epioblasma 1 - X Oyster mussel Clinch R, Powell R, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - capsaeformis Restricted to lower 1.0 mile of Indian Ck to Epioblasma florentina Clinch R. All other historical populations in 1 - X Golden riffleshell Aquatic-rivers. Formerly: tan riffleshell. E G1T1 S1 - aureola M & Upper Tennessee R system now extirpated. Epioblasma torulosa Green-blossom 1 - X Clinch R, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. E G2TX SX - gubernaculum pearlymussel 1 - X Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox Clinch R, Powell R, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. E G3 S1 S2 Clinch R, Powell R, N Fk Holston R, Copper 1 - X Fusconaia cor Shiny pigtoe Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - Ck 1 - X Fusconaia cuneolus Fine-rayed pigtoe Clinch R, Powell R, Copper Ck, Little R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - 1 - X Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Roanoke R, Craig Ck drainage Aquatic-rivers. PT G2 S2 - Cracking 1 - X Hemistena lata Clinch R, Powell R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - pearlymussel 1 - X Lampsilis abrupta Pink mucket Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. E G2 SX S1 N Fk Shenandoah R; Shenandoah, Warren 1 X - Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel Aquatic-rivers. S G3G4 S2 S1 Cos. Upper Clinch, N and M Fk Holston R Tennessee 1 - X Lasmigona holstonia drainages; Wolf Ck, Bland Co below Burkes Aquatic-streams. S G3 S1 - heelsplitter Garden Widely distributed in N & S Fk Shenandoah 1 X - Lasmigona subviridis Green floater Aquatic-rivers. S G3 S2 S2 R, Pedlar R, James R Birdwing 1 - X Lemiox rimosus Clinch R, Powell R, Copper Ck, Little R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - pearlymussel

45 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank Potts Ck, Craig Ck, Johns Ck, Patterson 1 X X Parvaspina collina James spinymussel Run, Pedlar R, Cowpasture R, Mill Ck Aquatic-rivers. Formerly: Pleurobema collina. E G1 S1 S1 (Deerfield) Little-winged Clinch R, N Fk Holston R, S Fk Holston R, 1 - X Pegias fabula Aquatic-streams. E G1 S1 - pearlymussel Little R 1 - X Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Clinch R, Powell R Aquatic-rivers. E G3 S1 S1 1 - X Pleurobema cordatum Ohio pigtoe Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. S G4 S1 S2 Clinch R, Powell R, N, Middle, S Fk Holston 1 - X Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell Aquatic-streams. S G2G3 S2S3 - R 1 - X Pleurobema plenum Rough pigtoe Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 SH SH 1 - X Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid pigtoe Upper Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. S G2G3 SH - Clinch R, Powell R, N Middle, S Fk Holston 1 - X Pleuronaia barnesiana Tennessee pigtoe Aquatic-rivers. S G2G3 S2 - R Pleuronaia Slabside 1 - X Clinch R, M Fk Holston, N Fk Holston R Aquatic-rivers. E G2 S2 - dolabelloides pearlymussel Holston R., Powell R., Indian R., Clinch R., Little R., Copper Ck., Big Moccasin Ck. Ptychobranchus 1 - X Fluted kidneyshell Critical Habitat: Indian Ck, VA: M Fk Holston Aquatic-rivers. E G2 S2 - subtentum R. VA: Big Moccasin Ck., VA: Copper Ck., VA; Clinch R, TN, VA: Powell R., TN, VA Quadrula cylindrica Clinch R, Powell R, N Fk Holston R, Copper G3G4 1 - X Rough rabbits foot Aquatic-streams. E S2 - strigillata Ck T2 Cumberland 1 - X Quadrula intermedia Powell R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - monkeyface Appalachian 1 - X Quadrula sparsa Clinch R, Powell R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - monkeyface 1 - X Toxolasma lividum Purple lilliput N Fk Holston R, Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. S G3Q SH - 1 - X Villosa perpurpurea Purple bean Clinch R, Copper Ck Aquatic-rivers. E G1 S1 - 1 - X Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean Clinch R Aquatic-rivers. E G1 SX - Spider (Arachnid) Microhexura Spruce-fir moss Damp, well-drained moss and liverwort mats on boulders 1 - X Whitetop Mtn E G1 S1 - montivaga spider in mature spruce-fir forests. Amphipod (Crustacean, Order Amphipoda) James, Sam Bells caves, Pulaski Co; James Cave 1 - X Stygobromus abditus Watsons cave, Wythe Co; and other New Aquatic-caves, water well. S G3 S3 - amphipod River caves. Aquatic-caves. In caves under gravel in streambeds, Stygobromus Greenbrier Cave occasionally in pools. Most abundant in smallest trickles 1 - X Greenbrier, Monroe Cos, WV S G3 - S3 emarginatus amphipod of water. Primarily in tiny first and second order headwater cave streams. Stygobromus Shenandoah Valley Frederick, Rockingham, Shenandoah, 2 X - Aquatic-caves. S G3G4 S3 S1 gracilipes cave amphipod Warren Cos Alleghany County Aquatic-caves, groundwater habitats including springs 1 X - Stygobromus hoffmani Low Moor cave, Alleghany Co S G2 S2 - cave amphipod and seeps. Bath County cave 1 X - Stygobromus mundus Alleghany, Bath Cos Aquatic-caves. S G2G3 S1S2 - amphipod Stygobromus Least Cave 1 - X Greenbrier, Monroe Cos, WV Aquatic-caves. S G2G3 - S3 pollostus stygobromid Southern Monroe Co, north-northeast to Spiny Cave central Pocahontas, Co, WV, primarily Aquatic-caves. In gravels of small streams and in small 1 - X Stygobromus spinatus S G2G3 - S2 stygobromid within the Greenbrier Valley. Covers a linear cave pools. distance of ~67 miles. Isopod (Crustacean, Order Isopoda) Documented population centers in Waynesboro-Grottoes area, Augusta Co; Madison Cave Harrisonburg area Rockingham Co; valley of Aquatic-subterranean obligate in caves and karst 1 X - Antrolana lira T G2G4 S2 S1 Isopod main stem of Shenandoah R, Warren, groundwater. Cos,VA: Jefferson Co, WV. Not known from GWNF. Incurved cave McCullin Cave, Smyth Co; Groseclose Cave 1 - X Caecidotea incurva Aquatic-caves. S G2G4 S2 - isopod No. 1, Wythe Co Racovitza's Alleghany, Botetourt, Page, Rockbridge, 1 X X Miktoniscus racovitzai terrestrial cave Aquatic-caves. S G3G4 S2 - Shenandoah Cos isopod Crayfish (Crustacean, Order Decapoda)

46 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank In VA, Upper Russell Fk drainage Big Sandy Aquatic-streams. Fast flowing streams of moderate 1 - X Cambarus callainus Big Sandy crayfish T G2 S1S2 S1 R width. Formerly: Cambarus veteranus. Centipede (Insect, Order Chilopoda) The Priest, Nelson Co; Whitetop Mtn, near 1 X X Escaryus cryptorobius Montane centipede Upper soil horizon, spruce-birch forests. S G2 S2 - junction of Grayson, Washington, Smyth Co Whitetop Mountain Whitetop Mtn, near junction of Grayson, 1 - X Escaryus orestes Dark moist soil and litter, spruce-birch forests. S G1G2 S1S2 - centipede Washington, Smyth Co Springtail (Insect, Order Collembola) Pygmarrhopalites 1 X - A cave springtail Bath Co Caves. S G2 S2 - sacer Dragonfly (Insect, Order Odonata) 1 X X Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail New R, Craig Ck, Pound R, Locust Spring Aquatic-rivers. S G3G4 S2 S2 1 - X Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail Upper New R; Carroll, Grayson, Wythe Cos Aquatic-rivers. S G3 S1S2 - Stonefly (Insect, Order Plecoptera) High elevation rheocrenes (flowing springs) 1 - X Allocapnia fumosa Smokies snowfly Aquatic-streams. S G2 S1S2 of Mt. Rogers. Grayson, Smyth Cos. Megaleuctra 1 - X Smokies needlefly Mt Rogers & Whitetop Mtn Aquatic-streams. S G2 S1S2 - williamsae Lewis Fk & Grindstone Branch N of Mt 1 - X Taeniopteryx nelsoni Cryptic willowfly Aquatic-streams. S G1 S1 - Rogers Beetle (Insect, Order Coleoptera) Northern barrens 3 X X Cicindela patruela Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley Eroded slopes of exposed sandstone and conglomerate. S G3 S2 S2S3 tiger beetle Pseudanophthalmus Endemic to Endless Caverns (commercial 1 - - Avernus Cave beetle Caves. S G1 S1 - avernus cave, non-FS) Rockingham Co. Franklins Pit, Little Kennedy Cave, Omega Pseudanophthalmus Little Kennedy Cave Caves. 1 - X Cave System, Wildcat Saltpetre Cave, Wise S G1 S1 - cordicollis beetle Co., VA Pseudanophthalmus Crossroads Cave Known only from Crossroads Cave, Millboro 1 X - Caves. S G1G2 S1 - intersectus beetle Springs, Bath Co. Scorpionfly (Insect, Order Mecoptera) Moist soil around seeps. Only known from high Brachypanorpa Jefferson's short- Sugar Run Mountain, Giles Co; Whitetop 1 - X elevation. Larvae use short burrows in loose soil and S G2 S1S2 - jeffersoni nosed scorpionfly Mtn, Smyth Co. moss. Butterfly, Skipper, Moth (Insect, Order Lepidoptera) Relatively undisturbed grasslands, prairies, sand Historic records, Blacksburg area. Caldwell prairies, serpentine barrens, grassland/herbaceous, old 1 - X Atrytone arogos Arogos skipper S G3 SH - Fields records need to be verified. field. Larval host plant; big bluestem Andropogon gerardi. Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Craig, Openings within forested or wooded areas, natural Lee, Montgomery, Russell, Scott Cos: outcrops, shale or limestone barrens, glades or 3 X X Calephelis borealis Northern metalmark S G3G4 S2S3 S2 Historic records from Giles, Rockbridge powerline right of ways. Larvae host plant; round-leaf Cos. ragwort, Senecio obovatus. Frederick, Montgomery, Page, Roanoke Dry, open woods, clearings, and road/powerline ROWs 1 X X Callophrys irus Frosted elfin S G3 S2? S1 Cos. with abundant wild indigo, Baptisia tinctoria. Mixed hardwood/conifer forest; shrubland; grassland/herbaceous; old field; suburban/orchard; 5 X X Danaus plexippus Monarch Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G4 S4 S4 cropland/hedgerow. Larval host plant; milkweeds Asclepias spp. Riparian, grasslands-shrublands. Larval host plant, 3 X X Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G3 S1 S1 violets, Viola spp. Bedford, Botetourt, Page, Rockbridge, Hardwood forests or hardwood-northern conifer mixed Warren, Wise Cos., VA; Monroe, Pendleton forests. Larval host food, young fruit of American beech, 2 X X Erora laeta Early hairstreak S GU S2 S2 Cos., WV. Historic records from Giles, Fagus grandifolia, nuts of beaked hazelnut Corylus Montgomery Cos. cornuta. Canopy dweller. Historic records from Augusta, Bedford, Botetourt, Craig, Montgomery, Rockbridge Open woodland; barrens; open brushy fields. Larval 1 X X Erynnis martialis Mottled duskywing S G3 S1S3 S3 Cos.; St. Mary's R near entrance to host plant; New Jersey tea Ceanothus americanus. Wilderness Area, Augusta Co. Bogs, wet meadows, open seepages in boreal forests. Erynnis persius G5T1T 3 X X Persius duskywing Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley Larval host plant; lupine, Lupinus perennis, wild indigo, S S1 - persius 3 Baptisia tinctoria. Shale barrens, open shaley oak woodlands. Larval host Pyrgus centaureae Appalachian grizzled G5T1T 1 X - Ridge & Valley plant; cinquefoil, Potentilla spp, strawberry, Fragaria S S1 S1 wyandot skipper 2 virginina.

47 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank Bald Knob, Bath Co; Poverty Hollow, Catocala herodias Pitch pine/bear oak scrub woodlands, >3000'. Larval 1 X X Herodias underwing Montgomery Co; Sand Mtn, Wythe Co (non S G3T3 S2S3 SU gerhardi host plant; oak, Quercus spp. FS property) Mesic montane hardwood forests; Forested wetland, 1 - X Catocala marmorata Marbled underwing Montgomery Co riparian. Larval host plants; willows/cottonwoods, S G3G4 S2 - Salix/Populus. Warm Springs Mtn, Catawba Creek Slopes, Milne's euchlaena Moist, forested slopes of mixed pine hardwoods. Acidic 1 X - Euchlaena milnei Sweet Spring Hollow, Salt Pond Mtn. (Doe S G2G4 S2 S2 moth oak woods. Creek) Bee (Insect, Order Hymenoptera) Bath Co, VA: new location on WSRD, Duncan Knob found 6/2017; Rockingham Habitat generalist: grasslands, old field, mature woods, Co, VA new locations NRRD Little Bald open woodlands, mixed farmland edges, marshes, Knob & Rader Mtn found 7/2019. VA/WV urban areas. Feeds from a variety of plants for pollen Rusty-patched county occurrences historic (Alleghany, 5 X X Bombus affinis and nectar, including flowering rhododendron and E G1 SH - bumble bee Carroll, Frederick, Giles, Grayson, mountain laurel. Nest sites include abandoned rodent Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Pulaski, burrows, fallen dead wood, stumps. Queen only Rockbridge, Rockingham, Wythe Cos., VA; overwinters. Hardy, Hampshire, Monroe, Pendleton, Pocahontas Cos, WV). NON-VASCULAR PLANT Lichen S. Appalachian endemic. Conifer trees, especially fir 1 - X Alectoria fallacina Witch's-hair lichen Smyth, Grayson Co rarely on birch, in spruce-fir forests; rarely fire cherry S G2 SH SNR communities. 1 - X Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Whitetop Mtn Spruce-fir forests. E G2 S1 - St. Mary’s Wilderness, Augusta Co.; Skidmore Fork, Rockingham Co.; Browns 1 Heterodermia Appalachian shield X X Run, Page Co.; rock outcrop, 6 mi. SE of Bark of hardwoods, occasionally on shaded rocks. S G2? S1 - appalachensis lichen Edinburg, Page Co.; summit of Whitetop Mt, Washington Co. Along Whitetop access road, 1.2 mile from 1 - X Heterodermia erecta A foliose lichen S. Appalachian endemic. S G1? S1 - summit, Grayson Co., VA. Hypotrachyna 1 - X A foliose lichen Mount Rogers, on Smyth, Grayson Co. line Spruce-fir forests. S G2? SU - oostingii Spruce-fir forests. Found on spruce, fir, rhododendron in Hypotrachyna Virginia spruce-fir and fire-cherry communities in S. Appalachian 1 - X Mt Rogers & Whitetop Mtn S G1G2 S1 SNR virginica hypotrachyna lichen Mtns. Typically at higher elevations, has been found at lower elevations. S. Appalachian endemic. Spruce-fir, northern hardwood- 1 - X Lecanora masana A lichen Whitetop Mtn, and Grayson, Smyth Cos S conifer forest. Massanutten (Fridley watershed) Rocks in open areas and on talus slopes. Fully exposed, Culberson's Black- Rockingham Co; along trail from Wolf Gap 1 X - Melanelia culbersonii minimally weathered quartzite and sandstone S G2 S4 - parmelia Campground to Big Schloss, Shenandoah boulderfields at elevations from about 1000-3300 ft. Co. Liverwort 1 - X Bazzania nudicaulis A liverwort Mt Rogers & Whitetop Mtn Bark and rock outcrops in spruce-fir forests. S G2G3 S? - Damp soil in crevices of shaded sedimentary rocks, in Cephaloziella 2 X - A liverwort Along SR 33, 10 miles W of Harrisonburg. hemlock-hardwoods forest and humid to dry faces of S G3G4 SNR - spinicaulis ledges and cliffs in open oak-hickory forest. Leptoscyphus 1 - X Wedge Flapwort Grayson Co Bark of Fraser fir. S G4G5 SH - cuneifolius Riparian - on peaty soil over rocks, usually in shade and 1 - X Nardia lescurii A liverwort Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G3? S1 - associated with water, <3000'. Little Stony Ck – Cascades; Red Ck on 1 - X Plagiochila austinii A liverwort Rich, moist, densely forested ravines; shaded outcrops. S G3 S? - Beartown Mtn Limited to densely shaded, humid, often fog-enshrouded 1 - X Plagiochila corniculata A liverwort Grayson, Smyth Cos mountain summits, usually to the spruce-fir association. S G4? SNR - Most commonly found on Fraser fir. Plagiochila sullivantii Moist shaded rock outcrops, under cliff ledges, in 1 - X A liverwort Whitetop Mtn, Salt Pond Mtn S G2T2 SNR - var. sullivantii crevices. S. Appalachian endemic. Damp to intermittently dry 1 X X Plagiochila virginica A liverwort Bath, Giles, Highland, Roanoke Cos calcareous or sandstone ledges or cliffs in partially S G3 SNR SNR exposed sites.

48 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank Moist rocks or trees in mountains below spruce-fir zone; Depressed, dense mats on moist rocks, less frequently Alleghany, Amherst, Dickenson, Giles, on tree trunks, in mountainous and hilly regions. Two 1 X X Radula tenax A liverwort S G3G4 SU SNR Highland, Nelson, Smyth, Washington Cos discrete modes of occurrence: on shaded, damp rocks, and on tree bark in deep, moist forests. Does not tolerate submersion. Sphenolobopsis Bark of Fraser fir, mountain ash, occasionally on red 1 - X A liverwort Mt Rogers & Whitetop Mtn S G2 S? - pearsonii spruce, >5000'. Moss Sphagnum Northeastern 1 - X Whitetop Mtn Bogs, seeps. S G3 SU - flavicomans peatmoss VASCULAR PLANT S. Appalachian endemic. Spruce–fir forests, bogs 1 - X Abies fraseri Fraser fir Grayson, Smyth Cos S G2 S1 SNR >5000‘ Trailing white Rich cove sites, streambanks, seepages; all with high 1 X X Aconitum reclinatum Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G3 S3 S3 monkshood pH. Appalachian black 1 - X Actaea rubifolia Lower Clinch R watershed, Scott, Wise Cos Moist, rich wooded bluffs over limestone. S G3 S1 - cohosh Monroe, Summers, Mercer, Greenbrier Cos, 1 X X Allium oxyphilum Nodding onion Shale barrens, sandstone glades. S G2 S1 S2 WV Frederick, Lee, Page, Shenandoah, Warren 3 X - Arabis patens Spreading rockcress Cos, VA; Hampshire, Hardy, Pendleton Cos, Shaded, calcareous cliffs, bluffs, and talus slopes. S G3 S1 S2 WV Calcareous open woods, bluffs, cliffs, and along 3 X X Berberis canadensis American barberry Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G3 S3S4 S1 fencerows. Virginia round-leaf 1 - X Betula uber One location: Cressy Ck, Smyth Co. Riparian, mixed open forest, usually disturbed sites. T G1Q S1 - birch Shale barren 4 X - Boechera serotina Ridge & Valley N of James R watershed Shale barrens and adjacent open oak woods. E G2 S2 S2 rockcress 1 X - Boltonia montana Mountain doll's-daisy Augusta Co Sinkhole ponds. S G1G2 S1 - Open woods, old fields, pastures. Formerly: Sceptridium 1 - X Botrychium jenmanii Alabama Grapefern Russell & Wise Cos. S G3G4 SH - jenmanii Buckleya Blue Ridge S of Roanoke R, Ridge & Valley 1 X X Piratebush Open oak and hemlock woods. S G3 S2 - distichophylla S of James R Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley, S of New R 1 - X Cardamine clematitis Mountain bittercress Riparian, spring seeps, rocky streamsides. S G3 S1 - watershed Open acid soil, oak-heath woodlands, responds 3 X X Carex polymorpha Variable sedge Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley, N of James R S G3 S2 S1 positively to fire. Augusta, Bath, Highland, Montgomery, 1 X X Carex schweinitzii Schweinitz's sedge Bogs, limestone fens, marl marshes. S G3G4 S1 - Pulaski, Washington Cos 1 - X Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert turtlehead Blue Ridge Plateau, Grayson, Carroll Cos Bogs, wet meadows, boggy woods and thickets. S G3 S2 - Small spreading Well drained, rather open, scrubby hillsides, oak-pine- 1 - X Cleistesiopsis bifaria Craig, Dickenson, Scott, Wise Cos S G4? S2 S1 pogonia heath woodlands, acidic soils. Addison's Montgomery, Roanoke, Botetourt, Open glades & rich woods over limestone and 1 - X Clematis addisonii S G1? S2 - leatherflower Rockbridge Cos dolostone. Virginia white-haired Ridge & Valley, Rockbridge Co, S to Wythe 1 X X Clematis coactilis Shale barrens, rocky calcareous woodlands. S G3 S3 - leatherflower Co Millboro Endemic to VA, only in Bath, Rockbridge 1 X - Clematis viticaulis Shale barrens, open shaly woodlands. S G1 S1 - leatherflower Cos. Alleghany, Bath, Giles Cos VA; Monroe, 1 X X Corallorhiza bentleyi Bentley's coralroot Dry, acid woods, along roadsides, well-shaded trails. S G2 S2 S1 Pocahontas Cos WV Dry calcareous soil in open grassy glades or thin 3 X X Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G3 S3 S2 woodlands. 1 X - Echinodorus tenellus Dwarf burhead Pines Chapel Pond, Augusta Co Pond margins, wet depressions in sandy soil. S G5? S1 - 1 X X Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower Alleghany, Montgomery Cos Open woodlands and glades over limestone or dolomite. E G2G3 S2 - 2 X X Euphorbia purpurea Glade spurge Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley Rich, swampy woods, seeps and thickets. S G3 S2 S2 Gaylussacia Alleghany, Bath, Bland, Carroll, Craig, Dry, acidic forests, woodlands of oaks, pines, and other 3 X X Box huckleberry S G3 S1 S2 brachycera Dickenson, Montgomery Cos; Hardy Co WV heaths. Maple-birch-hemlock woods on mountain slopes and Gymnocarpium Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Highland, Page, summits, moist sandstone, talus slopes, or bouldery 3 X X Appalachian oak fern S G3 S3 S1 appalachianum Rockbridge, Rockingham, Warren Cos colluvium. Requires cool, moist microclimate, typically on north-facing slopes with cold air seepage >2000’. 1 X - Helenium virginicum Virginia sneezeweed Endemic to Augusta, Rockingham Cos. Seasonally dry meadows and sinkhole depressions. T G3 S2 - 1 X - Helonias bullata Swamp-pink Augusta, Nelson Cos Sphagnum bogs, seeps, and streamsides. T G3 S2S3 -

49 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

G VA WV OAR GW J TES Species Name Common Name Range on or near GWJNFs Habitat - Detail Rank SRank SRank 4 X - Heuchera alba White alumroot Shenandoah Mtn High elevation rocky woods and bluffs. S G2Q S1 S2 2 X X Ilex collina Long-stalked holly Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley Bogs, seep, shrubby streamheads, >3100'. S G3 S1 S2 Peter's Mountain- One location: Narrows, Peters Mountain, Rich, open woods along sandstone outcrops, soil 1 - X Iliamna corei E G1 S1 - mallow Giles Co. pockets, fire maintained. In mountains of VA known only from Small whorled Open, mixed hardwood forests on level to gently sloping 3 X X Isotria medeoloides Bedford, Craig, and Lee Cos; other VA T G2? S2 S1 pogonia terrain with north to east aspect. occurrences in Piedmont & Coastal Plain. Well-drained bottomland and floodplain, rich mesophytic 5 X X Juglans cinerea Butternut Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G4 S3? S3 forests, mostly along toeslopes. Shale barrens, mountain hillside openings. L.turgida 2 X X Liatris helleri Turgid gayfeather Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S GNR S3 S2 synonymous with L. helleri. Blue Ridge, Mt Rogers & Whitetop Mtn 1 - X Lilium grayi Gray's lily (occurrences north of Floyd Co Bogs, open seeps, wet meadows, grassy balds. S G3 S2 - questionable). 6 X X Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley Dry oak-pine-heath woodlands, soil usually sandy. S G3 S3 S1 1 - X Packera millefolium Piedmont ragwort Lee, Scott Cos Open limestone outcrops and cedar barrens. S G2 S2 - Fens, thinly wooded, gravelly seeps over limestone, Largeleaf grass-of- Augusta, Bland, Giles, Grayson, Lee, 1 X X Parnassia grandifolia dolomite, amphibolite, and ultramafic rocks; restricted to S G3 S1 - Parnassus Montgomery, Russell, Washington, Wythe calcareous or magnesium-rich soils. Canby's mountain Ridge & Valley, Sarver Barrens SBA, Craig 2 X - Paxistima canbyi Calcareous cliffs and bluffs, usually undercut by stream. S G2 S2 S2 lover Co Amherst, Augusta (west side of Blue Ridge, near Laurel Springs Gap, Humpback Mtn Phemeranthus SBA), Bedford, Carrol, Craig (Bald Mtn Calcareous sandstone glades, metabasalt barrens. Also 2 X X Quill fameflower S G4 S4 S1 teretifolius SBA), Grayson, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Talinum teretifolium (Roundleaf fameflower) Roanoke, Rockingham, Warren Cos, VA; Hardy & Hampshire Cos, WV Open, often dry oak woodlands and rocky slopes, 3 X X Phlox buckleyi Sword-leaf phlox Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley usually over shale in humus rich soils, often along S G2 S2 S2 roadsides. 2 X X Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley Shrub swamps and seeps, usually under shade. S G3 S2 S1 1 X - Potamogeton hillii Hill's pondweed Bath Co Clear, cold calcareous ponds. S G3 S1 - Potamogeton Tennessee 2 X - Ridge & Valley Ponds, back water of streams and rivers. S G2G3 S1 S2 tennesseensis pondweed Torrey's mountain- Open, dry rocky woods, roadsides, and thickets near 1 X X Pycnanthemum torrei Bland, Bath, Giles, Rockbridge, Wythe Cos S G2 S2 S1 mint streams, heavy clay soil over calcareous rock. Scirpus 3 X X Northeastern bulrush Ridge & Valley Mountain ponds, sinkhole ponds in Shenandoah Valley. E G3 S2 S1 ancistrochaetus Rich, dry to mesic ridgetop woods, 32 counties in VA, 3 X X Scutellaria saxatilis Rock skullcap Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley S G3 S3 S2 likely G4/S4. 1 - X Silene ovata Mountain catchfly Dickenson, Lee, Wise Cos Rich woodlands and forests over limestone. S G3 S1 - Scoured banks of streams, riverside or island shrub 1 - X Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Blue Ridge, Ridge & Valley, S of New R T G2 S1 S1 thickets. Soft-haired Amherst, Bath, Bedford, Botetourt, 1 X X Thermopsis mollis Dry, open forests, woodlands, and clearings. S G3G4 S3 - thermopsis Montgomery, Rockbridge Cos Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Craig, Kate's Mountain 4 X X Trifolium virginicum Frederick, Highland, Rockbridge, Shale barrens. S G3 S3 S3 clover Rockingham, Shenandoah, Warren Cos 1 - X Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock Blue Ridge north to James R. Rocky ridges and slopes, usually dry and well drained. S G3 S3 - Scoured banks of rivers and streams over calcareous 2 X X Vitis rupestris Sand grape Ridge & Valley S G3 S1 S2 bedrock. LEGEND FOR TES SPECIES LIST IN OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS: OAR CODES: 1 = Project located out of known species range. 2 = Lack of suitable habitat for species in project area. 3 = Habitat present, species was searched for during field survey, but not found. 4 = Species occurs in project area, but outside of activity area. 5 = Field survey located species in activity area. 6 = Species not seen during field survey, but possibly occurs in activity area based on habitat observed; or field survey not conducted when species is recognizable (time of year or time of day). Therefore assume presence and no additional surveys needed. 7 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of project/activity area, but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant).

50 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

8 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of project/activity area, but inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area. 9 = Project occurs in a 6th level watershed included in the USFWS/FS T&E Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan (August 8, 2007 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concurrence on updated watersheds). Conservation measures from the USFWS/FS T&E Mussel and Fish Conservation Plan applied. 10 = Historic records for this species only; or no known records on GWJ; or species considered extirpated from Virginia/West Virginia. SPECIES: The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish, wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife, which interbreeds when mature (Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress). RANGE: The geographical distribution of a species. For use here “range” is expressed as where a species is known or expected to occur on or near the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in terms of landform (feature name, physiographic province), political boundary (county name), or watershed (river, or stream name). HABITAT: A place where the physical and biological elements of ecosystems provide a suitable environment and the food, cover and space resources needed for plant and animal livelihood (FSM 2605-91-8, pg. 10 of 13). TES CODES: T = Federally listed as Threatened E = Federally listed as Endangered P = Federally Proposed as T or E S = Southern Region (R8) Sensitive species GLOBAL RANK: Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of natural heritage programs, scientific experts, NatureServe and The Nature Conservancy to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of a species or variety. This system was developed by The Nature Conservancy and is widely used by other agencies and organizations as the best available scientific and objective assessment of taxon rarity and level of threat to its existence. The ranks are assigned after considering a suite of factors including number of occurrences, numbers of individuals, and severity of threats. G1 = Extremely rare and critically imperiled with 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Very rare and imperiled with 6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range; or vulnerable to extinction because of other factors. Usually fewer than 100 occurrences are documented. G4 = Common and apparently secure globally, although it may be rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G5 = Very common and demonstrably secure globally, although it may be rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. GH = Formally part of the world’s biota with the exception that may be rediscovered. GX = Believed extinct throughout its range with virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GU = Possibly rare, but status uncertain and more data needed. G? = Unranked, or, if following a ranking, ranking uncertain (ex. G3?). G_Q = Taxon has a questionable taxonomic assignment, such as G3Q. G_T = Signifies the rank of a subspecies or variety. For example, a G5T1 would apply to a subspecies of a species that is demonstrably secure globally (G5) but the subspecies warrants a rank of T1, critically imperiled. STATE RANK: The following ranks are used by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to set protection priorities for natural heritage resources. Natural Heritage Resources (NHRs) are rare plant and animal species, rare and exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic features. The criterion for ranking NHRs is the number of populations or occurrences, i.e. the number of known distinct localities; the number of individuals in existence at each locality or, if a highly mobile organism (e.g., sea turtles, many birds, and butterflies), the total number of individuals; the quality of the occurrences, the number of protected occurrences; and threats. S1 - Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer populations or occurrences in the state; or may be a few remaining individuals; often especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 - Very rare; usually between 6 and 20 populations or occurrences; or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often susceptible to becoming extirpated. S3 - Rare to uncommon; usually between 21 and 100 populations or occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. S4 - Common; usually >100 populations or occurrences but may be fewer with many large populations; may be restricted to only a portion of the state; usually not susceptible to immediate threats. S5 - Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. SA - Accidental in the state. S#B - Breeding status of an organism within the state. SH - Historically known from the state, but not verified for an extended period, usually > 15 years; this rank is used primarily when inventory has been attempted recently. S#N - Non-breeding status within the state. Usually applied to winter resident species. SR – Reported for Virginia, but without persuasive documentation that would provide a basis for either accepting or rejecting the report. SU - Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the element. SX - Apparently extirpated from the state. SZ - Long distance migrant, whose occurrences during migration are too irregular, transitory and/or dispersed to be reliably identified, mapped and protected. NA – Not Applicable- A conservation status rank in not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities.

51 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Assessment

APPENDIX B – VDGIF -- Tricolored Bat Winter Habitat & Roosts Application (VDGIF, 2019b) North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration Project Area

52 North Shenandoah Mountain Restoration and Management Project Biological Evaluation