Biological Evaluation

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2018 Biological Evaluation

Prospect Hamby Project

Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Cherokee County, North Carolina

For Additional Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, North Carolina 28906 (828) 837-5152

2-1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 Proposed Action ...... 2 1.2 Species Considered ...... 2 2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ...... 3 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...... 3 2.2 Botanical Resources ...... 6 2.3 Wildlife Resources ...... 8 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 14 3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 14 3.1 Aquatic Resources ...... 14 3.2 Botanical Resources ...... 16 3.3 Wildlife Resources ...... 16 3.4 Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species ...... 23 4.0 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES ...... 23 4.1 Aquatic Resources ...... 23 4.2 Botanical Resources ...... 27 4.3 Wildlife Resources ...... 31 5.0 PREPARERS ...... 45 6.0 REFERENCES and DATA SOURCES ...... 46 7.0 ATTACHMENTS ...... 52 Attachment 1a: Endangered, threatened, and sensitive aquatic species ...... 52 Attachment 2: Threatened, Endangered, Region 8 Sensitive, and Forest Concern plant species in Cherokee County, North Carolina...... 57 Attachment 3: Federally proposed, endangered, and threatened, Region 8 sensitive, and National Forests in North Carolina forest concern terrestrial animal species ...... 59

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proposed Action

The analysis area (AA) encompasses approximately 3,366 acres of National Forest System lands in Compartments 19, 20, and 22. Proposed management activities may include tree harvesting through commercial timber sale, site preparation for forest regeneration, timber stand improvements, prescribed burning, temporary road construction, road system improvement through vegetation removal, and wildlife and fisheries habitat improvements.

The project will be designed to accomplish the following objectives:

1) Conduct forest management activities to improve the condition of existing forest stands within the analysis area; provide for a range of early successional habitat through timber regeneration harvesting and wildlife brushy openings, with an emphasis on prescriptions that reestablish vegetation communities within the natural range of historic variation;

2) Provide for a range of stand age classes through timber regeneration harvesting and other activities;

3) Maintain and enhance biological diversity by protecting population viability of rare species which occur in the compartments, focusing treatments to reproduce shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) dominated and shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood stands to reestablish this native community on appropriate sites within the AA;

4) Restore optimal habitat conditions on existing area wildlife openings, create new grass/forb openings, and create/enhance additional wildlife habitat where practical;

5) Utilize prescribed burns to reestablish fire return intervals within the natural range of historic variation to restore fire-dependent plant communities where practical.

The proposed vegetation activities would occur in MAs, 1B, 3B, and 4C. Temporary road construction and reconstruction may need to cross through other management areas, such as at stream crossings (MA 18).

1.2 Species Considered

All federally proposed, endangered, and threatened (PET) species, Region 8 sensitive (S) species and National Forests in North Carolina forest concern (FC) species that occur or could occur on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were considered in this analysis. As of March 2018 the Regionally Sensitive species list has been updated with a number of species additions and removals. Due to the late timing of the Regionally Sensitive species update in relation to the timeline of the Prospect Hamby Environmental Analysis (EA), the Prospect Hamby Biological Evaluation (BE) does not reflect these recent changes to the Regionally Sensitive species list. The Prospect Hamby BE will analyze the Regionally Sensitive species updates by the time the final Prospect Hamby EA is released. 2

2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES 2.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Prospect Hamby Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts (direct and indirect effects) on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not necessarily overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters, the analysis area encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities when considered within the watershed context (cumulative effects). The aquatic analysis areas for the Prospect Hamby Project consist of the following watersheds: Anderson Creek, Rose Creek, North Shoal Creek, and portions of Hiwassee Lake and Appalachia Lake.

Existing Conditions

Anderson Creek is classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C; Tr waters. North Shoal Creek and Rose Creek are classified as C waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. High Quality Waters (HQW) are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies, native and special native trout waters, critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture. The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications).

The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater and cool water fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Prospect Hamby Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of boulders, cobble and large gravel. Analysis area streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2010).

Previous Survey Information: Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including threatened and endangered aquatic species is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for threatened and endangered aquatic species have been conducted within the Prospect Hamby aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS.

No aquatic T and E species have been found during previous surveys within the aquatic analysis area. Furthermore, the analysis area does not provide suitable habitat for any aquatic T and E species.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Four aquatic federally threatened or endangered species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of T and E species in Cherokee County. Two aquatic T and E species remained after this initial filter (Cumberland bean, Villosa trabalis, and little – wing pearlymussel, Pegias fabula). These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Both of the mussel species occur within the Hiwassee River but do not occur within the tributaries. Streams within the Prospect Hamby project area are typically small, high gradient streams which do not provide suitable habitat for any proposed, threatened or endangered aquatic species. No suitable habitat exists within any of the proposed treatment areas. All proposed treatment areas lie within watersheds upstream of Apalachia Dam.

Project design features would prevent off-site turbidity and sedimentation. Based upon the results of this filtering process no proposed, endangered, or threatened aquatic species were evaluated further for this analysis (Attachment 1b). Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis.

Table 2.1.1: Known and potential threatened and endangered aquatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Prospect Hamby Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted

The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for T and ES Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for T and E species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available for any aquatic threatened or endangered species. Existing data were used in this analysis because previous surveys for federally threatened and endangered aquatic species have been conducted and the Prospect Hamby Project would be implemented to prevent visible sediment from entering analysis area streams.

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: No aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened aquatic species or their habitats from implementing Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C. There would be no cumulative effects resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any aquatic T and E species resulting from implementation of the

Prospect Hamby Project because there would be no direct effects of the Prospect Hamby Project on any aquatic T and E species and because there are no aquatic T and E species within the aquatic analysis area.

In accordance with the Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (VM- FEIS), herbicide spraying would not occur within 30 horizontal feet of water unless the herbicide has been approved for aquatic applications. The herbicide triclopyr (ester formulation) has the potential to cause direct mortality to aquatic organisms at a concentration of 0.74 parts per million (ppm). The amine formulation of triclopyr can be lethal at concentrations of 91 ppm (VM-FEIS). Concentrations of glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (VM-FEIS). Sub lethal effects, such as lethargy or hypersensitivity, have been observed in fish at concentrations of 0.1 mg/L – 0.43 mg/L. No adverse effects have been observed in fish or aquatic invertebrates from exposure to imazapic concentrations up to 100 mg/L. Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the lethal concentration – generally concentrations ≤ 0.0072 ppm in the adjacent streams (Durkin, 2003a; Durkin, 2003b; and Durkin and Follansbee, 2004). Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (VM-FEIS).

The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sub lethal effects described above. Project area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the project area streams in measurable quantities. There would be no effects to any aquatic species because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, threatened, or endangered species because no changes in existing conditions would occur under this alternative. Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Prospect Hamby Project would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

Table 2.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B No Effects

2.2 Botanical Resources

Botanical Analysis Area

The Prospect Hamby analysis area includes the stands located within Compartments 19, 20, and 22. The botanical analysis area (botanical AA) or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is defined as the total area within two kilometers of any proposed unit (treatment area). The botanical AA definition was selected because it is analogous to NatureServe’s (2004) habitat- based population delimitation guidelines for plant occurrences. The assumption is for those rare plant populations that may occur within the proposed activity area, their spread, such as by pollen exchange and/or seed dispersal, would generally not extend beyond two kilometers. All potential effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to botanical resources in the Prospect Hamby botanical AA were analyzed using this "boundary".

Existing Conditions

The Prospect Hamby botanical analysis area is a low-elevation montane setting and contains Acidic Cover Forest, Chestnut-Oak Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak – Hickory Forest, Low Elevation Seep, Low Mountain Pine Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Rich Cover Forest, and White Pine-Dominated Forest. Species Evaluated and Rationale

All 445 federally threatened & endangered, Region 8 sensitive (TES), and National Forest in North Carolina forest concern (FC) plant species were initially considered in this analysis. TES and FC plant species with the greatest likelihood of occurring in the proposed CTR units were determined by:

1. Reviewing the list of TES and FC plants species that occur across the Nantahala- Pisgah National Forest and their habitat preferences. 2. Reviewing the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program element occurrence (EO) records for TES and FC plant species that occur in Cherokee County. 3. Consulting with individuals knowledgeable of the area and associated flora (Gary Kauffman, Botanist/Ecologist, National Forests in North Carolina). 4. Reviewing TES and FC element occurrence (EO) records that occur in or immediately adjacent to the proposed units. 5. Performing botanical field surveys in the proposed activity areas.

Prior to initiating the field surveys, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Biotics database was consulted to identify known rare plant or animal occurrences within the evaluation area. The list of known rare species of plants and animals for Cherokee County as well as the list of Regional Sensitive and Forest Concern species for the Pisgah/Nantahala National Forest were reviewed to assess which species could potentially occur within the project area. This list was further filtered based on the habitats expected within the project area and the likelihood of a given species being associated with that habitat.

Botanical Surveys Conducted: All stands in the project area surveyed in order to identify new occurrences of rare plant species. No federally proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species was found in the proposed units.

Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest and County PETS and FC Plant Occurrences: There are 415 PETS and FC species across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Within Cherokee county, there are 34 PET, S, and FC plant species known or historically known to occur (Attachment 2 in the BE, Appendix B).

Botanical Analysis Area: The botanical analysis area or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is defined as the total area within 1.2 miles (two kilometers) of any proposed treatment unit or activity area. The botanical analysis area definition was selected because it is analogous to NatureServes' (2017) habitat-based population delimitation guidelines for plant occurrences. The two kilometer delimitation guideline is used for rare plant populations because pollen exchange and/or seed dispersal could extend beyond the immediate extent of the population, but not likely beyond two kilometers. The botanical analysis area helps determine which federally proposed, threatened and endangered, Region 8 sensitive, and forest concern plant species have the highest likelihood of occurring in the proposed activity areas. In addition, the Prospect Hamby project botanical analysis area is used to access the potential cumulative effects on botanical resources. Because plants are rooted species that must be present in proposed activity areas to undergo effects, potential direct and indirect effects were evaluated for PET species, S and FC plant species that occur within proposed activity areas.

The botanical analysis area for the Prospect Hamby Project consists of approximately 22,443 acres, occurring in Cherokee County, North Carolina. Approximately 11,000 of the acres in the botanical analysis area occur on the Nantahala National Forest. The botanical analysis area includes land outside the National Forest System boundary because the botanical analysis area includes the total area within two kilometers or 1.2 miles of proposed project activities.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Records: There are no known PET plant species on access roads, within or immediately adjacent to stands proposed for management in the Prospect Hamby project area. There are no known Region 8 Sensitive species in the botanical analysis area. There are six Forest Concern plant species in the botanical analysis area as reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program: Cherokee sedge (Carex cherokeensis), purple sedge (Carex purpurea), American bittersweet (Celatrus scandens), northern green orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbolia), pink root (Spigelia marilandica), and mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata).

Botanical Surveys Conducted: Botanical surveys focused on PETS and FC plant species within the botanical analysis area, all 415 PETS and FC species were searched for during botanical surveys. Botanical field surveys were conducted by a meander search pattern to survey habitat variability within each proposed unit (Goff et al. 1982). Proposed activity areas with specialized habitat (e.g. rock outcrops and seeps) and/or high plant diversity were surveyed more intensively due to a higher probability of containing PETS and FC plant species. Overall, survey intensity varied depending on botanical diversity, presence of indicator species, and presence of PETS and FC plant species.

Most stands (compartment/stand 19/4, 19/6, 19/18, 19/27, 20/14, 20/24, 20/29, 20/30, and 22/11) in the project area were visited multiple times between April and September 2017 in order to characterize natural communities and document the occurrence of rare plant species as well as non-native invasive plants species that might be present. The botanical surveys were conducted by Allan Smith, botanical contractor from Mars Hill, NC (Smith 2017).

Three stands (compartment/stand 19/28, 22/4n, and 22/4s) have not yet been surveyed. These stands will be surveyed during the 2018 growing season prior to project implementation.

No federally proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species were found during botanical surveys. No Region 8 Sensitive plant species were found during botanical surveys. One Forest Concern plant (mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata)) was found during botanical surveys in two stands.

Plants Analyzed in Detail for the Biological Evaluation: Thorough botanical surveys of each of the stands and temporary roads proposed for management in the Prospect Hamby project area were conducted. These surveys had a high likelihood of detecting PETS and FC in the Prospect Hamby project area. Therefore, only those Federally Endangered and Threatened, Region 8 Sensitive and Forest Concern plants detected in the 2017 botanical survey or listed in the North Carolina Natural Heritage element occurrence database and occur in stands, prescribed burn areas or on access roads proposed for management will be analyzed in detail within the botanical Biological Evaluation.

Table 2.2.1: Known federally threatened and endangered plant species in the proposed Prospect Hamby Project. Federally Threatened and Endangered Plants None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Threatened and Endangered Botanical Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: No proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species occurs or is known to occur within the proposed treatment areas for the Prospect Hamby Project. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species from the implementation of the proposed Prospect Hamby Project.

Determination of Effect: The proposed Prospect Hamby Project would have no effect on any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources. 2.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area

The wildlife analysis area or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is the boundary of all the proposed treatments. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were evaluated for

federally listed terrestrial wildlife species that occur within proposed units. The wildlife analysis area for the proposed Prospect-Hamby project consists of 3,366 acres in Cherokee County.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Potentially affected rare wildlife species were identified by: 1) reviewing the rare species list for wildlife species that may occur on the Nantahala National Forest and their habitat preferences (see Attachment 3); 2) evaluating element occurrence records of these species as maintained by the NCNHP; 3) consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its fauna; and 4) conducting field surveys as necessary.

Species were filtered by those that may occur in Cherokee County, according to the NCNHP, and then by those that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on NCNHP GIS element occurrence records. These species were then filtered further by habitat information and the availability of that habitat within the proposed activity areas. Species that are not tracked by the NCNHP and could potentially occur within the proposed activity areas were added to the list of species to be analyzed. Species with habitat that does not occur within or adjacent to the proposed activity areas were not discussed further.

After the filtering process, three PET terrestrial wildlife species remained that may occur within the proposed activity areas. The Biological Opinion (BO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Protection of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) outlines terms and conditions for activities within a five county area which includes Macon County. The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was proposed for listing as endangered in the Federal Register by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on October 2, 2013. A proposed status affords this species consideration, and the northern long-eared bat is known to occur in both Cherokee County. The rusty patch bumblebee (Bombus affinis) historically occurred in Cherokee County, but is now considered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be extirpated from the county. The only county in western North Carolina considered to have an extant population is Swain County.

Table 2.3.1: Known and potential proposed, threatened, and endangered terrestrial animal species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Prospect-Hamby Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and buildings (warmer may occur Northern long-eared bat (Threatened) months); in caves and mines (winter months) Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and may occur Indiana bat (Endangered) snags (warmer months); in caves (winter months) Bombus affinis Areas that provide food (nectar and pollen from Rusty patched flowers), nesting sites (underground and Insect bumblebee abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses may occur (Endangered) above ground), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil)

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

This proposal would comply with the Terms and Conditions of the BO and the standards set forth in Amendment 25 to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). While the proposed action includes tree felling, the BO does include standards and direction for the retention of existing snags, a few of which might occur in these units. These standards include retention of standing trees with more than 25% exfoliating bark, shellbark and shagbark hickories, snags greater than 3 inches dbh, and hollow, den, or cavity trees as practicable. Snags with no bark, crevices or cavities need not be retained. To provide partial shade, buffer one-third of all hardwood snags greater than 12 inches dbh or conifer snags greater than 9 inches dbh with exfoliating bark, in the early stages of decay. Where these snags occur, select in clumps for buffering, meaning retain living residual trees where all or part of the tree is within 30 feet of the snag.

In implementing this project, it would be unlikely that a bat roost tree would be impacted; thus direct effects to roosting individuals are unlikely. Implementation of these activities would not decrease the amount of available suitable habitat.

Indiana bats may respond positively to habitat disturbance, particularly where forests are even- aged and closed-canopied. A diverse landscape may benefit Indiana bats, because dense overstory and understory inhibit bat movement and foraging.

Cumulative Effects

A habitat suitability model (HSM) based on Indiana bat habitat characteristics described in the BO was used to estimate cumulative habitat change from the baseline within project areas which propose timber regeneration harvesting. The resultant output illustrates the worst-case scenario percent change from baseline habitat suitability within the analysis area based on the proposed regeneration amount in combination with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The area covered under the current EA was previously analyzed as part of a larger analysis area covering this area and 2 other analyzed projects (Long Buck and Brushy Flats EA’s). Alternative B of the Prospect-Hamby Project in conjunction with impacts from the 2 previously analyzed projects would result in a 2.8% decrease in suitable bat habitat within the 3 analysis areas. According to the HSM run for the previous timber harvesting activity in these stands, there would be a less than 3% change from the amount of suitable roost tree habitat available as a result of the timber harvests. The Forest Plan (LRMP) limits cumulative effects to less than a 5% change from the baseline habitat amount (Amendment 10 of the LRMP). Therefore, the cumulative effects for this project combined with the effects from the 2 previously mentioned projects would result in a less-than 3% change that occurred with the previous timber harvesting in the areas currently proposed for treatment.

Determination of Effect

This project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, because all standards and guides for the protection of this species, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for wildlife resources.

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of the Prospect-Hamby Project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.

The greatest threat to the northern long-eared bat is white-nose syndrome (WNS). WNS is an emerging infectious disease responsible for the unprecedented mortality in some hibernating insectivorous bats including the northern long-eared bat. Since its discovery in New York in 2006, WNS spread rapidly throughout the Northeast and is expanding through the Midwest. As of August 2012, this disease has been confirmed in 22 states, including North Carolina, and 5 Canadian provinces and suspect in 4 additional states due to presence of the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans which causes the disease. The northern long-eared has experienced a sharp decline since the onset of WNS in 2006 which is estimated to be approximately 99 percent in the northeastern part of the species’ range. This bat is highly susceptible to WNS due to the species ecology. Northern long-eared bats roost in the more humid parts of caves where the fungus thrives, and individuals will group together which facilitates bat to bat spread of fungal spores.

Common forest management activities, including timber harvest, timber stand improvements, and forest road construction, are not a threat to this species. The range is widespread across the United States and Canada though the northern long-eared bat is less common in the southern part of its range. In the warmer months, this species is opportunistic, choosing roosts in live trees or snags regardless of tree species, underneath bark or in cavities and crevices. The proposed work would not constitute a change in existing spring and summer habitat for this bat. In addition, the proposed project would be unlikely to have any direct effects on individuals during the winter months. Northern long-eared bats arrive at hibernacula in August or September, entering hibernation in October and November, and emerge March or April. Consequently, proposed activities would be unlikely to have any direct impacts on the northern long-eared bat.

The project design criteria listed above for the Indiana bat and adherence to the terms and conditions of the BO for the Indiana bat would provide the necessary protections to the northern long-eared bat.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the Prospect-Hamby Project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.

Determination of Effect

Implementation of this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long- eared bat, because all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. Further design criteria specifically addressing the Indiana bat have been developed to essentially eliminate the likelihood of direct impacts. Given the similarity of habitats used by these two species of bats, the protections afforded to the Indiana bat would also provide protections to the northern long-eared bat.

The northern long-eared bat is listed as threatened under the final 4(d) rule by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since proposed activities will not take place within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum and no known maternity roost trees exist within the project area, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for the northern long-eared bat.

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)

On September 22, 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published the proposed rule to list the rusty patched bumble bee (RPBB) (Bombus affinis) as endangered in the Federal Register. The USDA Forest Service Southern Region is currently conferencing, at a regional scale, with the FWS on RPBB. At this time, the only county with a documented extant population on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is Swain County.

RPBB live in colonies made up of a single queen and female workers. Males and new queens are produced in late summer. Queens are the largest sized bees in the colony, while workers are the smallest. All rusty patched bumble bees have entirely black heads, but only workers and males have a rusty reddish patch centrally located on the back – on the second abdominal segment.

Historically, the RPBB occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, many of which have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses. This bumble bee needs areas that provide food (nectar and pollen from flowers), nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil).

RPBB colonies experience an annual cycle. In spring, a solitary queen finds a suitable nest site, collects nectar and pollen from flowers and begins laying eggs, which are fertilized by sperm she has stored since mating the previous fall. Workers hatch from these first eggs and the colony grows as workers collect food, defend the colony, and care for young. The queen remains within the nest and continues laying eggs. In late summer, new queens and males also hatch from eggs. Males disperse to mate with new queens from other colonies. At the end of the season the queen dies and only new queens go into diapause (a form of hibernation) over winter. The cycle begins again in spring.

Historically, the RPBB was broadly distributed across the eastern United States and Upper Midwest, from Maine in the U.S. and southern Quebec and Ontario in Canada, south to the northeast corner of Georgia, reaching west to the eastern edges of North and South Dakota. Its range included 28 states, the District of Columbia and one provinces in Canada. Since 2000, this bumble bee has been reported from only 12 states and one province: Illinois, Indiana, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin – and Ontario, Canada.

Most of the prairies and grasslands of the Upper Midwest and Northeast have been converted to monoculture farms or developed areas, such as cities and roads. Grasslands that remain tend to be small and isolated. Increases in farm size and technology advances improved the operating efficiency of farms but have led to practices that harm bumble bees, including increased use of pesticides, loss of crop diversity which results in flowering crops being available for only a short time, loss of hedgerows and the flowers that grew there, and loss of legume pastures. Pathogens and parasites may pose a threat to rusty patched bumble bees, although their prevalence and effects in North American bumble bees are not well understood. The rusty patched bumble bee may be vulnerable to pesticides used across its range. Pesticides are used widely on farms and in cities and have both lethal and sublethal toxic effects. Bumble bees can absorb toxins directly through their exoskeleton and through contaminated nectar and pollen. Rusty patched bumble bees nest in the ground and may be susceptible to pesticides that persist in agricultural soils, lawns and turf.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: If RPBB is present in the AA, this alternative could have negative direct and indirect effects on the RPBB because sites currently providing grassy areas likely to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RPBB would continue succeeding into shrubby and woody conditions.

Alternative B: If RPBB is present in the AA, direct and indirect effects to the RPBB from this alternative would be the treatments in wildlife openings, linear wildlife strips, roadsides, and other grassy areas likely to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RPBB. Because these treatments would increase grassy habitat, they may benefit the RPBB.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of the Buck Project upon this species would be negligible due to the low likelihood of the species occurring outside of Swain County. With negligible direct and indirect or possibly beneficial indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative effects that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative is likely to have no effect on the RPBB.

Alternative B: This project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the RPBB because the species may be present in the AA and because potential impacts from treatments are not well documented at the present time. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Table 2.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated proposed, endangered and threatened terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Myotis septentrionalis No Effects No Jeopardy Northern long-eared bat Myotis sodalis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect Indiana bat Bombus affinis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect Rusty patched bumblebee

2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Alternative A would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because no actions are proposed under this alternative. Alternative B would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

Alternative A and Alternative B would have no effects to any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species in the Prospect Hamby treatment units because no botanical T&E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.

Alternative A of the Prospect Hamby Project would have no effect to any proposed, endangered, or threatened terrestrial wildlife species in the Prospect Hamby treatment units. Alternative B may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or the northern long-eared bat because (1) all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed and (2) because all standards of the final 4(d) rule for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat would be followed. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for terrestrial wildlife resources. Implementation of the Prospect Hamby Project would not likely adversely affect the RPBB. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for terrestrial wildlife resources.

3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES 3.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.

Existing Conditions

The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August, 2001). Ten aquatic species listed by the Regional Forester as Sensitive are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of aquatic Sensitive species in Cherokee County. Four species remained after this filter. These species were then filtered by available habitat. The analysis area waters do not 14 provide any suitable habitat for any sensitive aquatic species. Based upon the results of this filtering process no sensitive aquatic species were evaluated further for this analysis (Attachment 1b).

Previous Survey Information

Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including regionally-sensitive aquatic species, is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for sensitive aquatic species have been conducted within the Prospect Hamby aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS. Aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations within the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2010).

Table 3.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Prospect Hamby Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted

The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for PETS Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for sensitive aquatic species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available within proposed treatment areas for the species known or potentially occurring on the Nantahala National Forest. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that the species are not likely to occur within the analysis area.

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: No sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to any sensitive aquatic species or their habitats from implementing Alternative A or Alternative B. There would be no cumulative effects resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any aquatic sensitive species resulting from implementation of the Prospect Hamby Project because there would be no direct or indirect effects of the Prospect Hamby Project on any sensitive aquatic species and because there are no sensitive aquatic species within the aquatic analysis area.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A or Alternative B of the Prospect Hamby Project would have no effects to any sensitive aquatic species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas.

Table 3.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B None *May impact individuals but would not affect the species viability across the forest or cause a trend to federal listing.

3.2 Botanical Resources

The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).

Table 3.2.1: Known Region 8 Sensitive plant species in the proposed Prospect Hamby Project. Region 8 Sensitive Plants None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Region 8 Sensitive Botanical Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: No Region 8 Sensitive plant species occur or are known to occur within the proposed treatment areas for the Prospect Hamby Project. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any Region 8 Sensitive plant species from the implementation of the proposed Prospect Hamby Project.

Determination of Effect: The proposed Prospect Hamby Project would have no effect on any Region 8 Sensitive plant species.

3.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area

The wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

The process for consideration and evaluation of rare wildlife species was described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. NatureServe Explorer and the NCNHP database were queried for occurrences of terrestrial wildlife sensitive species in Cherokee County. Ten sensitive species remained after this initial filter. These species were then filtered again based upon habitat information and the availability of those habitats crossed with the NCNHP GIS records of occurrence in and adjacent to the terrestrial wildlife AA. After this filtering step, eight sensitive terrestrial wildlife species remained. Based on this filtering process, eight Regional Forester’s sensitive terrestrial wildlife species were evaluated in this analysis.

Table 3.3.1: Known and potential sensitive terrestrial animal species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Prospect-Hamby Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Northern bush katydid Sensitive Treetops at edges of broadleaved may occur (Scudderia septentrionalis) for forest Rock-loving grasshopper Sensitive Lichen covered rocks in forest openings may occur (Trimerotropis saxatilis) Frosted elfin Sensitive Open woods and borders, in dry may occur (Callophrys irus) situations Diana fritillary butterfly Sensitive Deciduous and pine woodlands may occur (Speyeria diana) Southern Appalachian Sensitive Moist forests at all elevations may occur salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Tellico salamander Sensitive Moist forests, entirely terrestrial may occur (Plethodon aureolus) Bald eagle Sensitive Mature forests near large bodies of water may occur (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (for nesting); lakes and sounds

Eastern small-footed bat Sen sitive Roosts in hollow trees in summer may occur (Myotis leibii)

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis)

The northern bush katydid lives in tree tops along forest edges in oak-hickory forest types. The northern bush katydid is short-lived, and the adults die in the fall.

Direct and Indirect Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the northern bush katydid.

Alternative B: There is potential habitat for the northern bush katydid within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If populations occur within the proposed units, timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing and indirectly reduce suitable habitat. However, mature oak, hickory, and maple forest is widespread throughout the wildlife analysis area, and the proposed activities would affect only a minor portion of potential habitat. Two-age cuts are designed to regenerate oak stands and impacts from these cuts are temporary and short-term in duration. Dormant season burns would be unlikely to directly impact adult katydids. Dormant eggs, however, depending on where they were laid, may be exposed to and consumed by fire. Prescribed burning would not affect the availability of habitat as these burns are not stand replacing fires nor do they cause excessive loss of mature oak and hickory trees. Herbicide use would be a directed spray to clump sprouts of undesirable species and to NNIP. The northern bush katydid lives in tree tops and would be unlikely to come into contact with the herbicide treated plants.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the northern bush katydid resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past harvest and prescribed fire would have similar effects to the equivalent proposed actions in this alternative. Alternative B would convert 289 of the wildlife analysis area to new early successional habitat (0-10 years old). The remainder of the analysis area would be mid-successional and mature forested stands that would be potentially suitable for the northern bush katydid. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect northern bush katydids include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the northern bush katydid.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the northern bush katydid.

Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis)

This species utilizes lichen-covered rock outcrops.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative A would have no effect.

Alternative B: Individuals of this species may be impacted during tree felling operations, temporary road construction, or prescribed burn activities but these actions would not lead towards federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities.

Cumulative Effects – Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect rock- loving grasshoppers include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect – Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the rock- loving grasshopper.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the rock-loving grasshopper.

Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus)

This butterfly species occurs in open woods and borders in dry situations.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative A would have no effect.

Alternative B - If populations occur within the proposed units, timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing and indirectly reduce suitable habitat.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative A: In the absence of direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects resulting from implementation of this project.

Alternative B: Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect frosted elfin include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect – Alternative A: This alternative would have no impacts on the frosted elfin.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the frosted elfin.

Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana)

This species occurs in different forest types, but seems to prefer roadsides through cove forests. Diana fritillaries inhabit edges and openings in moist, rich mountain forests.

Direct and Indirect Effects –Alternative A would have no effect.

Alternative B: If populations occur within the proposed units, tree felling may cause direct impacts to individual butterflies through crushing. Temporary road construction will likely improve habitat, at least temporarily.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been created in the past due to road construction activities.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative A: In the absence of direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects resulting from implementation of this project.

Alternative B: Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect Diana fritillary include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in

Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect – Alternative A: This alternative would have no impacts on the Diana fritillary.

Alternative B: Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest roadside habitat. This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the Diana fritillary.

Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) and Tellico salamander (Plethodon aureolus)

The Southern Appalachian salamander is thought to be fairly common across Graham, Swain, Cherokee, Clay and Macon counties. Dr. Richard Highton's collection at the Smithsonian lists 1007 records for this species from 10 counties in North Carolina, at elevations from 1160 feet to 6000 feet. This includes 267 records on the Nantahala National Forest. The Tellico salamander is found in similar habitat as the Southern Appalachian salamander. These species are found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative A would have no effect.

For Alternative B, timber harvest through two-age regeneration may cause direct mortality through crushing. Indirectly, these activities increase solar and wind exposure to these units, which could cause previously moist habitat to become unsuitable and salamander populations within these areas could decline. These effects would be short term, however, and as the stands regenerate the areas that may be affected would provide more suitable habitat. Though timber harvest activities may remove habitat for the Southern Appalachian and Tellico salamander, the habitat is widespread across the forest and within the wildlife analysis area. Thinning treatments would not cause these effects as the larger canopy would be left intact, but temporary road construction could cause short term effects on the immediate habitat by increasing solar and wind exposure to the proposed temporary road sites. If Southern Appalachian and Tellico salamanders occur within the burn unit, prescribed fire may cause direct mortality, but it is possible that salamanders would be underground and emerge instead at night to forage when temperatures are cooler and moisture levels higher, which would lessen potential direct effects. Low intensity prescribed burning does not remove the main canopy or affect salamander habitat, and even higher intensity burns that may remove some canopy would not reduce the amount of downed, decaying logs and the duff layer which supports the moisture and microclimatic requirements of the Southern Appalachian and Tellico salamander. Herbicide use for undesirable tree species and to combat NNIP would be unlikely to affect salamander populations. The herbicide treatments are directed foliar spray; thus, it would be highly unlikely for an applicator to accidently spray a salamander. In addition, the undesirable tree species and NNIP that would be targeted are not associated with Southern Appalachian salamander or Tellico salamander habitat, and a salamander would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities and past regeneration activities, which reduced habitat in the analysis area by several acres over the past 15 years. By the time the regenerated stands reach age 15, they will have achieved canopy cover and reformation of the litter layer sufficient to support salamander populations.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Southern Appalachian salamander as a result of this alternative.

Alternatives B: Past treatments within the wildlife analysis area from previous projects would have had effects similar to the proposed Prospect-Hamby treatments. Prescribed fire would not have had a measurable impact on salamander populations and would not have affected available habitat. Though past silvicultural treatments may have altered microhabitat conditions around treated stands, these effects were ephemeral and have dissipated as treated stands have aged. A majority of the remainder of the analysis area provides areas with suitable microhabitat conditions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect Southern Appalachian and Tellico salamanders include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

In the absence of direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects resulting from implementation of this project.

Determination of Effect –Since these species are widely distributed, potentially occupying nearly a half million acres of national forest, current management is unlikely to affect the availability of suitable habitat.

Forest-wide, this species has lost habitat due to wildlife opening construction, road construction/ reconstruction and regeneration activities. The concurrent maturation of younger stands into suitable habitat has offset this loss because forest plan standards limiting the amount of regeneration harvests prevent large cumulative effects to this species in any given area. This project would have no impacts upon the southern Appalachian salamander or the Tellico salamander.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the bald eagle, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.

Alternative B: Bald eagles may utilize shoreline habitat for foraging along Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake where cut cable treatments for fish habitat may be implemented under reasonably foreseeable future projects. Shoreline would be evaluated for nests prior to

implementing these treatments. If located, no nest trees would be felled, and no tree felling in general would occur within 330 feet of bald eagle nests during the nesting season from December to June so as not to cause noise disturbance to nesting eagles. There are no other proposed activities that occur in proximity to known eagle nest locations. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects on bald eagles resulting from these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A and Alternative B: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the bald eagle resulting from these alternatives.

Determination of Effect

Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have no impact on the bald eagle.

Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii)

The eastern small-footed bat hibernates in caves, mines, and rock crevices from mid-November to March, making it one of the last bats to enter hibernacula for the winter and the first to leave (USFWS 2013, Best and Jennings 1997, Harvey et.al 1999). Upon exiting hibernacula in the spring eastern small-footed bats day roost primarily in emergent rock habitat including, but not limited to, talus slopes, rock outcrops, rock piles, rock crevices and buildings (USFWS 2013, Harvey et.al 1999). Groups and individuals change roost sites often and sometimes as often as daily within a given area as a predator avoidance mechanism (USFWS 2013). Lactating females stay closer to water and don’t move as far as males (USFWS 2013). Little is known regarding summer nursery sites and summer foraging or roosting habitat. Suitable maternity habitat may be lacking across the forest, if otherwise appropriate sites are not exposed to the sun. This species has been collected from most counties in western North Carolina, although it is rarely trapped during mist-netting surveys. The species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest openings to offset the concurrent maturation of other forest stands.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the eastern small-footed bat, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.

Alternative B: Effects to eastern small-footed bats from silvicultural treatments would be most likely from direct impacts in the form of crushing from temporary road construction, logging equipment and the skidding of trees. Equipment is not used on talus slopes or rocky areas. Considering the small scale of the treatment areas, the prohibition of logging equipment on rocky areas, and the propensity for the bats to change roots sites, the impacts of silvicultural treatments on the eastern small-footed bat would be negligible. Removal of live and dead trees would have no measureable effect as the eastern small-footed bat does not spend any measureable amount of time in trees. Prescribed burning is unlikely to cause direct or indirect effects on the bat. Burns are conducted in the dormant season while the eastern small-footed bat is in hibernacula. However, because these bats enter hibernacula late and leave early, there is potential prescribed

22 fire may cause direct mortality by burning through rocky habitat. Directed spray herbicide treatments for undesirable tree species and NNIP would not have a measurable effect on the bat; a bat would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the eastern small-footed bat resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed burning would have had similar effects to proposed treatments. Cumulatively, harvest, spraying, and prescribed fire would not affect summer roosting habitat within the wildlife analysis area. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect eastern small-footed bats include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effects Alternative A: This alternative would have no impacts on the eastern small-footed bat.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the eastern small-footed bat. 3.4 Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species

Determination of Effect: Alternative B implementing treatments to the Prospect Hamby Project would have no impacts to any sensitive aquatic species because none occur within the proposed treatment areas and any effects of this project would dissipate prior to reaching suitable habitats for these species.

The proposed Prospect Hamby Project would have no effect on any Region 8 Sensitive plant species.

The Prospect Hamby Project may impact individual northern bush katydids, rock-loving grasshoppers, frosted elfins, Diana fritillaries, and eastern small-footed bats, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for these species across the forest.

4.0 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES 4.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 2.1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.

Existing Conditions

The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 2.1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Data for aquatic resources exist in two forms: general inventory and monitoring of forest resources and data provided by cooperating resource agencies from resources on or flowing through the forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 are used primarily as historical data. Additional information specifically addressing aquatic species was obtained from NCWRC biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, and US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists.

Thirty aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of forest concern species in Cherokee County. Twenty-one forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These 21 species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Based upon the results of this filtering process 2 forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis (Table 4.1.1). These species were analyzed for this project because they are either known to occur within the project area or suitable habitat exists for these species. Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis.

Previous Survey Information

Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including regionally-sensitive aquatic species, is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for forest concern aquatic species have been conducted within the Prospect Hamby aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS. Aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations within the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2010).

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted

The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for PETS Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for forest concern aquatic species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available within proposed treatment areas for the species known or potentially occurring on the Nantahala National Forest or results of additional surveys would not alter project design. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that the species are not likely to occur within the analysis area.

Table 4.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Prospect Hamby Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Amphibian Little Tennessee River and May occur Hiwassee River basins Moxostoma sp. 2 Fish Little Tennessee River and May occur Hiwassee River basins

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: There would be no effects to any forest concern aquatic species resulting from implementation of this alternative because the existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: The proposed thinning, prescribed burning, log landings, skid trail and skid road construction, routine road maintenance, herbicide spraying of harvest unit skid trails, rehabilitation of wildlife openings, and invasive species removal would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas. In addition, any disturbed ground would be seeded to prevent erosion. Skid trails would not require construction of a cut and fill slope; therefore, there would be very little ground disturbance that could produce sediment. Skid roads would manage runoff with water bars. Following timber harvest, skid trails and skid roads would be seeded and closed to prevent visible sediment from entering any streams. The routine road maintenance would involve minor road surface repair, placement of gravel, and reseeding. These actions are unlikely to increase measurable sedimentation because the work would be done during dry periods and the disturbed soil would be either hardened with gravel or seeded to control erosion. The proposed reservoir fish habitat improvements would have no negative impacts to any aquatic forest concern species. The fish habitat improvements on Hiwassee Lake and Appalachia Lake may improve juvenile habitat for the Sicklefin Redhorse by increasing habitat complexity.

In general, the duration of the effect of sedimentation depends upon stream type (stream energy available to move particles) and storm runoff magnitude and frequency. The effect could move downstream although it would dissipate the further removed it is from the source. Higher gradient stream channels may have these sediments scoured (i.e. flushed from the substrate and deposited in low velocity areas) and the effect would be dissipated throughout the stream channel.

Most of the proposed activities would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas and adverse effects of timber management would be avoided by implementation of the project design features and BMP’s. BMP effectiveness monitoring in 2013 found that the overall effectiveness of BMPs in preventing sedimentation of streams from timber sales was 97.1% and BMP’s were successfully implemented 96.7% of the time (Dodd and Jones, 2013). Project design features would prevent adverse effects to the aquatic habitats.

The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sub lethal effects described above. Project area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the project area streams in measurable quantities. There would be no effects to the aquatic forest concern species because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

Riparian vegetation: Stream temperatures in analysis area waters would not be affected by timber harvest because harvest would not occur within the riparian areas of any streams. These no-harvest areas would protect stream temperatures and prevent sedimentation. Streambank vegetation would not be cut; therefore, there would be no reduction in potential large woody debris recruitment. Riparian areas within timber harvest units would be mapped by the interdisciplinary team prior to timber harvest activities if harvest is planned within 100 feet of any perennial water body.

There are no other past, ongoing, or planned activities on public lands within the project area that would cause adverse effects to the aquatic resources. Private lands within the analysis area are characterized as low density residential. There may be sedimentation from some of these private lands but these effects are widely dispersed and would not be cumulative with the Prospect Hamby Project. There would be no long-term cumulative effects to stream turbidity resulting from these actions.

The cumulative impacts resulting from this project and any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to the forest concern aquatic species would be an increase in large woody debris within Apalachia Lake and Hiwassee Lake at the habitat improvement sites.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B of the Prospect Hamby Project may impact individuals of the aquatic forest concern species but is not likely to cause a trend to

federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after the activities are completed and reservoir habitat improvements may create additional habitat for the Sicklefin Redhorse.

Table 4.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No Impacts May Impact Individuals Moxostoma sp. 2 No Impacts May Impact Individuals

4.2 Botanical Resources

Botanical Analysis Area

The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).

Species Evaluated and Rationale

The process for consideration and evaluation of TES and FC plant species was described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Section 2.2). Six forest concern species occur in the Prospect Hamby botanical analysis (Table 4.2.1). One forest concern botanical species was located in proposed activity areas during botanical surveys; mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata). Prior to surveying, an analysis was conducted to see what rare species were documented from the area and might potentially occur within the treatment area. Six Forest Concern plant species were noted from within 2 km of the treatment areas within the botanical analysis area: Northern green orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) occurs in southern Appalachian bogs and swamp forest-bog complexes; purple sedge (Carex purpurifera) occurs in rich cove forests; Cherokee sedge (Carex cherokeensis), American bittersweet (Celastrus scandens), pink root (Spigelia marilandica), and mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata).

Survey Information: Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2). No other forest concern plant species were located within proposed treatment areas during surveys (Raleigh et al. 2016).

Table 4.2.1: Documented forest concern plant species in the Prospect Hamby Project. Species Common Name Natural Communities/Habitat Carex cherokeensis Cherokee Sedge Montane Alluvial Forest, Roadside, Rich Cove Forest Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest Celastrus scandens American Bittersweet Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- Hickory, mafic rock Platanthera flava var. Northern Green Orchid Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp herbiola Forest-Bog Complex Spigelia marilandica Pink Root Montane Oak Woodland, Mesic Oak- Hickory, White Pine Forest Stewartia ovata Mountain Camellia Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species CHEROKEE SEDGE (Carex cherokeensis) Cherokee sedge is known to occur in moist, rich, calcareous forests that blooms in May and June (Weakly 2015). The sedge occurs in montane alluvial forest, roadside, and rich cove forest habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are four known forest populations. Cherokee sedge is known from within the Prospect Hamby botanical analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A and Alternative B: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for Cherokee sedge.

PURPLE SEDGE (Carex purpurifera) Purple sedge occurs in moist, deciduous and sometimes mixed deciduous-evergreen forests, on calcareous or nutrient-rich soils in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina (five westernmost counties), Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia (FNA 2016 and Weakley 2016). The botanical contractors located purple sedge at five locations in 25-30 clumps in and around stands 9/16 and 9/8 in rich cover forest and montane oak-hickory forest (Raleigh et al. 2016).

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for purple sedge.

AMERICAN BITTERSWEET (Celastrus scandens) American bittersweet is known to occur in mesic forest and blooms in May and June (Weakly 2015). The sedge occurs in Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory, and mafic rock habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2?). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are three known forest populations. Cherokee sedge is known from within the Prospect Hamby botanical analysis area.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for American bittersweet.

NORTHERN GREEN ORCHID (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) Northern green orchid flowers from May through August and can be found in alluvial forests, riparian thickets, wet meadows, wet prairies, and seeps (FNA 2016). The plant ranges from Minnesota and Ontario in the northwest to Labrador and Newfoundland in the east, south to North Carolina and west to Missouri (FNA 2016). The plant is known to occur in the Prospect Hamby botanical analysis area.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for Northern green orchid.

PINK ROOT (Spigelia marilandica) Pink root flowers from May through June and can be found in woodlands and forests usually on circum-neutral soils (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in Montane Oak Woodland, Mesic Oak- Hickory, and White Pine Forest habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there is one known forest population. Pink root is known from within the Prospect Hamby botanical analysis area.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for pink root.

MOUNTAIN CAMELLIA (Stewartia ovata) Mountain camellia is a plant of the mountains and foothills of the southeast and occurs in shaded, moist ravines and gorges in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee (FNA 2016). In North Carolina the plant is found in the mountains of the far west where it is mostly found in acidic woods, alluvial forest, and coves (Weakley 2015). Threats to this species include land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation (FNA 2016). The plant occurs in Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest, and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are four known forest populations. Mountain camellia is known from within two stands (compartment/stand 20/14 and 20/24) in the Prospect Hamby project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatment: The proposed silvicultural treatments include shelterwood with reserves for most stands in the project area with two stands proposed for thinning. There are two stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves treatment that contain populations of mountain camellia in the project area (20/14 and 20/24). Individual mountain camellia plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects a 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of mountain camellia.

Site Preparation with Hand Tools, Site Preparation and Release with Herbicide, Site Preparation Prescribed Burn, and Tree Planting: Mountain camellia occurs in two stands (12/14 and 20/24) proposed for site preparation with hand tools, site preparation and release with herbicide treatments, site preparation with prescribed fire, and tree planting. Individual mountain camellia plants may be directly impacted by these operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following these activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects of site preparation with hand tools,

herbicide, and tree planting a 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around known populations of mountain camellia. In order to mitigate effects to mountain camellia from site preparation prescribed burns, fire operations will be conducted during the non-growing season (October – April) and fire intensity will be kept low (< 3 foot flame lengths) in the buffer zone around known mountain camellia individuals.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of mountain camellia. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments proposed for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for mountain camellia. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of mountain camellia would be buffered by a 50 foot no activity buffer.

Table 4.2.2: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Carex cherokeensis No Impact No Impact Carex purpurifera No Impact No Impact Celastrus scandens No Impact No Impact Platanthera flava var. No Impact No Impact herbiola Spigelia marilandica No Impact No Impact Stewartia ovata No Impact No Impact

4.3 Wildlife Resources

The wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

The process for consideration and evaluation of rare wildlife species was described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. The NCNHP Database and NatureServe Explorer were queried for occurrences of terrestrial wildlife forest concern species in Cherokee County. Thirty forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of those habitats adjacent to the terrestrial wildlife AA. After this filtering step, twenty-five forest concern species remained and all others were dropped from further analysis

Table 4.3.1: Forest Concern wildlife species that are known to occur or may occur within the Prospect-Hamby Project wildlife analysis area. Species Type Habitat Description Further Analyzed Ambystoma talpoideum Breeds in fish-free semi-permanent woodland ponds; Amphibian No5 Mole salamander forages in adjacent woodlands Aneides aeneus Damp, shaded crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in Amphibian No5 Green salamander deciduous forests (southern mountains) Desmognathus aeneus Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme Amphibian Yes5 Seepage salamander southwestern counties Desmognathus wrighti Mid- to high elevation forests, often in spruce-fir; west Amphibian No5 Southern pigmy salamander of the French Broad River Eurycea longicauda Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Amphibian Yes3 Longtail salamander Plethodon chattahoochee Moist forests in the southwestern counties; close to the Chattahoochee slimy Amphibian GA border (Clay) Yes3 salamander Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Yes3 Mountain chorus frog Setophaga cerulea Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in Bird No5 Cerulean warbler mountains [breeding season only] Sphyrapicus varius Mature, open hardwoods with scattered dead trees Bird No5 Yellow-bellied sapsucker Vermivora chrysoptera Old fields and successional hardwoods [breeding Bird No Golden-winged warbler season only] Vermivora cyanoptera Low elevation brushy fields and thickets [breeding Bird Yes3 Blue-winged warbler season only] Vireo gilvus Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams Bird No5 Warbling vireo [breeding season only] Autochton cellus Moist woods near streams; host plant: hog peanut Butterfly Yes3 Golden banded skipper (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Celastrina nigra Rich, moist deciduous forests; host plant: goat’s beard Butterfly Yes3 Dusky azure (Aruncus dioicus) Chlosyne gorgone Woodland openings and borders; host plants: Butterfly Yes3 Gorgone checkerspot sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites Erynnis martialis Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Butterfly Yes3 Mottled duskywing Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) Euchloe olympia High elevation openings and glades; host plants: Butterfly No5 Olympia marble cresses (Arabis) Euphydryas phaeton Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland woods; Baltimore checkerspot Butterfly host plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove No5 (Aureolaria) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at higher Tawny crescent Butterfly elevations; host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum No5 undulatum Polygonia faunus smythi Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with Butterfly No5 Smyth’s green comma hardwoods; host plants: mainly birches Polygonia progne Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly Butterfly No5 Gray comma gooseberries (Ribes) Satyrium caryaevorus Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host plants: Butterfly Yes3 Hickory hairstreak primarily hickories (Carya) Satyrium edwardsii Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly oaks Butterfly Yes3 Edward’s hairstreak (Quercus)

Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja Forest openings and edges west of the Little Tennessee Butterfly Yes3 Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary River; host plants: violets (Viola) Melanoplus decoratus Dry woodlands Grasshopper Yes3 Decorated melanoplus Melanapamea mixta Savannas, wet meadows Moth Yes3 a noctuid moth Merolonche dolli Dry oak woodlands (Macon) Moth No5 a noctuid moth Papaipema astuta Open oak woodland and barrens; host plant: stoneroot Moth Yes3 Yellow stoneroot borer moth (Collinsonia canadensis) Corynorhinus rafinesquii Roosts in caves, mines, and hollow trees, usually near Mammal Yes5 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat water Sylvilagus obscurus Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Mammal Yes3 Appalachian cottontail Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods No3 Queen crater Gastropod Glyphyalinia junaluska Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Yes3 Dark glyph Gastropod Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Yes3 Pink glyph Gastropod Haplotrema kendeighi Terrestrial Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’; Yes3 Blue-footed lancetooth Gastropod southwestern mountains Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) No5 Spiral coil Gastropod Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Forests (Swain) No5 a snail Gastropod Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Wooded river bluffs and ravines No5 Club supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea lamellidens Terrestrial Southern half of the mountains; deep moist leaf litter No5 Lamellate supercoil Gastropod on wooded hillsides and ravines, affinity to rock talus Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme southwestern Yes3 Open supercoil Gastropod mountains Patera clarki Terrestrial Forested mountainsides Yes3 Dwarf proud globe Gastropod Pilsbryna nodopalma Terrestrial Rock outcrops and rocky hillsides No5 Oar tooth bud Gastropod Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist forests No5 Ribbed striate Gastropod Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern Yes3 Appalachian gloss Gastropod mountains Eumeces anthracinus Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, roadbanks Reptile Yes3 Coal skink Pituophis melanoleucus Dry, sandy woods Reptile Yes3 Northern pine snake 1 Known to occur within the proposed activity areas. 2 Known to occur within the wildlife analysis area and may occur within the proposed activity areas. 3 May occur within the wildlife analysis area and may occur within the proposed activity areas. 4 Known to occur within the wildlife analysis area but does not occur within activity areas. 5 May occur within the wildlife analysis area but does not occur in the activity areas.

Seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus)

Seepage salamanders are typically associated with seeps, springs, or streams in deciduous forests in extreme southwestern counties of North Carolina (Dorcas 2014). They may also be found

around moist areas under rocks, logs and leaf litter adjacent to stream and seeps. Eggs are deposited under objects adjacent to streams and seeps (Dorcas 2014).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the seepage salamander because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Primarily an aquatic species, seepage salamanders spend most of their time around seepage areas and small streams. Timber harvest may potentially affect this species through crushing. However, since the salamander will retreat underground and streams and seeps would be buffered, the likelihood of these effects is minimal. Prescribed fire in this environment should not eliminate canopy cover, coarse woody debris, or duff which, provide cover and a desirable microclimate for the seepage salamander.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on these salamanders resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects greater to the proposed harvest and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire would not have had a measurable impact on salamander populations and would not have affected available habitat. Though harvest may potentially alter microhabitat conditions around treated stands, these effects are ephemeral as stands age and with the implementation of BMPs and Standards and Guidelines found in the LRMP, the buffering of streams protects the salamander and these microclimates in contrast to historical logging practices. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect seepage salamanders include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the seepage salamander because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the seepage salamander.

Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda) and Chattahoochee slimy salamander (Plethodon chattahoochee)

Longtail salamanders are found beneath leaf litter near seepages or small streams in shaded areas of hardwood or mixed forests during the day. Chattahoochee slimy salamanders are found in moist forests.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on these salamander species because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Primarily aquatic species (except for the Chattahoochee slimy salamander), these salamanders spend most of their time around seepage areas and small streams. Timber harvest may potentially affect these species through crushing. However, since these salamanders will

retreat underground and streams and seeps would be buffered, the likelihood of these effects is minimal. Prescribed fire in this environment should not eliminate canopy cover, coarse woody debris, or duff which, provide cover and a desirable microclimate for this assemblage of salamanders.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on these salamanders resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects similar to the proposed harvest and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire would not have had a measurable impact on salamander populations and would not have affected available habitat. Though harvest may potentially alter microhabitat conditions around treated stands, these effects are ephemeral as stands age and with the implementation of BMPs and Standards and Guidelines found in the LRMP, the buffering of streams protects these salamanders and these microclimates in contrast to historical logging practices. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect longtail or Chattahoochee slimy salamanders include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on these salamanders because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the longtail or Chattahoochee salamander.

Mountain chorus frog (Pseudacris brachyphona)

Mountain chorus frogs are found in moist woods and floodplains where breeding occurs in hillside streams and other shallow water sources. Not much is known about the ecology of this species, but most are observed during the breeding period in March to May around woodland pools. The tadpoles mature in approximately 40 to 65 days, and the rest of the year adults likely reside beneath leaf litter.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the mountain chorus frog because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: There are known occurrences of the mountain chorus frog within or on the edge of the wildlife analysis area within a half mile of proposed stands in Compartment 22. Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with proposed units. Though direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. These activities would not occur in the riparian zone of hillside streams. If such habitat occurred in proximity to proposed activity areas such as these streams and other water sources, they would be buffered from activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently, harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of mountain chorus frog habitat.

Dormant season burns may cause direct mortality if individuals are unable to escape the flames, but prescribed fire would have no effect on the availability of habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact mountain chorus frogs because it would be unlikely that a frog would be directly sprayed or ingest enough insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the mountain chorus frog resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternative B: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the mountain chorus frog as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect mountain chorus frogs include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022 but activities occurring in these areas would be similarly buffered as they will in the Prospect-Hamby project.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the mountain chorus frog.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the mountain chorus frog.

Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera)

Blue-winged warblers, which prefer brushy fields and thickets, inhabit lower elevations than golden-winged warblers though sometimes territories overlap and hybrids are produced. Blue- winged warblers breed May through June, with individuals arriving as early as mid-March and departing as late as mid-October.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the blue-winged warbler because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Direct effects on blue-winged warblers from prescribed burning between October 15 and April 15 would be unlikely, because nonbreeding adults would be able to easily escape low intensity flames. In addition, there is only a short period of overlap between the burning season and migration arrival. Indirectly, prescribed fire enhances open habitats and maintains open and early successional characteristics, which is beneficial for the blue-winged warbler.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the blue-winged warbler resulting from the no action alternative.

for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the blue- winged warbler.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the blue-winged warbler.

Golden-banded skipper (Autochton cellus), Dusky azure (Celastrina nigra), Gorgone checkerspot (Chlosyne gorgone), Mottled duskywing (Erynnis martialis), Hickory hairstreak (Satyrium caryaevorus), Edward’s hairstreak (Satyrium edwardsii), Cullasaja Aphrodite fritillary (Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja), a noctuid moth (Melanapamea mixta)

The golden banded skipper is found in openings of moist woods, along creeks, near ravines, and at other sites near water sources that are forested. This species can often be found in rich woods with sunlit places along creeks and dirt roads. Golden banded skippers have two broods, the first from late April into June and the second from July into August. The host plant, hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata) is common across the forest.

Dusky azures are found in shaded areas of rich hardwood forests, mostly on north-facing aspects. This species can often be found along logging roads, dirt roads, or wide trails. The dusky azure has one brood at the end of March to mid-May or late May at high elevations.

The gorgone checkerspot has a short flight period that lasts a few weeks in May. It has been found to have three broods with a flight period into September in Georgia, but that has never been observed in North Carolina. This checkerspot can be found along wooded borders, logging roads, and powerline corridors, always in dry situations. These different open, dry habitats are not limited across the forest. The host plants include sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites which are also not limited across the forest.

The mottled duskywing is seldom found far from its host plant, New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) and can be found at the margins of upland hardwoods or open dry woods, along dirt roads or drier areas in powerline corridors. This butterfly has two broods, the first flight period lasting from mainly April into May and the second late June into July.

The hickory hairstreak is associated with their host plant, hickories. They are found along the edges of hardwood forests or along roads and trails within hardwood forests. A single brood flies from late June to late July.

The Edward’s hairstreak is found in scrubby or xeric oak woods, but its range and habitat requirements in the southeast are less well known.

The Cullasaja Aphrodite fritillary is found at higher elevations along cooler slopes in meadows, moist thickets, and forest edges. This species has an affinity for openings along roads or small clearings. Cullasaja Aphrodite fritillaries have one brood with the flight period lasting from late May to early October, sometimes lasting into early November.

The noctuid moth, Melanapamea mixta, is found in savannas and wet meadows.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have direct or indirect effects on these butterflies because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Timber harvest will likely not impact streamsides occupied by golden-banded skippers since they will be buffered based on BMP’s and Forest Standards and Guides. Several of these butterflies, including the dusky azure, show an affinity to logging roads, dirt trails, and sunny patches because their host plants may grow back in these areas post-harvest or they thrive in sunnier and drier habitat types. Two-age cuts may impact individual butterflies through crushing. Two-age timber harvest may open up shaded areas to the sun, potentially making the treated areas more suitable for the dusky azure and other species, but these effects would be temporary. These proposed actions would not measurably decrease the availability of habitat adjacent to treatments or throughout the wildlife analysis area. Dormant season burning from October 15 to April 15 is unlikely to impact the flight period for most of these butterflies, although it does overlap with the beginning of the first flight period for the mottled duskywing. Overwintering eggs, larva, pupa, or adults may be consumed in the fire during prescribed burning if present in burn units and in locations vulnerable to fire.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the dusky azure resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past harvest and burning would have had similar effects to the proposed harvest and prescribed fire. These actions may cumulatively enhance the habitat used by these butterfly species that exists within burn units or harvest units. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect these butterfly species include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on these butterfly species.

Alternative B: This alternative may improve habitat, but also impact individuals. This is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for these butterflies.

Decorated melanoplus (Melanoplus decoratus)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the decorated melanoplus because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: There is potential habitat for the decorated melanoplus within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If populations occur within the units, timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing, but treatments may increase desirable habitat. Melanoplus utilize woodland openings to sun themselves. Prescribed burning would not affect the availability of habitat as these burns are not stand replacing fires, but burning may cause direct mortality of individuals. Herbicide use would be a directed spray to clump sprouts of undesirable species and to NNIP. It is unlikely that an herbicide treatment for plants would affect an insect species if individuals were to come into contact with treated plant species

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the decorated melanoplus resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the decorated melanoplus similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative. The proposed harvest may cumulatively contribute to suitable sunning areas by creating early successional habitat. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect this grasshopper species include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the decorated melanoplus.

Alternative B: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the decorated melanoplus.

Yellow stoneroot borer moth (Papaipema astuta)

This species tends to be located in high quality, dry to mesic forest, along stream corridors or anywhere there is a good population of stoneroot, the larval food plant (Collinsonia canadensis) (Bess 2005). Larvae are present from spring through summer maturing and pupating in August and emerge in late August or September and will be in the flight period for a few weeks to a month before laying eggs in late September or October (Bess 2005).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the yellow stoneroot borer moth because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Timber harvest and temporary road construction are buffered from streams and avoid wet areas where the largest population densities of yellow stoneroot borer moth may occur;

thus, these actions are unlikely to measurably impact yellow stoneroot borer moth populations if they occur near any of these treatment units. Though unlikely, yellow stoneroot borer moth may be present in other parts of the units in lower concentrations and these actions may cause direct mortality through crushing if larva or adult moths are present in the treatment unit. One of the threats to this species is competition of NNIP with natural food sources for the yellow stoneroot borer moth. Consequently, treatment of NNIP may reduce the spread and competition of NNIP with the essential food plant. Dormant season burning would not impact the species from larval to adult form but may consume the overwintering eggs. Dormant season prescribed burns may affect some individuals and habitat but fire would not burn well in wetter areas and effects would not be measurable.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the yellow stoneroot borer moth resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past harvest and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area which have resulted in little to no net decrease in available habitat, would have had similar effects as the proposed harvest and prescribed burning. The cumulative impact to the yellow stoneroot borer moth would be negligible. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the yellow stoneroot borer moth include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the yellow stoneroot borer moth.

Alternative B: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the yellow stoneroot borer moth.

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii)

Rafineque’s big-eared bats roost in caves, mines, and hollow trees usually near water.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Effects to Rafinesque’s big-eared bats from silvicultural treatments would be most likely from direct impacts in the form of crushing from temporary road construction, logging equipment and the skidding of trees since this species sometimes roosts in hollow trees. However, since roost trees are often near water, they would likely be within BMP buffers, reducing any impacts to roost trees. The effects to this species from prescribed burning would be similar to those described above for the eastern small-footed bat in Section 3.3 Sensitive Wildlife Resources. Directed spray herbicide treatments for undesirable tree species and NNIP would not have a measurable effect on the bat since they would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Appalachian cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus obscurus)

The Appalachian cottontail occurs in the dense cover of montane woods and thickets, particularly in dense stands of Vaccinium spp. or Kalmia latifolia.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Appalachian cottontail because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Two-age cuts and prescribed burning would likely create dense, temporary early successional habitat, which would be beneficial to Appalachian cottontails.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the Appalachian cottontail resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the Appalachian cottontail similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative. The proposed harvest may cumulatively contribute to suitable foraging and escape cover areas through creating dense thickets and edge habitat. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the Appalachian cottontail include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Appalachian cottontail.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the Appalachian cottontail.

Dark glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana), pink glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia), blue-footed lancetooth (Haplotrema kendeighi), open supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris), Appalachian gloss (Zonitoides patuloides)

These terrestrial gastropods inhabit mainly cove hardwood forests with sufficient leaf litter and downed woody debris to provide the necessary microclimate. The blue-footed lancetooth is generally found above 2,000 feet in elevation while the others can be found in a wider elevation range.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on these terrestrial gastropods because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: If present, timber harvest may cause direct impact through crushing. Indirectly, two-age silvicultural treatments would reduce/remove canopy cover, allowing direct sunlight to reach the forest floor, causing higher temperatures and drier conditions. Effects would be temporary and though it may become temporarily unsuitable for snails, regeneration would restore conditions to their previous state. The thinning units would not cause as much impact. Some overstory would remain intact within these units to provide shade and necessary microclimatic conditions, though potential direct impacts from crushing still exist. Recommendations are to leave large woody debris in the stand for refugia post-harvest. Prescribed fire may affect individuals. Large woody debris is unlikely to be fully consumed, however leaf litter would be reduced/removed and snails may be caught by the flames. To prevent species decline, a burn rotation of no less than 5 years is encouraged (Page et al. (2000) and Agee (2001).

Spraying of NNIP would not affect these terrestrial gastropods as their habitat and food base are not the target of spraying nor would they ingest enough plant material that may have been accidentally sprayed to receive any ill effects.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on these terrestrial gastropods. In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on these species resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on these terrestrial gastropods similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect these terrestrial gastropods include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on these terrestrial gastropods.

Alternative B: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for these terrestrial gastropods.

Dwarf proud globe (Patera clarki clarki)

The dwarf proud globe is a habitat generalist and habitat includes logs, snags, fallen branches, and other forms of coarse woody debris as well as areas with thick leaf litter, which provide food and the necessary microclimatic (Jordan and Black 2012). Coarse woody debris on or near the forest floor are important sheltered microsites for oviposition, aestivation, hibernation, feeding, breeding, and refuge during dry weather (Jordan and Black 2012). Snail abundance is generally, highly associated with stand age; old growth being the most rich in abundance (Jordan and Black

2012). Though middle aged stand (40-60 years old) are not as rich as those older or younger (Jordan and Black 2012). Small cuts less than 24.7 acres are recolonized from surrounding forest and any declines in population are temporary (Jordan and Black 2012).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the dwarf proud globe.

Alternative B: If dwarf proud globe snails are present within the unit timber, harvest may cause direct impact through crushing. Indirectly, two-age units would reduce or remove canopy cover leading direct sunlight reaching the forest floor, causing higher temperatures and drier conditions. Effects of this harvest would be temporary and though it may become unsuitable for snails for a short time, regeneration would restore conditions to their previous state. The thinning units would not cause as much impact. Some overstory would remain intact within these units to provide shade and necessary microclimatic conditions, though potential direct impacts from crushing would still exist. Recommendations are to leave large woody debris in the stand for refugia post-harvest. Prescribed fire may affect individuals. Large woody debris is unlikely to be fully consumed. However, leaf litter would be reduced/removed and snails may be caught by the flames. To prevent species decline, a burn rotation of no less than 5 years is encouraged (Page et al. (2000) and Agee (2001).

Spraying of NNIP would not affect the dwarf proud globe as their habitat and food base are not the target of spraying nor would they ingest enough plant material that has been accidentally sprayed to receive any ill effects.

Alternative B: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the dwarf proud globe similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the dwarf proud globe include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the dwarf proud globe.

Alternative B: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the dwarf proud globe.

Coal skink (Eumeces anthracinus)

Coal skinks are most commonly found in a variety of damp forest habitats ranging from oak, mixed hardwood, to pine-hardwood mix (Martin 2003). The predominant habitat indicator is the presence of rocky areas in the form of loose rock, rock slabs, and rocky slopes, located near springs, and along road banks (Martin 2003).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the coal skink because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: There are no known occurrences of the coal skink within the wildlife analysis area. Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with proposed units. Though direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. These activities would not occur on rocky slopes. If such habitat occurred in proximity to proposed activity areas, rocky slopes, boulderfields, and water sources would be buffered from activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently, harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of coal skink habitat. Dormant season burns may cause direct mortality if individuals are unable to escape the flames, but prescribed fire would have no effect on the availability of habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact coal skinks because it would be unlikely that a skink would be directly sprayed or ingest enough insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the coal skink resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternative B: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the coal skink as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the coal skink include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the coal skink.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the coal skink.

Northern Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus)

The northern pine snake inhabits dry and sandy woods, mainly in pine/oak sandhills.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the northern pine snake because existing conditions would not change.

Alternative B: Ideal or potential habitat may exist within some of the proposed treatment units. Restoration of shortleaf pine stands will likely positively impact this species. Prescribed fire would not reduce the availability of habitat for this species and may enhance fire-adapted pine communities. There may be direct impacts to individuals if they come into contact with the fire during implementation. However, direct impacts are unlikely, because the northern pine snake is a burrowing animal and would likely be underground during implementation of the proposed burns. These snakes spend the majority of their time underground in summer dens or in hibernacula during the winter months. Occasionally, individuals can be observed on the

surface, but this is usually from May to October, which is mostly outside the October 15 to April 15 burning period.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the northern pine snake resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternative B: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the northern pine snake as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the northern pine snake include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project, the Long Buck Project, and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2019 and 2022.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the northern pine snake.

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the northern pine snake.

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

The Prospect Hamby Project may impact individual seepage longtail, Chattahoochee salamanders, mountain chorus frogs, blue-winged warblers, golden-banded skipper, dusky azure, Gorgone checkerspot, mottled duskywing, hickory hairstreak, Edward’s hairstreak, Cullasaja Aphrodite fritillary, noctuid moth, decorated melanoplus, yellow stoneroot borer moth, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, Appalachian cottontail, dark glyph, pink glyph, blue-footed lancetooth, open supercoil, Appalachian gloss, dwarf proud globe, coal skink, and northern pine snake but will not lead any of these species toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest.

5.0 PREPARERS

Matt Bushman, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Johnny Wills, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest

/s/ Jason Farmer 3/5/2018 Jason Farmer Nantahala National Forest Cheoah Ranger District 1070 Massey Branch Road Robbinsville, NC 28771

6.0 REFERENCES and DATA SOURCES

Aquatic

Berner, L. and R.K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Seratella (Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44:149-158.

Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pages.

Cantrell, Mark. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801.

Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface types in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27: 100- 106.

Cooper, J.E. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22: 87 – 132.

Dillon, R.T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interrupta (Hald.) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission contract No. 92-Snai-01. 20 pages.

Dodd, B.N. and D. Jones. 2013. Two decades of forestry best management practices monitoring – Executive summary. USDA, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 4 pp.

Durkin, P.R. 2003a. Glyphosate – Human health and ecological risk assessment-final report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a.

Durkin, P.R. 2003b. Triclopyr – Revised human health and ecological risk assessments-final reports. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b.

Durkin, P.R. 2004. Imazapic – Human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b.

Georgian, T.J. and J.B. Wallace. 1993. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild or periphyton- grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236-1248.

Grace, J.M., III. 2002. Effectiveness of vegetation in erosion control from forest road sideslopes. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 45(3): 681-685.

Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of Herpetology 5(3-4):121- 126.

Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Number 480. 236 pp.

Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional structure. Aquatic Insects 9:229-251.

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages.

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97-CCS-230.

NatureServe. 2015. Online database: http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?post_processes=PostReset&lo adTemplate=nameSearchSpecies.wmt&Type=Reset . Accessed September 3, 2015.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2015. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database.

Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to mollusca. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages.

Ridout, S. 2003. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University. Richmond, Virginia.

Scientific Council Report on Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices.

Scientific Council Report on Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues of North Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices.

Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose, and K.J. Elliott. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 163-178.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest road design to minimize erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of forestry and water quality: a mid-south symposium. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas. 141-151.

Terwilliger, K. (editor). 1991. Virginia’s endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pages.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Management indicator species habitat and population trends - Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Draft internal document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. 817+ pp.

Williams, G. G. 1996. A watershed approach to assessing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) distribution and ecological health in the Hiwassee watershed. Tennessee Valley Authority. Hiwassee River Action Team. Norris, Tennessee.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages.

Botanical

Flora of North America (FNA). 2017. Available at www.eFloras.org.

Goff, F.G., Dawson, G.A. & Rochow, J.J. 1982. Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species. Environmental Management, 6: 307-16.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Smith, Allen. 2017. Prospect Hamby Botanical Survey - Nantahala National Forest, Cherokee County, North Carolina.

Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic State. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Wildlife

Barr, T.C. 1962. The Genus Trechus (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechini) in the Southern Appalachians. The Coleopterists Society, 16(3):65-92

Beamer, D.A., & T. Lamb. 2010. Population status, distribution, and phylogeography of the seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) in North Carolina. Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Bess, J. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Stoneroot borer moth (Papaipema astuta Bird). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region non-publication, 30pp.

Best, T.L, & J.B. Jennings. 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian, 547:1-6

Bond, B.T et al. 2002. Short-term response of eastern cottontails to prescribed fire in east-central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies, 56:187-197

Buehler, D.A. et al. 2013. Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/511doi:10.2173/bna.511

Confer, J.L. et al. 2011. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/020doi:10.2173/bna.20

Connell, P.M. Species Profile – Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/anurans/psebra.htm

Partymiller, L. Species Profile – Loggerhead Musk Turtle (Sternotherus minor). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/turtles/stemin.htm

COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Barren Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 36pp. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/CW69-14-586-2010-eng.pdf

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/lizards/Eumant/Eum_ant.html

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/anurans/Psebra/Pse_bra.html

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Pygmy Salamander (Desmognathus wrighti). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_nc/salamanders/Deswri/Des_wri.html

Dourson, D. & J. Dourson. 2006. Land Snails of the Great Smoky Mountains (Eastern Region). Developed for Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center, Purchase Knob, Great Smoky Mountains National Park in cooperation with ATBI/Discover Life in America project. 60pp.

Ford, W.M. et al. 2010. Woodland salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management, 260:1003-1009.

Ford, W.M. et al. 1999. Effects of a community restoration fire on small mammals and herpetofauna in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management, 114:233-243.

Forrest, T.G. & T.K. Goodman. 2008. A survey of Scudderia septentrionalis in western North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science, 124(4):148-153.

Francl, K.E. & C.J. Small. 2013. Temporal changes and prescribed-fire effects on vegetation and small-mammal communities in central Appalachian forest, creek, and field habitats. Southeastern Naturalist, 12(1):11-26.

Gill, F.B. et al. 2001. Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/584doi:10.2173/bna.584

Greenberg, C.H. & T.A. Waldrop. 2008. Short-term response of reptiles and amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 255:2883-2893

Hedin, M.C. 1997. Speciational history in a diverse clade of habitat-specialized spiders (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus): Inferences from geographic based sampling. Evolution, 51(6):1929-1945

Jordan, S.F. & Black, S.H. 2012. Effects of forest land management on terrestrial mollusks: a literature review. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation under an agreement with the Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management,87pp

LeGrand, H.E. 2013. Butterflies of North Carolina, Twentieth Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program non-publication.

LeGrand, H.E. et al. 2013. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina 2012, Revised February 27, 2013. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 160pp.

Morrison, B. Species Profile – Long-tailed Salamander (Eurycea longicauda). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/salamanders/eurlon.htm

Morrison, B. Species Profile – Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/pitmel.htm

Morse, A.P. 1904. New Acridiidae from the southeastern states. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 11(1):7-13.

Otte, D. 2002. Studies of Melanoplus. 1. Review of the Viridipes Group (Acrididae: Melanoplinae). Journal of Orthoptera Research, 11(2):91-118.

Roth, A.M., et al. 2012. Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 175pp

Russell, K.R. et al. 1999. Appalachian cottontails, Sylvilagus obscurus (Lagomorpha: Leporidae), from the South Carolina mountains with observations on habitat use. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 115(3): 140-144

Schweitzer, D.F. & J.C. Whittaker. 2000. Cicindela patruela. NatureServe Explorer Version 7.1. Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Schweitzer, D.F., et al. 2011. Rare, Declining, and Poorly Known Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera) of Forests and Woodlands in the Eastern United States. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 526pp.

Sharpe, T. 1996. Wildlife Profiles –Appalachian Cottontail Rabbit. Division of Conservation Education, NC Wildlife Resources Commission

Taylor, D.A.R. 2006. Forest Management & Bats. Bat Conservation International.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 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 [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024;4500030113], 78(191):61046-61080.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 1, 2010. 2pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated February 5, 2009. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 5, 2005. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 7, 2000. 93pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Amendment #25 to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Direction and Standards for the Protection of the Indiana Bat. Dated November 9, 2010. 16pp.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2013. Northern map turtle (Graptemys geographica). Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030065

7.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1a: Endangered, threatened, and sensitive aquatic species Attachment 1a: Endangered, threatened, sensitive and forest concern aquatic species, Nantahala National Forest USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution

Endangered/ Bivalve Alasmidonta raveneliana Little Tennessee River drainage and Threatened Tuckaseegee River; Nolichucky River Bivalve Pegias fabula Lower Little Tennessee River; historic record from Valley River, Cherokee Co. Bivalve Villosa trabalis Hiwassee River, below Appalachia Dam Fish Erimonax monachus Little TN River; French Broad River system Sensitive Bivalve Fusconaia barnesiana Lower Little TN River and Hiwassee River Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Valley River, Historic Record, Cherokee Co. Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Streams in Little TN River, Macon Co.

Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Streams in Hiwassee River drainage

Crustacean Cambarus reburrus Tributary to Horsepasture River, Transylvannia Co.; upper French Broad River Crustacean Cambarus chaugaensis Streams in Savannah River drainage, Jackson, Macon, and Transylvannia Co.; SC and GA Dragonfly Macromia margarita Rivers, Macon, Swain, Transylvannia Co.; Caldwell Co. Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Large streams and rivers, Little TN River system, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.; Cheoah River, Graham Fish Percina squamata Higher gradient upland rivers, Tennessee River system, Cherokee, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co. Forest Amphibian Cryptobranchus Rivers and large streams, TN and Concern alleganiensis Savannah River systems Amphibian Necturus maculosus Wayah Cr, Cullasaja R. - Macon, Fires Creek - Clay

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Bivalve Alasmidonta viridis Little Tennessee River, Macon, Swain Co. Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Cherokee, Swain Co.; New River; Macon, Swain Bivalve Fusconaia subrotunda Cherokee, Clay Counties, Macon, and Swain Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Little TN, French Broad and Pigeon Rivers, historic records ; Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Jackson, Macon, Swain Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme Little TN and Hiwassee drainages, Cherokee, Clay, Macon, Swain Co. Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis Hiwassee River system, Cherokee and Clay Co.; French Broad River system Bivalve Villosa iris Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Martin and Brasstown Crks; French Broad R.; Cherokee, Clay, Jackson, Macon, Swain Crustacean Cambarus carolinus Little Tennessee River & Hiwassee River drainages. Burrowing species; bogs, and edges of small spring-fed streams; within 10 feet of standing water. Crustacean Cambarus sp. A Streams in Hiwassee & New River drainages. Riffles of large streams and rivers. Crustacean Cambarus tuckasegee Streams in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson and Macon Counties Crustacean Skistodiaptomus Lake Ravenel, Macon Co. carolinensis Dragonfly Ladona julia Bogs and marshes in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County Fish Clinostomus funduloides Little TN River drainage and Hiwassee sp. 1 River watershed; Cherokee, Clay,Graham, Jackson, Macon, and Swain Co. Fish Cyprinella spiloptera Moderate to large streams in Cherokee & Macon Counties. Fish Erimystax insignis Hiwassee River, Cherokee and Clay Co. eristigma

Fish Etheostoma inscriptum Large streams in Savannah River system; Jackson and Macon Counties

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Reported in Little TN River system and Hiwassee River watershed; Cherokee, Clay, Macon, Swain, Jackson Co.; Cane River system Fish Moxostoma breviceps Cherokee, Jackson, Macon and Swain Counties Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 Little TN and Hiwassee River drainages – Cherokee, Clay, Jackson, Macon, Swain Fish Moxostoma carinatum Hiwassee River & Little Tennessee River, Cherokee, Graham, & Macon Counties Fish Notropis micropteryx Cherokee, Jackson, Macon and Swain County Fish Notropis lutipinnis Savannah and Little TN River systems, Jackson and Transylvannia Co.; Broad River system Fish Notropis volucellus Tuckasegee River; Jackson, Macon, Swain Counties Fish Noturus flavus Warmwater streams and rivers, Little TN River drainage, Macon and Swain Co.; Nolichucky and French Broad River systems Gastropod Elimia christyi Hiwassee River and tributaries (Cherokee County) Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae UT Cullasaga River, Macon Co.; Mull Crk, Jackson Co.; Cove Crk, Haywood Co.; Swain Co. Stonefly Zapada chila Small streams, Beech Flat Prong, Tuckasegee River watershed - Swain Co.; Ashe Co.

Attachment 1b: Endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive aquatic species evaluated for the Prospect Hamby Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring rare aquatic species from Cherokee County, NC. Potential occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat.

Type Name Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area Threatened and Endangered Species Mollusk Pegias fabula Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Villosa iris Not likely to occur3 Sensitive Species Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Not likely to occur1 Fish Percina squamata Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Lasmigona holstonia Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Fusconaia barnesiana Not likely to occur1 Forest Concern Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis May occur Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Fusconaia subrotunda Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Villosa iris Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Cambarus carolinus Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Cambarus sp. A Not likely to occur1 Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 Not likely to occur1 Fish Cyprinella spiloptera Not likely to occur1 Fish Erimystax insignis eristigma Not likely to occur1 Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Not likely to occur1 Fish Moxostoma breviceps Not likely to occur1 Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 May occur Fish Moxostoma carinatum Not likely to occur1 Fish Notropis micropteryx Not likely to occur1 Gastropod Elimia christyi Not likely to occur1 Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Not likely to occur1 Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae Not likely to occur1 Stonefly Zapada chila Not likely to occur1

Notes:

1 = No suitable habitat present or vicinity records in the analysis area, but the species may be present in the county. 2 = Suitable habitat present, but no vicinity records. 3 = Vicinity records, in or downstream of the analysis area, but not necessarily in project area.

Attachment 1c: Aquatic resources in the Hiwassee River watershed contained in the Prospect Hamby Project area. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class B waters are suitable for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the “C” classification. High Quality Waters (HQW) are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies, native and special native trout waters, critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture. The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications). Miles in Miles in Analysis Classification Stream Name Project Area Area North Shoal Creek 0.41 7.00 C UT North Shoal Creek 0.25 1.09 UT1 Hiwassee River 0.19 0.57 UT2 Hiwassee River - 0.77 UT3 Hiwassee River 0.09 0.70 Anderson Creek 0.32 2.15 C; Tr UT Anderson Creek 0.05 0.54

Attachment 2: Threatened, Endangered, Region 8 Sensitive, and Forest Concern plant species in Cherokee County, North Carolina.

COMMON FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND SPECIES NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Nothoceros aenigmaticus A Hornwort Hornwort Sensitive Stream An Aquatic Peltigera venosa Lichen Lichen Sensitive Stream Lophocolea appalachiana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff Plagiochila Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in ludoviciana A Liverwort Liverwort concern Gorge Plagiochila sullivantii var. Sullivant's Leafy sullivantii Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest American Vascular Forest Glade, Serpentine Woodland, Mafic Buchnera americana Bluehearts plant concern Woodland Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, Montane Oak- Calamagrostis porteri Porter's Reedgrass plant concern Hickory Forest Campanula Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet aparinoides Marsh Bellflower plant concern Meadow Vascular Forest Montane Alluvial Forest, Roadside, Carex cherokeensis Cherokee Sedge plant concern Rich Cove Forest High Elevation Seep, Southern Vascular Forest Appalachian Bog, Marsh, Wet Meadow, Carex projecta Necklace Sedge plant concern Montane Alluvial Forest Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge plant concern Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Vascular Forest Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Carex woodii Wood's Sedge plant concern Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest American Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- Celastrus scandens Bittersweet plant concern Hickory, mafic rock Small Spreading Vascular Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak Cleistesiopsis bifaria Pogonia plant Sensitive Woodland, Shortleaf Pine Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Frasera caroliniensis Columbo plant concern Forest White Pine Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Small Whorled Vascular Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Isotria medeoloides Pogonia plant Threatened Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Earle's Blazing Vascular Forest Liatris squarrulosa Star plant concern Roadside, Pine-Oak Woodland Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Vascular Dry Oak-Hickory,Dry-Mesic Oak Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap plant Sensitive Forest, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest

Orbexilum pedunculatum var. Sampson's Vascular Forest pedunculatum Snakeroot plant concern open woodlands Serpentine Woodland, Southern Pedicularis Swamp Vascular Forest Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, Wet lanceolata Lousewort plant concern Meadow Platanthera flava var. Northern Green Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp herbiola Orchid plant concern Forest-Bog Complex Platanthera White Fringeless Vascular High Elevation Seep, Southern integrilabia Orchid plant Threatened Appalachian Bog Vascular Sabatia capitata Rose Gentian plant Sensitive Glade, Pine-Oak Woodlands Alabama Grape Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Sceptridium jenmanii Fern plant Sensitive Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap plant Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest Mountain Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Silene ovata Catchfly plant Sensitive Roadside, mafic rock Vascular Forest Montane Oak Woodland, Mesic Oak- Spigelia marilandica Pink root plant concern Hickory, White Pine Forest Mountain Vascular Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Stewartia ovata Camellia plant concern Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Symphyotrichum Vascular Forest Roadside, Montane Oak-Hickory shortii Short's Aster plant concern Forest, Rich Cove Forest Thalictrum Small-leaved Vascular Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine macrostylum Meadowrue plant Sensitive Forest, moist woods? Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Trientalis borealis Starflower plant concern Forest Bent White Vascular Forest Trillium flexipes Trillium plant concern Rich Cove Forest Southern Nodding Vascular Trillium rugelii Trillium plant Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, low elevation Sweet White Vascular Trillium simile Trillium plant Sensitive Rich Cove Forest

Attachment 3: Federally proposed, endangered, and threatened, Region 8 sensitive, and National Forests in North Carolina forest concern terrestrial animal species

Species Type Habitat Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species Microhexura montivaga Arachnid In moss of spruce-fir forests (endemic to NC & adjacent TN) Spruce-fir moss spider (Endangered) Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Mammal High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir and northern hardwood Carolina northern flying squirrel (Endangered) above 4,000’ Myotis grisescens Mammal Roosts in caves; forages mainly over open water Gray bat (Endangered) Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roost in hollow trees and under loose bark and snags (warmer Northern long-eared bat (Proposed) months); in caves and mines (winter months) Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and snags (warmer Indiana bat (Endangered) months); in caves (winter months) Patera clarki nantahala Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site in Swain Co) Noonday globe Gastropod (Threatened) Bombus affinis Insect Areas that provide food (nectar and pollen from flowers), Rusty patch bumblebee (Endangered) nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Desmognathus santeetlah Amphibian Stream headwaters and seepage areas; southwestern mountains Santeetlah dusky salamander Eurycea junaluska Amphibian Forests near seeps and streams in the Cheoah River system Junaluska salamander Plethodon aureolus Amphibian Forests in the Unicoi Mountains Tellico salamander Plethodon teyahalee Amphibian Moist forests at all elevations Southern Appalachian salamander Nesticus cooperi Arachnid Caves and along Nantahala River (apparently endemic to this Lost Nantahala cave spider area) Nesticus mimus Arachnid Rocky areas; known from Grandfather Mountain and Table a cave spider Rock; also in VA Nesticus sheari Arachnid On ground in moist or rich forests (apparently endemic to a cave spider Graham Co); Known from Joyce Kilmer Wilderness & Wright Creek Nesticus silvanus Arachnid Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to southern a cave spider mountains); Known from Water Rock Knob, Jackson County at 5,800’; Ellijay Creek, Macon County at 2,500’; Steestachee Bald, Haywood County at 4,799’ Falco peregrinus Bird Cliffs (for nesting); coastal ponds and mudflats (for foraging in Peregrine falcon winter) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Mature forests near large bodies of water (for nesting); lakes Bald eagle and sounds Thryomanes bewickii altus Bird Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy fields at Appalachian Bewick’s wren high elevations [breeding season only] Trechus carolinae Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from the summit of a ground beetle Mt. Mitchell

Species Type Habitat Trechus luculentus unicoi Beetle Apparently the mountains of Graham Co; known from a ground beetle Clingman’s Dome in Swain Co, Haw Knob and Laurel Top in Monroe Co, TN and Graham Co, NC above 5,200’ Trechus mitchellensis Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from Celo a ground beetle Mountain and Mt. Mitchell, Yancey Co, Balsam Gap, Buncombe Co, and Pinnacle Mountain, McDowell Co usually between 5,000-5,500’ Trechus rosenbergi Beetle Plott Balsam and Great Balsam mountains (endemic to NC); a ground beetle Known from Water Rock Knob, Haywood & Jackson Counties and Richland Balsam, Haywood Co above 6,000’ Trechus satanicus Beetle Vicinity of Devils Courthouse and Graveyard Fields (endemic a ground beetle to NC) Callophrys irus Butterfly Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; host plants: Frosted elfin lupines (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia) Speyeria diana Butterfly Montane and foothill forest edges and openings; host plant: Diana fritillary violets (Viola) Melanoplus divergens Grasshopper/ Glades and balds, 1,800-4,717’ Divergent melanoplus Katydid Melanoplus serrulatus Grasshopper/ Valley and lower slopes in the Nantahala Mountains Serrulate melanoplus Katydid Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshopper/ Mature oak, hickory, and maple forests Northern bush katydid Katydid Euchlaena milnei Moth Habitats uncertain but are probably riparian (Graham) Milne’s euchlaena Semiothisa fraserata Moth Spruce-fir forests with Fraser fir Fraser fir geometrid moth Microtus chrotorrhinus Mammal Rocky areas at high elevations, forests or fields carolinensis Southern rock vole Myotis leibii Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and in rock crevices (warmer months), Eastern small-footed bat in caves and mines (winter) Sorex palustris punctulatus Mammal Stream banks in montane forest with rhododendron cover Southern water shrew Pallifera hemphilli Terrestrial High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir Black mantleslug Gastropod Paravitrea placentula Terrestrial Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines Glossy supercoil Gastropod Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets Bog turtle [T(S/A)]* [*threatened by similarity of appearance] Forest Concern Species Aneides aeneus Amphibian Damp, shaded crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in deciduous Green salamander forests (southern mountains) Desmognathus aeneus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme southwestern Seepage salamander counties Desmognathus folkertsi Amphibian Small streams and seeps in forests (Clay) Dwarf blackbelly salamander Desmognathus wrighti Amphibian Mid- to high elevation forests, often in spruce-fir; west of the Southern pigmy salamander French Broad River Eurycea longicauda Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Longtail salamander Plethodon chattahoochee Amphibian Moist forests in the southwestern counties; close to the GA Chattahoochee slimy salamander border (Clay) Plethodon cheoah Amphibian Mesic forests on Cheoah Bald (endemic to this area) Cheoah Bald salamander

Species Type Habitat Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Mountain chorus frog Nesticus sp. 1 Arachnid Habitat not indicated (known only from Jackson and a nesticid spider Transylvania Counties, NC & Oconee Co, SC Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 Bird Spruce-fir forests or mixed hardwood/spruce forests (for Northern saw-whet owl – nesting) [breeding season only] southern Appalachian population Catharus guttatus Bird Spruce-fir forests (for nesting) [breeding season only] Hermit thrush Coccyzus erythropthalmus Bird Deciduous forests, mainly at higher elevations [breeding season Black-billed cuckoo and habitat only’ Contopus cooperi Bird Montane conifer forests (mainly spruce-fir) with openings or Olive-side flycatcher dead trees [breeding season only] Empidonax alnorum Bird High elevation shrub/sapling thickets [breeding season only] Alder flycatcher Loxia curvirostra pop. 1 Bird Coniferous forests, preferably spruce-fir [breeding season only] Southern Appalachian red crossbill Poecile atricapillus practica Bird High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir [breeding season Southern Appalachian black- only] capped chickadee Setophaga cerulea Bird Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in mountains Cerulean warbler [breeding season only] Setophaga coronata Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands [breeding Yellow-rumped warbler season only] Setophaga magnolia Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands [breeding Magnolia warbler season only] Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Old fields and successional hardwoods [breeding season only] Golden-winged warbler Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Low elevation brushy fields and thickets [breeding season Blue-winged warbler only] Vireo gilvus Bird Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams [breeding Warbling vireo season only] Cicindela patruela Beetle Sandy soil in open pine or pine-oak woods Northern barrens tiger beetle Autochton cellus Butterfly Moist woods near streams; host plant: hog peanut Golden banded skipper (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Celastrina nigra Butterfly Rich, moist deciduous forests; host plant: goat’s beard Dusky azure (Aruncus dioicus) Chlosyne gorgone Butterfly Woodland openings and borders; host plants: sunflowers, Gorgone checkerspot rosinweeds, and other tall composites Erynnis martialis Butterfly Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Jersey tea Mottled duskywing (Ceanothus americanus) Euchloe olympia Butterfly High elevation openings and glades; host plants: cresses Olympia marble (Arabis) Euphydryas phaeton Butterfly Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland woods; host Baltimore checkerspot plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove (Aureolaria) Papilio cresphontes Butterfly Primarily coastal in maritime forests or thickets; also in Giant swallowtail foothills and mountains near hoptree; host plants: prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum) and hoptree (Ptelea) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Butterfly Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at higher Tawny crescent elevations; host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum

Species Type Habitat Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with hardwoods; Smyth’s green comma host plants: mainly birches Polygonia progne Butterfly Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly gooseberries Gray comma (Ribes) Satyrium caryaevorus Butterfly Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host plants: primarily Hickory hairstreak hickories (Carya) Satyrium edwardsii Butterfly Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly oaks Edward’s hairstreak (Quercus) Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja Butterfly Forest openings and edges west of the Little Tennessee River; Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary host plants: violets (Viola) Melanoplus decoratus Grasshopper Dry woodlands Decorated melanoplus Melanapamea mixta Moth Savannas, wet meadows a noctuid moth Apameine new genus 2 sp. 4 Moth Woodland canebrakes (Swain) a canebrake moth Eilema bicolor Moth Spruce-fir forests (Swain) a bicolored moth Merolonche dolli Moth Dry oak woodlands (Macon) a noctuid moth Papaipema astute Moth Open oak woodland and barrens; host plant: stoneroot Yellow stoneroot borer moth (Collinsonia canadensis) Corynorhinus rafinesquii Mammal Roosts in caves, mines, and hollow trees, usually near water Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Mustela nivalis Mammal Fields and forests, mostly at high elevations Least weasel Sylvilagus obscurus Mammal Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Appalachian cottontail Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods Queen crater Gastropod Fumonelix jonesiana Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Newfound Gap area Big-tooth covert Gastropod of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Fumonelix orestes Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Plott Balsam Engraved covert Gastropod mountains (endemic to this area) Fumonelix wheatley Terrestrial Clingman’s Dome region of Great Smoky Mountains National clingmanicus Gastropod Park (endemic to this area) Clingman’s covert Glyphyalinia junaluska Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Dark glyph Gastropod Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Pink glyph Gastropod Haplotrema kendeighi Terrestrial Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’; southwestern Blue-footed lancetooth Gastropod mountains Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) Spiral coil Gastropod Helicodiscus fimbriatus Terrestrial Rocky soils; extreme southwestern corner of the state Fringed coil Gastropod Helicodiscus saludensis Terrestrial No habitat or locality data Corncob snail Gastropod Inflectarius ferrissi Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Great Smoky Smoky Mountain covert Gastropod Mountains and Plott Balsams (endemic to these ranges) Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Forests (Swain) a snail Gastropod

Species Type Habitat Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Wooded river bluffs and ravines Club supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea clappi Terrestrial High elevations in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Mirey Ridge supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea lacteodens Terrestrial Leaf litter on mountainsides in Graham County (endemic to Ramp Cove supercoil Gastropod this area) Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme southwestern Open supercoil Gastropod mountains Patera clarki Terrestrial Forested mountainsides Dwarf proud globe Gastropod Pilsbryna nodopalma Terrestrial Rock outcrops and rocky hillsides Oar tooth bud Gastropod Stenotrema depilatum Terrestrial Great Smoky Mountains National Park (essentially endemic to Great Smoky slitmouth Gastropod this area) Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist forests Ribbed striate Gastropod Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern mountains Appalachian gloss Gastropod Eumeces anthracinus Reptile Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, roadbanks Coal skink Graptemys geographica Reptile Rivers in the Hiwassee system Common map turtle Pituophis melanoleucus Reptile Dry and sandy woods, mainly in pine/oak sandhills Northern pine snake Sternotherus minor Reptile Streams and rivers in Mississippi drainage Loggerhead musk turtle