Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2014 Environmental Assessment

Post-Harvest Vine Control Project

Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Macon and Jackson Counties, North Carolina

For Information Contact: Joan Brown 90 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734 (828) 524-6441 ext 426 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

Summary ...... i

Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Document Structure ...... 2 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 3 1.2.1 Vicinity Map ...... 3 1.2.2 Description of the Project Proposal ...... 5 1.2.3 Description of the Project Area ...... 5 1.2.4 Description of Additional Alternatives ...... 8 1.3 Project Objectives ...... 8 1.3.1 Project Objectives ...... 8 1.3.2. Decision to be Made ...... 10 1.4 Scoping ...... 10 1.5. Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis ...... 10 1.6. Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis ...... 11

2. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 11 2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 11 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail…………………………………………………… ……...11

3 Environmental Consequences ...... 11 3.1 Introduction...... 11 3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 12 3.1.1 Aquatic Communties, Special Habitats and MIS……………………………………………… 13 3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 17 3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 21 3.2.4 Summary of Effects for all Species …………… ……………………………………………. 25 3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 26 3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 26 3.3.2 Botanical, Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 27 3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species...... 28 3.3.4.Determination of Effects for all Species………………………………………………………… ..32 3.4. Forest Sensitive Species ...... 32 3.4.1 Aquatic Forest Sensitive Species...... 32 3.4.2 Botanical Forest Sensitive Species ...... 33 3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Sensitive Species ...... 34 3.4.4.Effects Determination for all Sensitive Species………… ……………………… ………..……….38 3.5. Forest Concern Species ...... …………...38 3.5.1.Aquatic Forest Concern Species………………………………………………………………………………...39 3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species ...... 41 3.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Concern Species ...... 41 3.5.4.Effects Determination for all Forest Concern Species………… …………………………………..46 3.6. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues ...... 46

ii Environmental Assessment Post-harvest Vine Control Project

3.6.1 Non-native and Invasive Species ...... 46 3.7. Soil and Water Resources ...... 47 3.8 Air Resources ...... 48 3.9. Vegetation Management and Silviculture ...... 49 3.10 Heritage Resources ...... 51 3.11 Recreation Resources...... 52 3.12 Scenery ...... 53 3.13 Social and Economic Considerations ...... 54 3.14 Road Management ...... 55 3.15 Climate Change ...... 55

4 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 57 4.1. Preparers ...... 57 4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 57 4.3 Literature Cited ...... 58

5 Appendices ...... 60 5.1.Appendix A - Biological Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………… .61 5.2 Appendix B – Area Maps ...... 111

Environmental Assessment Post-harvest Vine Control Project

SUMMARY

Proposed Action:

Conduct grape and smoke vine control work in 17 Nantahala Ranger District compartments in Macon and Jackson counties near Franklin, North Carolina to provide for timber stand improvement in 38 young forest stands. No roads would be constructed or reconstructed to execute the proposed work.

Analysis Area:

Compartments 24-25, 27, 55, 57, 63-70, 74, 77-78, 87; proposed work on approximately 576 acres of National Forest System lands.

Nantahala Ranger District, Macon County and Jackson County, NC

Type of Statement: Responsible Official: Michael L. Wilkins, District Ranger Environmental Assessment Contact Person: Lead Agency: Joan Brown, Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala

USDA Forest Service National Forest, 90 Sloan Road, Franklin, NC 28734; (828) 524-6441 x426

i Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. This document is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations. The EA is organized into five parts:

Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternatives. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative. No Action provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.2.1 Vicinity Map

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

1.2.2 Description of the Project Proposal

The project proposal is designed to improve the health of the existing forest ecosystems in the stands proposed for work. The project would implement direction set forth in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Management Plan (LRMP) 1986-2000, as amended in 1994.

The proposed action is to conduct grape and smoke vine control in newly-regenerated young forest stands on the Nantahala Ranger District. This work would be conducted in stands that were harvested with the two- aged regeneration method and in which the new stands were initiated with natural regeneration. The proposed work includes treating 38 stands in 17 compartments across the district. These stands were harvested during the years 1999-2008; therefore, their current ages are from 5-15 years. The stands range in size from 2 to 25 acres. The proposed work would be conducted with Region 8 and National Forests in North Carolina (NFsNC)-approved herbicides (triclopyr ester mixed 20% in vegetable oil with red dye) and applied according to herbicide label direction by certified pesticide applicators. This work would be conducted in each proposed stand from one to four times over a 10-year time period as deemed necessary by the district silviculturist or his/her representative in site-specific field surveys.

In addition, any nonnative invasive plants (NNIP) occurring within the units to be treated would also be treated where vines occur, with the exceptions listed in the Design Criteria paragraphs below.

The following forest stands are proposed for vine and NNIP control work in this project:

AREA NUMBER TIMBER UNIT COMPARTMENT/STAND DATE ACRES HARVESTED 1 Shingletree Unit 2 87-31 5/2000 15 2 Shingletree U3 87-22 4/2000 16 3 Shingletree U4 87-26 3/2000 10 4 Big Choga U1 77-18 1/2000 9 5 Big Choga U2 77-3 4/2000 18 6 Big Choga U4 74-1 10/2000 20 7 Little Tuni U2 78-37 8/2000 15 8 Little Tuni U3 78-38 10/2000 12 9 Little Tuni U4 78-43 5/2001 14 10 Little Tuni U5 78-41 6/2001 10 11 Little Tuni U6 78-31 8/1999 18 12 Trimont Ridge U1 68-12 10/2004 25 13 Trimont Ridge U2 69-1 5/2005 15 14 Trimont Ridge U3 69-11 5/2005 25 15 Trimont Ridge U4 69-9 4/2005 20 16 Trimont Ridge U5 70-17 11/2004 17 17 County Line U4 24-30 6/2006 3 18 County Line U5 25-30 5/2006 6 19 County Line U7 25-36 9/2007 12 20 County Line U9 27-29 7/2008 25 21 County Line U12 25-2 4/2007 10

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

22 County Line U15 25-38 11/2008 2 23 County Line U17 27-10 11/2008 2 24 2nd Look U1 57-16 1/2007 19 25 2nd Look U2 57-17 1/2007 9 26 2nd Look U3 57-18 1/2006 5 27 2nd Look U4 57-19 10/2006 15 28 2nd Look U6 55-16 3/2007 15 29 2nd Look U8 55-18 3/2007 16 30 Deweese Creek U1 64-38 7/2007 25 31 Deweese Creek U2 64-9 1/2006 15 32 Deweese Creek U5 63-14 11/2006 23 33 Harrison Gap U7 66-31 1/2007 21 34 Harrison Gap U9 67-18 6/2006 25 35 Bearpen Gap U1 65-21 1/2007 11 36 Bearpen Gap U3 66-26 1/2005 19 37 Bearpen Gap U4 66-27 6/2006 21 38 Bearpen Gap U5 66-28 5/2006 18 TOTAL: 576

Note: Refer to Appendix B of this document for vicinity and proposed unit maps.

Forest types in the proposed stands are primarily upland and cove hardwoods. Generally, upland hardwoods occur on the ridges, and cove hardwoods occur in the coves, side-slopes, or drains. Of the 38 stands proposed for work, all but 6 occur on east, north, or south-facing slopes. The east and north-facing slopes are the highest-quality, very rich, moist sites and generally have the most numerous and aggressive vines. The south and west-facing sites contain many vines, as well.

In all of these stands, grape and smoke vines have proliferated to the point that they are inhibiting or damaging the tops of the young existing seedlings and saplings. In many or most stands, when viewing them from an existing system road, the vines appear as a solid carpet across the forest floor for 100-200’ or more into the stands. Vines have climbed as much as 50-60’ up into existing older trees left during harvesting. The ground vines are climbing up young saplings and, if not controlled, would soon destroy the tops and even push the trees down, thus overtopping them. The vines are more prolific adjacent to existing forest roads, because the roads provide more openings in the forest canopy, thus allowing more sunlight to enter the stands.

If this work were not conducted, these stands would lose many or most of their trees due to vine encroachment and overtopping, breakage, and knocking-down of the seedlings and saplings. Grape and smoke vines here in the southern Appalachians, due to the rich sites, lengthy growing season, mild temperatures, plentiful rainfall, and generally benign climate, create a severe management concern if not attended to.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Design Criteria for the Project Proposal:

Follow Forest-wide and Management Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 general direction and standards as described on pages III-9 through III-52, and pages III-57-88 of LRMP Amendment 5. In particular, the following measures would be employed as part of this proposed action:

Visual Resource Management:

Proposed actions would meet the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5 pages III-63-70 and III-77-88) in the MA 2 and 4 parts of the project area. Direction for the Partial Retention VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within two growing seasons after treatment. For those stands in MAs 1B and 3B, the proposed actions would meet the Modification VQO (LRMP Amendment 5 pages III-57-62 and III-71-76). Direction for the Modification VQO is to soften the visual impacts of management activities and to meet the VQO within three growing seasons.

Wildlife Management: The proposal would follow standards in LRMP Amendment 10 (USDA Forest Service, 2000 and as revised in 2010) to minimize the risk of incidental take and conserve habitat for the Indiana Bat. It would comply with the terms and conditions listed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion (B.O., April 2000 as revised in 2010). Retain as many snags and den trees as practicable. Designate and retain living residual trees in the vicinity of one third of all large (>12 inches dbh) snags with exfoliating bark to provide them with partial shade and some protection from windthrow. Limit openings in the upper canopy to single tree gaps within 30 feet each side of intermittent streams, with at least 75 feet distance between openings.

Because the vines are so prolific, vine availability for wildlife use of the treated stands is not a major concern, since there will continue to be adequate numbers of vines occurring in the stands for wildlife use. In addition, the following design criteria will be included in the project in order to enhance use of the stands by many wildlife species:

1) Vines within 30’ of perennial streams in the stands would remain untreated; 2) Established vine clumps of 0.5 acre or larger where the trees have mostly-broken tops would not be treated; 3) Vines within 25’ of the edges of system roads would not be treated.

Soil and Water Management: Restrict operations to periods of dry weather. Comply with the forest practices guidelines and standards in the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (BMPs).

Herbicide Use: Apply herbicides according to labeling and site-specific analysis; all formulations and additives must be registered with EPA and approved for Forest Service use. Use application rates at or below those listed as typical rates in the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Assessment on Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains (ROD, FEIS-Veg. Mgmt.); use selective rather than broadcast applications. Forest Service supervisors and contract representatives must be certified pesticide applicators. Sign treated areas in accordance with FSH 7109.11. Application would be consistent with USDA Forest Service herbicide risk assessments (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Apply no herbicides within 100 feet of public or domestic water sources; those not having an aquatic label would not be applied within 30 feet of perennial streams. Mix herbicides at the District work center and dispense into application equipment on National Forest land at least 100 feet from surface water.

In addition to the above measures, apply all standards and guidelines for the appropriate MAs, as found in the LRMP, as amended. Also, apply all 99 mitigating measures found in the ROD, FEIS-Veg. Mgmt., and incorporated in the LRMP by Amendment #2 in July 1989, as needed.

1.2.3 Description of the Project Area

The 38 stands proposed for treatment occur in various locations across the Nantahala Ranger District, ranging from west of Nantahala Lake in western Macon County, to just east of Savannah Ridge in western Jackson County. The northernmost stands occur in the Cowee area, just south of the Macon/Swain county line.

Forest types in the compartments are composed of upland and cove hardwoods. Management areas (MAs) in the compartments include MAs 1B, 2A, 2B, 3B, 4A, 4D, and 18. Management areas 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and 4D are suitable for vegetation management through silvicultural treatments. MA 18 consists of riparian areas that exist along perennial streams within the young stands.

There are no specific designated recreational and scenic resources within the analysis area. Parts of some stands or the closed system roads passing through them may be used for such dispersed recreation uses as hunting, hiking, biking, berry-picking, or scenery-viewing.

1.2.4 Description of Additional Alternatives

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

Alternative A: No Action. Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented. This alternative would not conduct any vine control work for the improvement of existing forest stands.

Alternative C: Alternative C would conduct vine control treatment in the same stands and on the same acreage as Alternative B. However, Alternative C would use manual treatment methods, cutting the vines with hand tools such as axes or chainsaws. No herbicide would be used in this alternative. 1.3 Project Objectives

1.3.1 Project Objectives The purpose of this project is to implement the direction set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 1986-2000 for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (USDA March 1987) as amended (Amendment 5, USDA March 1994), in a manner which moves existing forest stands toward the desired future conditions of high-quality hardwood sawtimber and diverse forest stands.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

LRMP direction for the pertinent Management Areas (MAs) is as follows:

MA 1B: Emphasize a sustainable supply of timber and provide motorized access into the forest for traditional forest uses such as hunting and gathering, firewood cutting, fishing, and recreational activities including ORV use and camping. The land will produce a sustained yield of sawtimber and other wood products.

MA 2A: Provides visually pleasing scenery for forest visitors. Roads are generally open with the adjacent forest land managed to provide that pleasing visual experience. Timber production is permitted, but modified to meet visual quality objectives.

MA 3B: A regulated forest which provides for a sustainable supply of timber and for the habitat needs of wildlife species (particularly wild turkey) which benefit from a managed forest with limited motorized access (closed roads).

MA 4A: Permit timber production, modified to emphasize visual quality and wildlife habitat.

MA 4D: Limited motorized access (closed roads), with an emphasis on visually pleasing scenery and habitats for wildlife requiring older forests, particularly for black bear. This land is classified as suitable for timber management during the current planning period; early successional habitat is provided for wildlife species that require it.

MA 18: Predominantly undisturbed riparian areas (adjacent to streams) with conditions strongly influenced by the accumulation of woody materials from nearby trees, but with a diverse assemblage of species and stand structures.

This project is proposed to conduct needed forest silvicultural stand treatments to insure forest sustainability and to improve the quality and species diversity of existing stands. This purpose is consistent with General Direction for the project MAs, as described above.

Nantahala/Pisgah National Forests’ Forest-wide Direction in the LRMP concerning vegetation management states, “Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations” (LRMP, pg. III-29). One means of ensuring forest sustainability is by the restoration of healthier forest conditions. Activities such as timber stand improvement help to ensure a healthier new age class of trees in the area. Increasing forest diversity by improving survival rates of mast-producing species such as oak helps to restore the mast-producing capability of the forest in future years.

Specific project objectives are:

1. Conduct forest management activities to provide for restoration and improvement of existing young forest stands within the analysis area;

2. By increasing the likelihood of greater oak seedling/sapling survival and dominance or codominance in these stands, provide for an increase in hard mast production that is favorable to some wildlife species.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

1.3.2 Decision to be Made

The decision to be made is whether or not to proceed with the proposed action. This decision will be based on resource objectives as articulated in the LRMP, and the project issues and environmental effects as analyzed in this EA. 1.4 Scoping Scoping is defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed, and for identifying the issues related to a proposed action.” The project was scoped with the public from January 13-30, 2014. A project Scoping Record with maps and a proposed activity list was posted on the National Forests in North Carolina (NFsNC) web site for interested parties to comment on the project proposal. Letters initiating the scoping period were mailed to the individuals and groups on the ranger district’s mailing list. Additionally, since January of 2014, the project has been listed in the NFsNC Schedule of Proposed Actions, which is distributed to several hundred individuals and groups throughout the United States.

1.5. Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis

In addition to the issues listed in the Table of Contents of this document, the following concerns and issues were raised during public scoping. The Forest Service responses to these concerns are in italics after the stated issues.

1) Necessary precautions should be taken to prevent the introduction of herbicides into the project area streams.

Refer to Sections 1.2.2 and 3.7 (Project Design Criteria, and Soil and Water Resources) of this EA for actions to prevent herbicide from entering project area streams.

2) Please analyze in detail and display the effects in Chapter 3 (of the EA) at least one other action alternative to the Proposed Action. Alternative C is the other action alternative for this project.

3) The Project Scoping Record does not indicate the types of herbicides you plan to use. Page 1 of your scoping letter just indicates you plan to apply herbicides. Please describe how you will treat the vines in Chapter 2 (alternative descriptions) of the NEPA document…Please insert text in the NEPA document that clearly indicates no glyphosate-containing herbicides will be used to treat the unwanted vines.

Section 1.2.2, Description of the Project Proposal states (second paragraph) that the herbicide triclopyr, and not glyphosate, would be used to treat the proposed units.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

1.6. Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis

Issues which are not addressed in this analysis include topics of a broader nature, such as general Forest Service policy issues, because they are beyond the scope of this project.

2. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Based on the issues identified during scoping, three alternatives are identified for analysis. There is a no- action alternative and two action alternatives.

2.1 Alternatives Considered

2.1.1 Alternative A - Alternative A is to take no action.

2.1.2 Alternative B - Alternative B was proposed in the scoping record. It is described in section 1.2.2

2.1.3 Alternative C - Alternative C is the same as Alternative B, except that the proposed stands would be treated manually with hand tools instead of herbicide. No herbicide would be used in this alternative.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Introduction

This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for comparison of alternatives. The environmental effects described here include both beneficial and detrimental effects. Environmental effects include appropriate ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, and human health-related effects, which directly, indirectly, or cumulatively result from the proposed action. The environmental effects discussion will focus on the issues identified for this project (refer to “Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis”, section 1.5.).

The analysis area for the Post-harvest Vine Control project encompasses approximately 576 acres of National Forest System lands and this forms the basis for most effects analyses in this section of the EA.

Environmental effects are analyzed using references from scientific literature and reports, which are incorporated as an integral part of this environmental assessment. This section of the EA is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The following four tables support the analysis that follows for biological communities, special habitats, and management indicator species.

Table 3.2.1. MIS species, estimated population trend, and biological community or special habitat indicated by the species. MIS Estimate Associated Biological Community or Special Habitat Component Black Bear Increase Old Forest Communities Hard mast-producing species Contiguous areas with low disturbance White Tailed Deer Stable Early-successional (0-10) Hard mast- producing species Permanent grass/forb habitat Pileated Woodpecker Increase Old Forest Communities Snags and dens (>22 dbh) Downed woody debris – all sizes Ovenbird Decrease Large Contiguous Forest Areas Rufous-Sided (Eastern) Towhee Decrease Early-successional (0-10) Early successional (11-20) Pine Warbler Stable Yellow pine mid-successional forests Ruffed Grouse Stable Early successional (0-10) Early successional (11-20) Downed woody debris Acadian flycatcher Increase Riparian Alluvial forests Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Stable Coldwater streams Largemouth Bass Stable Reservoirs Blacknose Dace Stable Coldwater streams Smallmouth Bass Stable Coolwater and warmwater streams Fraser Fir Decrease Fraser Fir Forests Carolina Hemlock Increase Carolina hemlock bluff forests Ginseng Decrease Rich cove forests Ramps Stable Northern hardwoods

Table 3.2.2. Biological communities and associated MIS (using LRMP EIS, Table III-8) Analyzed Further/ Biological Community Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Fir dominated high elevation forests Fraser fir No/1 Northern hardwood forests Ramps No/1 Carolina hemlock bluff forests Carolina hemlock No/1 Rich cove forests Ginseng Yes Xeric yellow pine forests Pine warbler No/1 Reservoirs Largemouth bass No/1 Riparian forests Acadian flycatcher No/2 Coldwater streams Brook, brown, and rainbow trout; blacknose dace Yes/2 Coolwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1 Warmwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1

*1 Biological community does not occur in the activity areas and would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

*2 Biological Community and its represented species would be protected in accordance with LRMP standards and guidelines; therefore, this community would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, this project would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community.

Table 3.2.3. Special Habitats and associated MIS (using LRMP EIS, Table III-9). Analyzed Further/ Special Habitat Components Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Old forest communities (100+ years old) Black bear No/1 Early successional (0-10 years old) Rufous-sided (eastern) towhee Yes/2 Early successional (11-20) Ruffed grouse Yes/2 Soft mast-producing species (<40 yrs) Ruffed grouse Yes/2 Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs) Black bear Yes/2 Large contiguous areas with low levels of human disturbance Black bear No/1 Large contiguous areas of mature deciduous forest Ovenbird No/1 Permanent grass/forb openings White-tailed deer No/1 Downed woody debris Ruffed Grouse No/1 Snags Pileated woodpecker No/2

Table 3.2.4: Effects of alternatives on biological communities. Biological Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Fraser fir forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Northern hardwood forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Carolina hemlock bluff forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Rich cove forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Yellow pine forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Reservoirs None affected. None affected. None affected. Riparian forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Cold water streams None affected. None affectd. None affected. Coolwater streams None affected. None affected. None affected. Warm water streams None affected. None affected. None affected.

3.2.1 Aquatic Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

Boundaries of Aquatic Communities and MIS

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project consist of the following watersheds: Arrowwood Creek, Joe Hicks Branch, Little Tuni Creek, Willis Cove, Wests Branch, Blazed Creek, Tilley Creek, Wildcat Creek, Ray Branch, Fall Branch, Pol Miller Branch, and Downes Branch.

Existing Conditions for Aquatic Communities and MIS

Arrowwood Branch is classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as class WS-III; Tr waters. Joe Hicks Branch, Little Tuni Creek, Wests Branch, Blazed Creek, Wildcat Creek, Ray Branch, Falls Branch, and Downes Branch are classified as Class C waters. The Tilley Creek is classified as Class C; Tr waters. Class WS-III waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in a low to moderately developed watershed and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Tr waters are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.

The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control 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 2011).

Communities and MIS Evaluated

The aquatic analysis area contains one aquatic community, coldwater streams. Special habitat components are not associated with any aquatic resources, and therefore will not be analyzed further (see also Appendix D).

Only aquatic MIS potentially affected by the proposed project are fully evaluated. The following streams provide habitat for wild Rainbow Trout and/or wild Brown Trout: Joe Hicks Branch, Little Tuni Creek, Wests Branch, Wildcat Creek, and Tilley Creek. Brook Trout occur within portions of Ray Branch and Blazed Creek. Blacknose Dace and Mottled Sculpin are not known to occur within any analysis area waters; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

Management activities most likely to affect wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, and wild Brook Trout habitat would be changes in water quality or stream habitat quality. Therefore, the number of stream miles receiving herbicide inputs would typically serve as an indicator for analysis of the effects of each alternative.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Effects of Alternatives on Communities

Coldwater Streams

MIS associated with the coldwater streams community includes the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), and Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Although coldwater streams occur within the analysis area, none of the proposed treatment areas are within 30 feet of any water sources.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would involve no herbicide applications or manual vine treatments.

Alternative B:

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 the coldwater streams community because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

Alternative C: The effects of this alternative to the aquatic resources would be similar to Alternative B. No changes would result from the proposed work.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

of these actions would have included sedimentation from the ground disturbing activities (road construction, reconstruction, and culvert installations). All of these effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts on aquatic resources, and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the analysis area. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the analysis area as a result of past actions. As a result of the length of time since completion of these actions, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current affected environment. There are no existing effects to the aquatic resources resulting from these activities.

There are no other ongoing activities occurring on federal lands within the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project aquatic analysis area. Private lands in the aquatic analysis area are primarily characterized as forested and residential. There may be sedimentation from private lands within the watershed but these effects would not be cumulative with the effects of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project because there would be no effects of the proposed vine treatments. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands affecting the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project area waters.

There are no other reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed for the aquatic analysis area on federal lands; therefore, there would be no known effects from future actions. There are no known future actions planned on private lands that would affect the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project area waters.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C: In the absence of direct/indirect effects to the aquatic resources from the proposed actions, there would be no cumulative effects of implementing Alternative A, Alternative B or Alternative C. There would be no effects to the forest-wide trends for the coldwater streams community because the effects of herbicide applications or manual treatments of vines would not occur within 30 feet of any streams.

Implementation of either of the action alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the coldwater streams community (Table 3.2.1.1)

Table 3.2.1.1. Trend analysis for each alternative on the evaluated communities Effect Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Coldwater Streams No change in forest –wide trend No change in forest –wide trend No change in forest –wide trend

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

Wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, and wild Brook Trout

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would produce no direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS because there would be no vine control activities proposed for this alternative. This alternative would meet Forest Plan standards by maintaining the existing MIS populations.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B and Alternative C: The effects of this alternative on the project MIS would generally be the same as those described for the Biological Communities discussion for coldwater streams. There would be no direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS from the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project because the proposed treatment areas would not be located near any streams containing fish. Implementation of this project would not change the current forest wide trend for wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, or wild Brook Trout. The current forest wide trends for wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, and wild Brook Trout are stable and implementation of Alternative B or Alternative C would not affect these population trends because the project design features would prevent herbicides from entering any stream with fish populations.

Effects of Past, Ongoing, and Future Actions

The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions on the aquatic resources have been disclosed in the Biological Communities discussion above and would be the same for the aquatic MIS.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative B and Alternative C: In the absence of direct/indirect effects to the aquatic resources from the proposed actions, there would be no cumulative effects of implementing Alternative B or Alternative C. There would be no effects to the forest-wide trends for the coldwater streams community because the effects of herbicide applications or manual treatments of vines would not occur within 30 feet of any streams. Implementation of this alternative would not change the forest-wide trends for any of the aquatic MIS (Table 3.2.1.2).

Table 3.2.1.2. Results of trend analysis of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species Effect Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Wild Rainbow Trout No change No change No change Wild Brown Trout No change No change No change Wild Brook Trout No change No change No change

3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

Boundaries of Botanical Analysis Area

The botanical analysis area or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is the boundary of all proposed vine control units or areas. The botanical analysis area for the proposed Nantahala Vine Control project consists of 576 acres, occurring in Jackson and Macon Counties.

The proposed vine control units are newly-regenerating young forest stands, approximately 5-15 years old. Forest types include Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Dry Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest, and Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Many of the units contain newly-regenerating Rich Cove Forests on east and north-facing slopes. These units have the highest density

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

and most aggressive grape (Vitis spp.) and smoke (Isotrema macrophyllum) vines due to high moisture and nutrient availability.

Communities and MIS Evaluated

All Nantahala-Pisgah NF management indicator species (MIS) and special habitats that are botanical and occur within proposed activity areas that may be affected by this proposal were evaluated (Tables 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2). The effect of proposed activities on biological diversity is assessed by evaluating MIS population trends and their associated biological communities. In addition, the effects of activities on biological diversity is assessed by evaluating the presence and diversity of special habitat components (e.g. old forests and early successional) and their associated MIS (e.g. bear and ruffed grouse) within proposed project areas and across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF. Biological communities, special habitats, and associated MIS present in the proposed vine control activity area include Rich Cove Forests and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius).

For information about forest-wide MIS species and associated habitats reference the Forest MIS report (Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends).

Table 3.2.2.1. Biological communities and associated management indicator species (using LRMP EIS, Table III-8) Analyzed Further/ Biological Community Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Fir dominated high elevation forests Fraser fir No/1 Northern hardwood forests Ramps No/1 Carolina hemlock bluff forests Carolina hemlock No/1 Rich cove forests Ginseng Yes

*1 Biological community does not occur in the activity areas and will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community.

Table 3.2.2.2. Special habitats and associated management indicator species (using LRMP EIS, Table III-9). Analyzed Further/ Special Habitat Components Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Old forest communities (100+ years old) Black bear No/1

A. Effects to Biological Communities by Alternative

Rich Cove Forests

Analyses for direct and indirect effects are confined to proposed activity areas because the impacts to plants within biological communities are unlikely to extend beyond the vine control units. Alternative A:

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Regenerating Rich Cove Forests would not be directly affected by no action. However, Rich Cove Forests could be indirectly affected by no vine control work because the regenerating canopy would be impeded by vine growth and this could increase the length of time needed for the canopy and representative herb abundance and diversity to reestablish. There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect the regenerating Rich Cove Forests in the proposed activity areas.

Alternative B and Alternative C:

For Alternative B and Alternative C, the proposed vine control work would directly decrease the amount of grape and smoke vine in regenerating Rich Cove Forests. However, not all grape and smoke vines in proposed units would be treated. Smoke and grape vines would not be treated if they occur in vine slicks of 0.5 acres in size, or along 25'-foot corridors along existing system roads, or in areas within 30' of perennial streams. Indirectly, the proposed vine control work would have a positive effect on the structure of Rich Cove Forests by encouraging canopy trees to become established. Once an established canopy develops the representative diverse herbaceous community becomes established. Since Alternative B would be implemented during the dormant season, potential herbicide drift would not affect herbaceous diversity. There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect the regenerating Rich Cove Forests in the proposed activity areas.

Forest-Wide Trend: Due to the 1987 plan's goal to harvest high-value hardwood sawtimber, a lot of timber management occurs in Rich Cove Forests (Draft Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs, 2013). However, Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF appear stable (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Alternative A would increase the time needed for a mature canopy to become established and would likely increase the time needed for a diverse herbaceous community to reestablish. Alternative B and Alternative C would help maintain high quality Rich Cove Forests by releasing regenerating timber or canopy trees from grape and smoke vines.

Thus, the proposed vine control project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for Rich Cove Forests.

B. Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius)

American ginseng is a slow-growing, long-lived plant that occurs in rich, moist deciduous forests in well- drained soils (Van der Voort et al. 2003). In the southern Appalachian region, ginseng typically occurs in Rich Cove Forests due to the higher base content, soil moisture, and nutrients that occur in this community type. Because ginseng is a long-lived perennial, it does not reach reproductive age until after a lengthy juvenile period, which makes this species more susceptible to overharvesting (Van der Voort et al. 2003). Since ginseng harvesters gather the entire portion of root, vegetative regeneration from remaining fragments rarely occurs (Van der Voort et al. 2003). Harvest pressure has increased because of the increase in the monetary value of ginseng. As a result, the age structure and reproductive potential of ginseng populations may be decreasing. In some states, the annual average number of dried wild roots per pound has increased. These results suggest that the size of roots have decreased, which in turn, suggests that the age structure and

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

reproductive potential of ginseng has declined (Van der Voort et al. 2003, Robbins 2001). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF, population sizes appear smaller than normal with fewer than 50 individuals per population (Gary Kauffman, personal communication).

The occurrence of American ginseng in proposed vine control units is highly likely because many of the units contain Rich Cove Forest.

Alternative A

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

Alternative A would not directly affect any ginseng populations in the proposed vine control activity area. Indirectly, without vine control, ginseng populations could be negatively impacted due to higher vegetative competition from grape and smoke vines. Also, without any vine control work, regenerating trees would be suppressed by the vines and the canopy would not develop as quickly and ginseng populations may decline. There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect American ginseng in proposed activity areas. Alternative B and Alternative C

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

For Alternative B and Alternative C, the proposed vine control work would not directly impact American ginseng. Indirectly, the proposed vine control work would have a positive effect on ginseng by encouraging canopy trees to become established. Once an established canopy develops, the representative diverse herbaceous community becomes established, including ginseng. Since Alternative B would be implemented during the dormant season, there would be no potential herbicide drift that would impact ginseng. There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect American ginseng in proposed activity areas.

Activities in the past that have affected American ginseng include both the permitted and illegal harvest of roots. In addition, this species likely has been affected by past timber harvests within Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF. The harvesting of roots for human consumption is having the greatest negative impact on American ginseng populations across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF. Outside of illegal harvesting of ginseng roots, there are no ongoing or foreseeable future actions that would impact this species in the proposed vine control units.

Forest Wide Trend: The estimated population trend for American ginseng is gradually decreasing across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF primarily due to the commercial harvest of roots, both legal and illegal (USFS, 2001, pg. 818). Ginseng is most commonly associated with cove forests, totaling approximately 110,000 acres across the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forests (determined by modeling Rich Cove Forest). The proposed vine control project would help regenerating Rich Cove Forests by releasing canopy trees and this would help establish the diverse herbaceous community, including American ginseng. As a result, the proposed vine control project would not substantially alter the current trend for American ginseng across the forest.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

Boundaries of the Wildlife Analysis Area

The terrestrial wildlife analysis area used for this proposal is approximately the same as the Post-harvest Vine Control project area. The wildlife analysis area consists of approximately 576 acres of National Forest land. The potential for direct or indirect effects to wildlife resources are contained within the areas where treatments are proposed; thus, all potential direct and indirect effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the activity area boundaries. All potential cumulative effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the larger wildlife analysis area.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

All management indicator species (MIS) whose habitat might be potentially affected by proposed project activities were evaluated.

Table 3.2.3.1. Special Habitats and associated Management Indicator Species (MIS) evaluated for the Post-harvest Vine Control Project. Species Type Associated Habitat Indicator For Further Analyzed Black Bear Mammal Old forest communities*, hard mast, and large contiguous forest areas Yes with low levels of human disturbance White-tailed Deer Mammal Permanent grass/forb habitat No* Pileated Woodpecker Bird Snag abundance No* Ovenbird Bird Large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest No* Eastern Towhee Bird Early successional habitat (0-10 years) Yes Pine Warbler Bird Xeric yellow pine forests No* Acadian Flycatcher Bird Alluvial forests No* Ruffed Grouse Bird Early successional habitat (11-20 years), soft mast production Yes * The amount of special habitat would not be impacted by project activities.

The proposed activities are not proposed in old forest communities or riparian forests. LRMP direction sets aside interior patches with large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest which would not be affected by the proposed activities. Snag abundance is protected by LRMP direction and the Terms and Conditions of the BO. Thus, these special habitats and their associated species will not be discussed further in this report.

Effects of Alternatives on Special Habitats associated with Management Indicator Species

Early Successional Communities (0-10 years)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

The openings created by prior timber harvesting in these units are needed to provide age-class diversity within the larger forest area to improve habitat quality for wildlife. Species that have benefitted from the creation of these openings include black bear, eastern wild turkey, white-tailed deer, and ruffed grouse, which find tender browse, fruit, and hiding cover in dense young stands. Neotropical migratory birds such as chestnut-sided and golden-winged warblers also breed in these openings. Alternative A, through a lack of

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

vine treatment, would result in some of the existing early successional habitat being covered and killed by the invasive vines. This would mean a concomitant decrease in the amount of this habitat. Although new acres of this habitat would not be created, Alternatives B and C would result in the releasing of the existing early successional habitat so that the young trees are more free to grow.

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative A would contribute to a cumulative decrease in early successional habitat through lack of management. The lack of vine control would result in some of this existing habitat being lost due to overtopping by vines. Alternatives B and C would not result in an increase in the amount of early successional habitat; however, the current existing habitat would be improved. Some past harvest areas where this special habitat was created have progressed out of early successional habitat. There are currently 419 acres of early successional habitat (0-10 years) remaining within the project area from the previous regeneration harvesting. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect early successional habitat.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for early successional habitat is decreasing due to the increase in the amount of the forest excluded from active management. None of the project alternatives would affect this trend.

Early Successional Communities (11-20 years)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Alternative A would result in no change in the acreage in this age class. Alternatives B and C would also result in no change to the amount this habitat.

Cumulative Effects:

The current amount of stands ages 11-20 years is 157 acres. Since no new habitat of this type would be created with any of the project alternatives, the cumulative amount would remain at 157 acres of existing habitat. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect mid successional habitat.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for early successional habitat (11-20 years) is decreasing due to the increase in the amount of the forest excluded from active management. None of the project alternatives would change this trend.

Soft Mast-Producing Species

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Soft mast production is primarily associated with forest communities less than 20 years old. Alternative A would result in a loss of soft mast- producing species in the near future, due to the decrease of early successional habitat with a lack of vine control. The proposed activities in Alternatives B and C would not result in any new acres of early successional habitat; however, the existing habitat would be improved with vine control work, thus enabling a slight increase in soft mast production. This would be a permanent increase with Alternative B. A temporary increase would occur with Alternative C, since cut vines would grow back quickly and again overtake the existing soft mast producers.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative A would cumulatively contribute to a decrease in soft mast-producing species. In Alternatives B and C, there would be 576 acres of potential soft mast production remaining as a result of the previous timber regeneration harvests. The proposed treatments in Alternatives B and C would contribute to increased soft mast production on these 576 acres, with a larger increase in Alternative B. There are no other ongoing or future projects within the analysis area that would affect soft mast producing species.

Forest-wide Trend: The recent trend for soft mast-producing species is increasing due to timber harvesting within the past 20 years. Even though some habitat would be lost with Alternative A, it would not significantly contribute to this trend. Alternatives B and C would also not change the trend.

Hard Mast-Producing Species

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Hard mast-producing species are associated with mature forest communities greater than 40 years old. Under Alternative A, there would be a decrease in hard mast-producing species, since no treatment would cause the existing vine populations to increase and smother or kill existing young trees with hard mast- producing potential. In Alternatives B and C, the vine treatments would enable existing species with mast- producing potential to continue growing unimpeded until they are of mast-producing age, usually at about 20 years. This effect would be greater for Alternative B than for Alternative C, since Alternative C’s treatment effects would be temporary. In addition, by removing most of the current vine cover, new oak and hickory stems would be able to grow from seed, thus further increasing the treated stands’ mast-production capabilities. Again, this effect would be greater for Alternative B than for Alternative C.

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative A would lead to continued decreases in mast-producing species in these stands as vines continue to multiply. For Alternatives B, and C, the creation of 576 acres of early successional habitat from timber harvesting resulted in a decrease of mast production, although the mast-producing stems were not killed. The cumulative effects of Alternatives B and C would be the increase in new young stems from seed of mast-producers enabled by the vine control treatments; this effect would be greater for Alternative B than for Alternative C. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect hard mast-producing species within the analysis area.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend for hard mast-producing species is increasing due to the aging of young stands. Alternative A would not add to this increasing trend, despite the project decrease, since 576 acres out of the total forest acreage is a negligible amount. Alternatives B and C would not affect this trend.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Table 3.2.3.2: Summary of effects on special habitats within the Post-harvest Vine Control project by alternatives Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Early Successional Habitat No acreage change; No acreage change; No acreage change; temp. (0-10 years) Indirect Decrease better-quality habitat habitat improvement Early Successional Habitat No change No change No change (11-20 years) Soft Mast-Producing Species Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Indirect (Temp.) Increase Hard Mast-Producing Species Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Indirect (Temp.) Increase

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellatus)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Ruffed grouse are strongly associated with early successional (five to 20 years old) forest habitats characterized by thick, shrubby growth. Ruffed grouse often use downed woody debris of various sizes for drumming. Effects of the alternatives on ruffed grouse are based on changes in early successional (five to 20 year old) forest. The direct and indirect effects based on change in this habitat would be similar to what is described above for 0-10 year old and 11-20 year old early successional communities.

Cumulative Effects:

The cumulative impact on ruffed grouse based on the associated early successional habitat would be the same as the cumulative effects described above for 0-10 year old and 11-20 year old early successional communities. Cumulatively, Alternative A would decrease associated habitat for the ruffed grouse while Alternatives B and C would cumulatively increase associated early successional habitat. There are no other ongoing or future projects that would affect the ruffed grouse within the analysis area.

Forest-wide Trend: According to annual breeding bird surveys for the past 15 years, ruffed grouse population levels have remained stable. Across the forest, habitat for this species has increased recently as previously-cut stands entered the suitable age classes. With the decreasing level of timber harvest in recent years, however, habitat for this species will be greatly reduced in the near future. There are a few young stands available to replace existing habitat. Alternatives A, B, and C would not cause an increase or decrease in this trend, since no new early successional habitat acreage would be created with any alternative.

Black Bear (Ursus americanus)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Black bears require large areas free from disturbances of motorized vehicles, frequent human activity, and intensive timber harvesting. Bears in much of the eastern United States depend on hard and soft mast for energy. This species utilizes a variety of habitat types and benefits from a diverse forest landscape. Effects on black bear under Alternatives B and C, which would improve the existing early successional habitat and soft mast-producing species, would be beneficial overall. This would be less for Alternative C than for

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. Under Alternative A, there would be a less diverse landscape which would not be beneficial for the black bear.

Cumulative Effects:

The cumulative impact on black bears based on the improvement of existing early successional habitat would be similar to the effects described above for early successional habitat. However, though early successional habitat is beneficial, this species is tied to areas free from disturbance and intensive timber harvesting. The cumulative increase in early successional habitat over the larger forest area within the last 15 years is the existing 576 acres, since no new early successional acres would be created with this project. The cumulative impacts concerning hard and soft mast-producing species would be as described above. Alternative A would result in a cumulative decrease in hard and soft mast production capability as vines increase across the young stands. Alternatives B and C would result in a cumulative increase in soft mast production and hard mast-producing capability. Consequently, the overall effects of Alternative B and Alternative C on black bear would be beneficial (Alternative B more so than C), and the overall effects of Alternative A would adverse. There are no known other ongoing or future projects that would affect the black bear within the analysis area.

Forest-wide Trend: Across the Forest, black bear populations have increased due to factors other than habitat management, probably due to the benefits of the state black bear sanctuary system. Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of timber regeneration activities. None of the project alternatives would affect the current trends.

Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

Eastern towhees are associated with early successional habitats. Effects on eastern towhees based on change in early successional habitat would be the same as the effects described above for early successional habitat.

Forest-wide Trend: Across the Forest, eastern towhee populations are in decline. With the decreasing level of timber harvest, habitat for this species has been greatly reduced. There are only a few young stands available to replace existing habitat. Alternatives A, B, and C would not cause an increase or decrease in this trend, since no new early successional habitat acreage would be created with any alternative.

3.2.4. Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats

Most of the biological communities and special habitats in the project area are not affected by management activities proposed by the preferred alternative. What changes that are anticipated to occur, and discussed above, are consistent with the Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan. Most of the projected habitat changes are needed to accomplish the multiple-use goals of the Plan. The cumulative effect of the implementation of this project, along with other similar projects, would change habitats in amounts close to/consistent with forest- wide averages of the recent past. Therefore, population trends of MIS related to habitat changes on the Forest would continue as cited in the most recent update of the MIS assessment.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

For additional information, please see the Biological Evaluation in Appendix A of this Environmental Assessment.

3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Aquatic Analysis Area

This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control 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 necessary 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 this project includes: Arrowwood Creek, Joe Hicks Branch, Tuni Creek, Willis Cove, Wests Branch, Blazed Creek, Tilley Creek, Wildcat Creek, Ray Branch, Fall Branch, Pol Miller Branch, and Downes Branch.

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 Program (NCNHP) Database was queried for occurrences of T & E species in Jackson and Macon Counties. Three aquatic T & E species remained after this initial filter. These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Based upon the results of this filtering process no proposed, endangered, or threatened species were evaluated for this analysis (Attachment 1b). Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis. No aquatic T & E species were considered further in this analysis because they do not occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect any aquatic T & E species. Consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

Table 3.3.1.1: Known and potential threatened and endangered aquatic species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Implementation of this project would have no effects to any aquatic T & E species because project design features would prevent herbicides from entering analysis area waters. Project design features would avoid suitable habitats and prevent off-site effects.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.3.2 Botanical, Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species Botanical Analysis Area

The botanical analysis area or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is the boundary of all proposed vine control units or areas. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were evaluated for TES and FC plant species that occur within proposed vine control units. The botanical analysis area for the proposed Nantahala Vine Control project consists of 576 acres, occurring in Jackson and Macon Counties.

Existing Conditions

Species Evaluated and Rationale

All 415 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 vine control 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 Macon and Jackson Counties.

3. Consulting with individuals knowledgeable of the area and associated flora (Ed Schwartzman, Botanist, NC Natural Heritage Program, and 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 vine control units.

5. Reviewing past environmental assessments and botanical analysis report's for the County Line and Second Look vegetation projects.

There are 245 TES and FC plant species that are known or historically known to occur in Jackson, Macon, and Swain County (Attachment 2). However, none of these species are known or historically known to occur in the proposed vine control units. No federally threatened and endangered, Region 8 sensitive, or forest concern plant species occurs in the proposed vine control units. Three forest concern plant species, including American columbo (Frasera caroliniensis), American fly-honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis), and Huger's carrion-flower (Smilax hugeri) occur in close proximity (200-500 ft.) to the proposed treatment

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

area. However, they do not occur in the proposed treatment areas. Because all of the proposed vine control units are stands that were surveyed and cleared in the past under different timber projects, they were botanically surveyed. Duke Rankin, former Botanist for Nantahala National Forest, did not find American columbo, Huger's carrion-flower, or American fly-honeysuckle in any of the proposed vine control units.

Table 3.3.2.1: Known federally threatened and endangered plant species in the proposed Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Natural Community/Habitat Local Occurrence 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 vine control units for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species from the implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C.

Determination of Effect:

The proposed Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control 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.

3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species Wildlife Analysis Area

The wildlife analysis area is the boundary of all the proposed vine treatment units. The proposed vine control units are newly-regenerating young forest stands, approximately 5-15 years old. Forest types include Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Many of the units contain newly-regenerating Rich Cove Forests on east and north-facing slopes. These units have the highest density and most aggressive grape (Vitis spp.) and smoke (Isotrema macrophyllum) vines due to high moisture and nutrient availability.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Potentially-affected TES wildlife species were identified by: (1) reviewing the rare species list for wildlife species that may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 3a to the Biological Evaluation in Appendix 5.2) and their habitat preferences; (2) evaluating element occurrence records of these species as

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

maintained by the NCNHP; (3) consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its fauna; (4) conducting field surveys as necessary.

Species were filtered by those that may occur in Jackson and Macon Counties, 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, two 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 septrentrionalis) 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 Jackson and Macon Counties.

Table 3.3.3.1: Known and potential proposed, threatened, and endangered terrestrial animal species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and buildings (warmer may occur Northern long-eared bat (Proposed) 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)

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

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

Alternative B:

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 ft. of the snag.

In implementing Alternative B, 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.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the Indiana bat from this alternative would be the same as described for Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative A: in the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Indiana bat from the no action alternative.

Alternative B and Alternative C: A habitat suitability model (HSM) based on Indiana bat habitat characteristics described in the BO would normally be used to estimate cumulative habitat change from the baseline within project areas which propose timber regeneration harvesting. The resultant output would illustrate 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. However, since this project proposes no timber regeneration, the HSM was not necessary.

Alternative B and Alternative C of the Post-Harvest Vine Control Project would result in a 0% decrease in suitable habitat within the analysis area, since the proposed treatments involve no tree-felling. According to the HSM run for the previous timber harvesting activity in these stands, there would be a less than 2% 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 would be the less-than 2% change that occurred with the previous timber harvesting in the areas currently proposed for treatment.

Determination of Effect:

Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the Indiana bat.

Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives are 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.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

The effects of the Post-harvest Vine Control 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 vine control work would not constitute a change in existing spring and summer habitat for this bat. In addition, the proposed vine control work 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, vine control 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 Post-harvest Vine Control project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.

Determination of Effect:

Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the northern long-eared bat.

Alternative B and Alternative C: Implementation of Alternative B or Alternative C would result in no jeopardy to 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.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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.

Once this species is listed, the determination of effects would be reviewed and modifications made, if necessary. If required, concurrence with the USFWS for the resulting determination would be sought upon subsequent listing and modification of the determination of effects statement.

Table 3.3.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated proposed, endangered and threatened terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C MyMyotis septentrionalis No Effects No Jeopardy No Jeopardy Nonorthern long-eared bat MyMyotis sodalis Not Likely to Adversely No Effects N Not Likely to Adversely Affect In Indiana bat se Affect

3.3.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no effects to any aquatic threatened or endangered species because none occur within the proposed treatment areas and no off-site effects would occur to any aquatic resources.

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no effects to any federally threatened or endangered plant species because none occur within the proposed vine control units.

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would be not likely to adversely affect the Northern long-eared bat and Indiana bat. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

3.4. Forest Sensitive Species

Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August 2001).

3.4.1 Aquatic Forest Sensitive Species Aquatic Analysis Area

The aquatic analysis area has been described in Section 2.1 above.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 NCNHP Database was queried for occurrences of aquatic sensitive species in Jackson and Macon Counties. Eight sensitive aquatic species remained. These eight species were then filtered by available habitats, resulting in the elimination of all sensitive species from further analysis (Attachment 1b). Based upon the results of this filtering process, no regionally-sensitive aquatic species were evaluated further in this analysis. The project would have no impact on any sensitive aquatic species.

Table 3.4.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Present

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Implementation of this project would have no impacts to any aquatic sensitive species. Project design features would ensure avoidance of suitable habitats and prevent off-site effects.

3.4.2 Botanical Forest Sensitive Species 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). No sensitive plant species are known or historically known to occur in the proposed vine control units.

Table 3.4.2.1: Documented Region 8 sensitive plant species in the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any Region 8 sensitive plant species because none occur in the proposed treatment areas.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Sensitive Species Wildlife Analysis Area

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

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August, 2001). The NCNHP was queried for occurrences of terrestrial wildlife sensitive species in Jackson and Macon Counties. Nine 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, seven sensitive terrestrial wildlife species remained. Based on this filtering process, seven Regional Forester’s sensitive terrestrial wildlife species was evaluated in this analysis.

Table 3.4.3.1: Known and potential sensitive terrestrial wildlife species undergoing further evaluation for the Nantahala Post-harvest Vine Control project. Species USFS status Habitat Description Likelihood of occurrence

Northern bush katydid Sensitive Treetops at edges of broadleaved forest may occur (Scudderia septentrionalis) Rock-loving grasshopper Sensitive Lichen-covered rock outcrops may occur (Trimerotropis saxatilis) Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus) Sensitive Open woods and borders, in dry situations may occur Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana) Sensitive Deciduous and pine woodlands may occur Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Sensitive Moist forests at all elevations may occur

Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) Sensitive Roosts in hollow trees in summer may occur Southern water shrew Sensitive Small streams 12-15' wide above 3000' may occur (Sorex palustris puntulatus)

Surveys or Inventories Conducted

Proposed activity areas were previously surveyed for the presence of special habitats, such as wetlands, boulderfields, caves or mines that could be adversely affected by project activities. No special habitats were located.

Inventories were not conducted for the seven sensitive species potentially occurring in the activity area because habitat is not limited across the forest. Thus, information on the number and location of individuals in this particular area would not change the assessment of effects to viability of the populations.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

(1) Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes treetops at the edges of broadleaved forest. Alternative A would have no effect. Alternatives B and C would also have no effects, since vine control activities would not be conducted in the existing overstory treetops on the edges of the stands proposed for treatment. No trees would be felled with either action alternative. Existing vines would be treated near the ground, either by herbicide or by cutting.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Habitat (openings and edges) created through past regeneration harvesting is not now as extensive, as most of these stands have grown into new young tree stands. There is still some habitat remaining from past harvesting where the vines have largely suppressed young tree growth. There are no known ongoing or future projects what would create this habitat.

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

Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest edge to offset the concurrent maturation of other forest stands. This project will have no effects on this species.

(2) Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes lichen-covered rock outcrops. Alternative A would have no effect. For Alternatives B and C, there would be no effects to individuals of this species, since only vines would be treated, with no tree felling. There are few, if any rock outcrops in the proposed units. Treating vines at their source near the ground would not expose any existing rocks to herbicides.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

Determination of Effect - This project will have no effects on the rock-loving grasshopper.

(3) Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species is a butterfly, which occurs in open woods and borders in dry situations. Alternative A would have no effect. Vine control work (Alternatives B and C) would not affect the habitat.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects resulting from implementation of this project. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effects on the frosted elfin. . (4) Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana)

Direct and Indirect Effects – 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. Alternative A would have no effect. For Alternative B and Alternative C, there would be no effects to individuals, since roadsides would remain untreated. Vine control is not likely to have a measurable effect on the Diana fritillary due to the small scale of the proposed activities and lack of adverse effects on habitat.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been created in the past due to road construction activities. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest roadside habitat. Because roadsides will be left undisturbed, this project will have no effects on the Diana fritillary butterfly.

(5) Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species 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. This species is found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations. Alternative A would have no effect. For Alternative B and Alternative C, most of the habitat in these young cove hardwood stands is recovering from recent harvesting, but would not be decreased with the loss of vine cover, since young forest stands occupy the sites underneath the vines. Vine control within these stands would not cause any detrimental effects as the larger canopy would be left intact. Therefore, there would be no effects to the salamander if Alternative B or Alternative C were implemented. 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. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Determination of Effect – Since the species is 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.

(6) Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii)

This species is thought to roost in hemlock forests, rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges or buildings, and uses other habitats for feeding. 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 would result in no effects. With Alternatives B and C, there would be no tree felling and no creation of new openings. Herbicide application or vine cutting would occur near the ground; since bats are aerial feeders and roosters, they would not be exposed to herbicide. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects. No special roosting habitats, such as hemlock forests, rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges or buildings will be adversely affected.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects - Habitat has been created in the past due to regeneration activities on 576 acres within the past 20 years. Approximately 157 of these acres are no longer in the 0-10- year age class and are no longer providing habitat. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

Determination of Effect – 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. This project would have no effects on the eastern small-footed bat. (7) Southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus)

This species has been recorded from nine sites on the Nantahala National forest, most of these recent records from Macon County from Dr. Joshua Laerm and his students surveying small mammal populations. The species is thought to be widespread, but occurs in low densities and is difficult to capture.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Alternatives B and C would have no direct or indirect effects because herbicide would not be used within 30 feet of perennial streams; the herbicide proposed for treatment stays at site application, and does not move through the soil.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – The existing condition of the aquatic resources is the result of all past effects. Roads were constructed and culverts were installed in suitable streams for these projects. The effects of these culvert installations would have included direct loss of habitat of about 30 feet and sedimentation of approximately 75 feet of stream at each crossing. The sedimentation effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the analysis area. There are no other known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

Determination of Effect - Alternative B and Alternative C would have no impacts on the southern water shrew.

3.4.4. Determination of Effect for All Sensitive Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any aquatic sensitive species because none occur within the proposed treatment areas and no off-site effects would occur to any aquatic resources.

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would not impact any Region 8 sensitive plant species because none occur in the proposed vine control units.

The Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any sensitive terrestrial wildlife species because the treatments would be limited to handheld herbicide applicators or the use of hand tools. No offsite movement of herbicides are expected to occur given the application of best management practices. Vines would be selectively targeted during treatments. 3.5. Forest Concern Species

3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species Aquatic Analysis Area

The aquatic analysis area has been described in Section 2.1 above.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Fifty-seven aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The NCNHP Database was queried for occurrences

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

of forest concern species in Jackson and Macon Counties. Forty-six forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These 46 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 twenty forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis (Table 3.5.1.1). 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.

Table 3.5.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Beraea gorteba Caddisfly Specifics unknown May occur Ceraclea sp. 3 Caddisfly Jackson County May occur Goerita flinti Caddisfly Swain County May occur Homoplecta monticola Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Hydropsyche carolina Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Hydroptila coweetensis Caddisfly Macon County May occur Oropsyche howellae Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Rhyacophila amicis Caddisfly Clay, Jackson, Macon, and May occur Swain Counties Rhyacophila montana Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Ladona Julia Dragonfly Jackson County May occur Stylurus scudderi Dragonfly Streams and rivers (Jackson, May occur Macon and Swain Counties Baetopus trishae Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur Barbaetis benfieldi Mayfly Jackson County May occur Plauditus cestus Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur Seratella spiculosa Mayfly Mountain streams May occur Haploperla parkeri Stonefly Macon County May occur Megaleuctra williamsae Stonefly UT Cullasaja River, Macon Co., May occur Mull Creek, Jackson Co Pternarcy comstocki Stonefly Specifics unknown May occur Rasvena terna Stonefly Specifics unknown May occur Zapada chila Stonefly Small streams, Swain County May occur

Direct Effects –

Alternative A:

There would be no impacts to any aquatic forest concern species because no activities would occur within the aquatic analysis area.

Alternative B:

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 the stream communities because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

No impacts would occur to the 20 forest concern aquatic species listed above because herbicides would not reach any project area stream in sufficient quantity to cause lethal or sub lethal effects to any aquatic species.

Alternative C:

Implementation of this alternative would not require the use of herbicides and the manual treatments would all occur outside of riparian areas; therefore, there would be no impacts to any of the aquatic forest concern species.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects –

Previous activities within the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project area include timber harvest and road construction. There may have been an increase in stream turbidity during culvert installations for previous timber projects. However, these effects were minimized by application of erosion and sedimentation control measures (e.g. silt fence, sediment traps, seeding, and mulch). Specifically, the effects of these actions would have included sedimentation from the ground disturbing activities (road construction, reconstruction, and culvert installations). All of these effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts on aquatic resources, and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the analysis area. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the analysis area as a result of past actions. As a result of the length of time since completion of these actions, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current affected environment. There are no existing effects to the aquatic resources resulting from these activities.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project because there would be no effects of the proposed vine treatments. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands affecting the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project area waters.

Cumulative Effects –

3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species 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). No forest concern plant species are known or historically known to occur in the proposed vine control units.

Table 3.5.2.1: Documented forest concern plant species in the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project.

Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any forest concern plant species because none occur in the proposed treatment areas.

3.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Concern Species The wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 was queried for occurrences of terrestrial wildlife forest concern species in Jackson and Macon Counties. Thirty-six 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-one forest concern species remained and all others were dropped from further analysis

Table 3.5.3.1: Forest Concern wildlife species that are known to occur or may occur within the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control 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 No5 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 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 Yes3 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 No5 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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 rafinesquii Mammal water No5 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Sylvilagus obscurus Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Mammal Yes3 Appalachian cottontail Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods Yes3 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 supersoil 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 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 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.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda)

Longtail salamanders are also found in these types of habitats, often under logs, litter, or rocks during the day. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from vine control treatments would be similar to the effects described above in Section 3.3 Sensitive Wildlife Resources on the evaluated sensitive salamanders. Direct or indirect effects to this species are unlikely to occur due to their preference for remaining under shelter during the day. All vine treatments would occur during the daytime and would target individual vine stems. The proposed treatments would have no impacts to longtail salamanders.

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera)

The golden-winged warbler is not known within the wildlife analysis area but may occur in old fields and successional hardwoods within the higher elevation units. Blue-winged warblers, which prefer brushy fields and thickets, inhabit lower elevation than golden-winged warblers though sometimes territories overlap and hybrids are bred. Potential habitat for blue-winged warblers, such as existing wildlife openings, occur within the wildlife analysis area. Golden- winged warblers breed May through July, with individuals arriving as early as April and departing as late as mid-October, while blue-winged warblers breed may through June, with individuals arriving as early as mid-March and departing as late as mid-October. Direct effects on these species from vine control treatments would be unlikely, because any herbicides would target vines specifically. Cumulatively, the vine treatments within the analysis area would have no impacts to either species in the absence of direct or indirect effects.

Dusky Azure (Celastrina nigra), Gorgone checkerspot (Chlosyne gorgone), and Mottled duskywing (Erynnis martialis), Hickory hairstreak (Satyrium caryaevorus), Edward’s hairstreak (Satyrium edwardsii), Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary (Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja)

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 is found in woodland openings and borders. The mottled duskywing is found in upland woods and wooded edges. The Hickory hairstreak is found in mid to high elevation deciduous forests. The Edward’s hairstreak is found in scrubby or xeric oak woods. The Cullasaja Aphrodite fritillary is found in forest openings and edges. The proposed vine treatments using mechanical means would have no impacts to the species’ habitats. The proposed herbicide treatments would have no impacts to these species because the herbicides would target only individual vines rather than broadcasted across the stand.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Decorated Melanoplus (Melanoplus decoratus)

The decorate melanoplus is associated with dry woodlands and open conditions as individuals have been found to utilize woodland openings to sun themselves. Habitat for this species is common throughout the wildlife analysis area and the forest. Vine control would not affect the availability of habitat as these treatments would not alter the forest overstory. Implementation of this project would have no impacts to this species because vine treatments would target individual vines rather than broadcast spraying.

A Noctuid moth (Melanapamea mixta) and Yellow Stoneroot Borer Moth (Papaipema astuta)

Melanapamea mixta is found in savannas and wet meadows. The yellow stoneroot borer moth is always found in proximity to large populations of its larval food plant, stoneroot. Inhabiting dry- mesic forests, woodlands, and barrens, this moth is usually found along stream corridors where stoneroot grows. The adults’ flight lasts from September into October. This species overwinters as eggs, and the larvae mature and pupate in August. The proposed vine control treatments are unlikely to affect the forest overstory. Implementation of this project would have no impacts to these species because vine treatments would target individual vines rather than broadcast spraying.

Appalachian Cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus)

The Appalachian cottontail occurs in the dense cover of montane woods and thickets. The proposed vine treatments would be unlikely to alter the amount of dense cover available to this species. In the absence of direct or indirect effect from the proposed action, there would be no cumulative effects of this project. This project would have no impacts to the Appalachian cottontail.

Queen crater (Appalachina chilhoweensis), Dark Glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana), Pink Glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia), Blue-footed lancetooth (Haplotrema kendeighi), Open Supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris), Dwarf Proud Globe (Patera clarki clarki), Appalachian gloss (Zonitoides patuloides)

Terrestrial gastropods have common microclimatic requirements to protect individuals from dessication. These snails are vulnerable to actions which alter microclimatic conditions such as increasing soil temperature, air temperature, wind velocity, short-wave radiation, and rates of evaporation and decrease relative humidity. Snails are not highly mobile, however, so avoidance of herbicides would depend on proximity to these sites during implementation. Implementation of this project would have no impacts to these species because vine treatments would target individual vines rather than broadcast spraying.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus)

Coal skinks are most commonly found in the humid portions of wooded hillsides, near springs and along road banks. This species could avoid any areas treated for vine control under either Alternative B or Alternative C. There would be no adverse cumulative effects that would result from this proposal. The proposed vine treatments would have no impacts upon the coal skink.

3.5.4 Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any aquatic forest concern species because none occur within the proposed treatment areas and no off-site effects would occur to any aquatic resources. Although the species may occur within analysis area waters, none of the proposed treatment areas would be within riparian areas.

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would not impact any forest concern plant species because none occur in the proposed vine control units.

Implementation of Alternative A would have no impacts to any sensitive wildlife species because no actions would be undertaken. The Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any sensitive wildlife species because vine treatments would target individual vines rather than broadcast spraying (Alternative B). Alternative C would have no impacts to any sensitive wildlife species because only mechanical vine cutting would be used. 3.6. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues

3.6.1 Non-native and Invasive Species (NNIP) Boundaries of Analysis

Because non-native, invasive plants (NNIP) generally remain in disturbed areas, the analysis for direct, indirect, past and cumulative effects to non-native invasive plant species was confined to the proposed activity units and the forest system roads adjacent to the proposed treatment units.

Existing Condition

Some of the most common NNIP occurring across the Nantahala Ranger District include the following species: autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Chinese/European privet (Ligustrum spp.), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa). It is expected that these species and possibly additional NNIP potentially occur along Forest Service roads adjacent to proposed activity areas.

Plant communities with higher nutrient and moisture content, such as Rich Cove Forest, are more prone to NNIP infestation.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Japanese stiltgrass and privet have the highest likelihood of spreading off of Forest Service roads and into forested stands due to their shade tolerance.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A-No Action

Without intervention (no action), NNIP occurrences along Forest Service roads adjacent to and within activity areas could potentially increase over the next several years. This expectation is based upon the knowledge that NNIP are more prevalent during the initial stages of succession or post-disturbance.

Alternatives B - Action Alternative

Implementation of Alternative B would include herbicide spraying of all NNIP stems within vine-infested areas of treatment units except in the areas excluded in section 1.2.2 above. This would result in the eradication of the existing NNIP stems in areas of the units where vines also occur. However, since no vines or NNIP would be treated within 25’ of existing system roads or on the roadsides, remaining untreated NNIP stems could potentially later reproduce and continue spreading into the treatment units.

Alternative C-Action Alternative

Since no herbicide would be used with this alternative and only manual cutting of vines but not NNIP stems would occur, the effects of implementing this alternative would be to increase the potential for NNIP stems to spread inside the treatment units. Again, since roads and areas of vines within 25’ of existing system roads would not be treated, the potential for NNIP spread into the units would remain.

Cumulative Effects

Past effects from the ground disturbance and canopy-opening due to the two-aged harvesting are manifested in the current state of the stands. Cumulative effects from Alternatives A and C would be the potential for an increase in the incidence of NNIP stems in the treatment units. The cumulative effects from Alternative B would be the eradication of the existing NNIP stems in unit areas where vines are concurrently treated.

3.7. Soil and Water Resources

Existing Condition

The proposed project activities occur in Macon and Jackson Counties.

Most of the soils in the proposed treatment units are very deep, well-drained, and moderately-permeable. Soil map units existing in this project area are described in detail in the previous Environmental Assessments (EAs) written for the Shingletree, Big Choga, Trimont Ridge, County Line, Second Look, and Ray Branch projects. All of the existing soil map units are used for woodland. There are no floodplain or prime farmland soils in the project area. The existing access roads that are closed to public vehicular access have good grass and/or gravel cover on them at present.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

There would be no effects to soil or water quality.

Alternatives B and C

Alternatives B and C would create no ground disturbance, since the proposed work is composed entirely of vegetation treatments above the ground surface. The existing old skid roads and trails have been seeded and have a good grass cover on them; thus, stormwater would not travel over them and run off into adjacent streams.

All vine control treatments would be conducted according to LRMP standards and guidelines, herbicide labels, design criteria listed above, and to the NC Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (BMPs). The herbicide proposed for use, tripclopyr, does not move through the soil and would remain at the treatment locations. No herbicide would be applied within 30 feet of perennial streams or within 15 feet of intermittent streams, and these buffers would prevent any herbicide from reaching the existing streams. The proposed vine treatments would have no adverse impacts on soil or water quality or to water uses downstream of the project area.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

The short-term minor effects to soil and water resources experienced during prior timber harvesting conducted in the project area are no longer occurring. These effects included some surface exposure, soil compaction on skid roads and trails, and minor sedimentation on the days road culverts were installed. There are no known projects occurring on private lands currently or in the foreseeable future which would affect the project area lands. There are no other currently-planned or foreseeable future Forest Service projects in the analysis area.

There are no remaining effects to soil and water resources from previous management activities in the project area, and no effects from any adjacent projects, private land, or anticipated future actions. Thus, the cumulative effects to soil and water resources for this project would be zero. 3.8 Air Resources

Existing Condition

The Post-harvest Vine Contol project area is designated as a Class II air quality area. It currently meets national ambient air quality standards (Bill Jackson, NFsNC Air Quality Specialist, personal communication).

Direct and Indirect Effects

None of the alternatives is expected to result in large direct or indirect effects to air resources. With Alternative B, there would be minor olfactory emissions associated with herbicide use in the proposed

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

project units, but these effects are temporary (lasting a few days after treatment) and would not be noticeable for the general forest area. For Alternatives A and C, there would be no direct or indirect effects to air resources.

Cumulative Effects

There are no effects to air quality from past projects in this analysis area. No ongoing projects are occurring that would affect air quality. Also, there are no additional Forest Service projects currently planned in this analysis area.

Thus, for Alternative B, there would be no lasting cumulative effects. For Alternatives A and C, there would be no cumulative effects from their implementation. 3.9. Vegetation Management and Silviculture

Existing Condition

All proposed vine control activities would occur in the suitable timber base lands. The proposed work for this project occurs on all slope aspects. Species composition in the area compartments consists predominantly of cove or upland hardwoods.

The last major timber sale entries in the area were the Shingletree, Big Choga, Little Tuni, Trimont Ridge, County Line, Second Look, Deweese Creek, Bearpen Gap, and Harrison Gap sales. Of the 576 acres of early successional habitat created in these units, 419 acres are still in early successional habitat (ages 0-10), and 157 acres are ages 11-20. All regenerated stands have been certified as successfully reforested; however the existing extensive vine cover is inhibiting the young trees’ growth and healthy development.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Grape and smoke vines in these stands, due to the rich sites, lengthy growing season, mild temperatures, plentiful rainfall, and generally benign climate, create a severe management concern if not attended to. If the proposed control work were not conducted, these stands would lose many or most of their trees due to vine encroachment and overtopping, breakage, and knocking-down of the seedlings and saplings.

Alternative B

Initial treatment with triclopyr ester herbicide would result in a brownup of the existing vines and nonnative invasive plants (NNIP), followed by topkill. Triclopyr ester is an oil-based herbicide mixed as a 20% solution in vegetable oil and would be applied at the lowest effective rates. This herbicide has a moderately- low toxicity. The latest risk assessment conducted for the Forest Service was done by Syracuse

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Environmental Research Associates in May of 2011 and may be viewed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml.

Triclopyr ester would be selectively applied with the use of backpack sprayers during the dormant season to individual vine and NNIP stems at the base near the ground. In this way, the herbicide can be applied without killing the existing desired tree seedlings and saplings. It also does not kill grasses and forbs that may exist underneath the young trees. The triclopyr translocates in stems, and accumulates in the root collar and roots. It is not mobile in the soil; thus, no off-site movement through the soil would be expected. Triclopyr ester is degraded by soil microbes and by phytolysis (sunlight). This chemical has a moderately- short half-life of 30-60 days. This is the amount of time it would take ½ of the applied chemical to become inactive in the treated plant and vine roots.

Since the vines would not be cut before spraying, resprouting would not be expected to occur. If the initial brownup after treatment does not result in complete control of the vines and NNIP, then the stands needing it would be retreated up to four times over the next 10 years. Since grapevines do not survive well in shade, once canopy closure of the young stands occurs, then the vines would not be expected to continue as a problem in these stands.

For wildlife habitat, residual trees and snags in these young two-aged stands would provide some structural diversity, aesthetic value, and hard mast production. The amount of hard mast production would increase over the next few years as canopy closure in the young stands occurs and oak acorn production begins at approximately age 20 years. Moreover, many wildlife species rely on the soft mast provided by this younger habitat as a food source. As per the LRMP general standards and guides (page III-23), all snags that are not hazardous would be retained, as well as retaining all existing and potential den trees.

Alternative C

Since the vines and NNIP would be cut with handtools only and not treated with herbicide, the work would be more labor-intensive and potentially costly for the initial treatment than using a backpack sprayer. Since the vines and NNIP would not be killed, they would be expected to resprout in the spring after treatment. This would mean that retreatments would be needed in several, if not all, of the next few years until canopy closure of the young stands occurs at around age 20. Again, the necessary treatments would mean added cost. In addition, the regrowth of new vines and NNIP would not be an effective means of control, since during each growing season, more vines would continue to interfere with the successful growth and good stem quality of the young seedlings and saplings.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A

The cumulative effect for this alternative would be the continued accumulation and growth of more vines and NNIP. Eventually, most or all of the stands would become entirely vine-covered, and these would constitute valuable forest land out of production of valuable trees for timber and wildlife benefits.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B

The effects of Alternative B combined with the previous creation of new early successional habitat would ensure that the young seedling and sapling stands continue their unimpeded growth and development into healthy hardwood pole stands. Wildlife would continue to benefit from the existing early successional habitat until the stands pass out of ages 0-10 years. By the time of canopy closure at around age 20, the production of new hard mast would continue to benefit various wildlife species.

Alternative C

The effects of Alternative C would be the continuing need for several retreatments of the young stands due to continued regrowth of vines and NNIP until canopy closure around age 20 years. This would entail repeated walk-throughs of the stands, possibly creating paths through the units, in addition to continuing brownups from cut vines. This would be a negative visual effect for several years to hikers and others using the closed system roads. In addition, since the vine problem would not be effectively controlled, the young stands would not continue to grow and develop in a healthy manner. This would mean a continued loss of healthy forest for an indefinite amount of time. 3.10 Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

A heritage resource inventory was not completed for this proposed project, because the units proposed for this treatment in this project were previously surveyed. The survey results and heritage resources clearances were incorporated into the prior EAs and Decisions for the Shingletree, Big Choga, Trimont Ridge, County Line, Second Look, and Ray Branch projects. Information for the current project has been sent to the NC State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for comment in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and 36CFR800, as amended 1991.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A - The no action alternative has no potential for direct impacts to NRHP eligible or non- eligible sites. Sites would be preserved or subject to natural deterioration.

Alternatives B and C - Direct effects to cultural resources are not expected to result from either action alternative because no actions would occur in areas recommended for avoidance.

If any previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during project activities, operations would be suspended until an evaluation is completed by a Forest Service archeologist in consultation with the THPO and SHPO and appropriate mitigation measures are applied.

Indirect and cumulative effects to cultural resources are not expected; however, action alternatives that include increased access exposing artifacts could result in damage to sites and possibly of artifacts. These concerns will be addressed, if needed, by monitoring of the area during and after project implementation.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.11 Recreation Resources

Existing Condition

The stands proposed in this project for vine control do not contain any developed recreation facilities.

The recreational use adjacent to these areas along the closed forest system roads is dispersed use associated with activities such as hiking, biking, hunting, birding, wildflower observing, and gathering of forest products.

Along the few open system roads adjacent to the proposed treatment areas, forest users would be driving for scenery-viewing and for access to conduct the above-mentioned dispersed recreational uses.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - Alternative A would cause no direct or indirect effects on recreation resources. The cumulative effect of taking no action would be the existence of the same amount of recreational opportunities (such as hunting and wildlife viewing) in the project area as in the past several years.

Alternatives B and C - There would be no effects to campground users or day use recreational site visitors because no actions are proposed near any developed recreation facilities. There would be no effects to persons using the Appalachian Trail, Bartram Trail, or other trails. For effects of proposed project activities on scenery resources, refer to the Scenery Analysis in Section 3.12.

There would be no direct effects to recreation resources. Indirect effects to recreation resources would be the increased hunting and wildlife-viewing opportunities following the brown-up of the vines. Hunters would probably find the young hardwood stands more suitable for ruffed grouse hunting following project completion. Bird watchers might be more likely to see or hear rufus-sided towhees, chestnut-sided warblers, and indigo buntings in the newly-released early successional habitat. Blackberries might increase in the stands while they remain in early successional habitat, with a resultant increase in berry-picking opportunities. These effects would be less for Alternative C than Alternative B, since the cut vines would later resprout and the vines would regrow, eventually causing similar problems with vine cover as currently occur.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A - There would be no cumulative effects for Alternative A.

Alternatives B and C - Past projects in this area created 576 acres of early successional habitat. Of that, 419 acres remain. Since no new early successional habitat would be created with this project, the cumulative effects of Alternatives B and C would be the creation of recreational opportunities described above associated with releasing and maintaining the existing 419 acres of early successional habitat. These effects would be less for Alternative C than for Alternative B, since in Alternative B the vines would be killed, whereas in Alternative C, manual slashing would leave the vines free to regrow.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.12 Scenery

Existing Condition

The project area encompasses approximately 576 acres of National Forest System lands, with the majority of the treatments proposed in Management Areas (MA) 3 and 4. Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) are Partial Retention (PR) and Modification (M). Direction for the PR VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (LRMP at III-79) and to meet the VQO within two growing seasons after treatment. Direction for the M VQO is to soften visual impacts of management activities (LRMP at III-72) and to meet the VQO within 3 growing seasons after treatment.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenery resources. The units proposed for vine control treatments in Alternatives B and C would remain untreated, and the vines would be visible to viewers using the forest system roads.

Alternatives B and C - All proposed vine control units would meet their assigned VQOs.

For dispersed recreation users such as hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, hunters, and wildlife viewers, the proposed treatment areas would be buffered (untreated) for 25’ adjacent to existing roads. For the areas treated by herbicide (Alternative B), there would be a brownup of the vines in the treated units. This may be unsightly to viewers using the roads; however, the existing young trees currently under the vines would continue to grow up through the dead vines, thus creating a greenup within the required 2 or 3 growing seasons post-treatment. For Alternative C, the cut vine stems would also create a brownup of the existing vines. However, most of the vines would resprout, and this in combination with increased young tree growth, would also create the greenup as in Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects - The effects of past management activities on the visual resource are manifested in the current condition. The actions in Alternatives B and C would result in some changes to portions of the vegetation; these would blend in to the overall canopied appearance of the National Forest lands within two or three full growing seasons. Because the proposed treatments for Alternatives B and C would meet their assigned VQOs, there would be minor effects to the visual resource from these proposed actions. There are no ongoing activities in the project area that would affect scenery, and none currently planned for the future. There are no actions on private lands that are affecting the scenery resource on the national forest lands in the project area. Thus, if Alternatives B or C were implemented, cumulative effects would be minimal short-term changes to the scenery resources.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

3.13 Social and Economic Considerations

Existing Condition

The directly affected social and economic environment for this project is the local vicinity, which includes Macon County and Jackson County communities near the project area. Indirect effects would apply to the surrounding area.

A financial analysis for the project was not conducted because the proposed vine control treatments are noncommercial in nature, with no forest products being offered for sale.

Social and Economic Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - This No Action alternative would provide no direct or indirect economic benefits or any new social benefits. The opportunity to provide forest management, increase future mast production for wildlife, and to increase future economic benefits would be foregone.

Alternative B - The project would benefit the local economy by directly providing several months of work for one or more timber stand improvement contractors. There would be indirect economic benefits to local service industries which support forest workers, and to the state and federal governments through silvicultural treatment-generated income taxes.

There would be no forest products generated from the proposed work; however, by removing most of the existing vine cover and promoting the healthier growth of these young forest stands, economic value would be generated for future timber yields. In addition, increased mast production would be encouraged through the healthier growth of oaks and other mast-producing trees. Healthier forest stands would also offer increased dispersed recreational activities such as better hunting, wildlife viewing, and visually-pleasing views to non-vehicular users of the forest system roads.

Alternative C – The project would benefit the local economy by directly providing work for one or more timber stand improvement contractors on repeated occasions. This is because manual cutting of vines would not cause vine mortality, and the vines would grow back, requiring repeated manual treatments. This would benefit the local economy more than Alternative B, but repeated treatments would not be cost-effective and would not accomplish the project objectives. Renewed vine growth would cause increased damage to the existing young stands, thus decreasing future wildlife, economic, and recreational benefits that would accrue from healthier forest stands.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A – The former timber regeneration harvests initiated the creation of these young stands by natural regeneration after the overstory removal of the mature trees. After the end of the first growing season a few, but not most, of the new stands received a vine control treatment. This initial vine control treatment in a few stands was helpful in reducing the vine populations so that the current problem is not as bad in those stands. The new young stands were able to get a better start and growth with fewer vines

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

present. This in turn provided some of the recreational benefits described above. However, with no new treatments occurring with this alternative, the ongoing and future benefits of healthier forest stand growth would not occur.

Alternatives B and C – The recreational benefits described above would continue to accumulate with the implementation of the proposed treatments in Alternative B. The future wildlife and economic benefits accruing from the proposed work would be greater for Alternative B than for Alternative C, due to the healthier forest stand conditions resulting from the implementation of Alternative B.

3.14 Road Management Existing Condition

Current access to the area is via several state and Forest Service (FS) roads. A few of the FS roads are open to public vehicular use, with most roads being closed to public vehicular use. Some of the closed road segments are seeded in a wildlife grass-forb mixture.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - There would be no change in current road management practices or open road density. Therefore, there would be no effects from implementation of this alternative.

Alternative B and Alternative C – There would be no change in current road management practices. Therefore, there would be no effects from implementation of either of these alternatives.

All existing roads are needed, and no change would occur in the open road density. The current road management practices would not be changed with implementation of Alternatives B or C. No FS roads in the project area need to be decommissioned at this time.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be no changes to current road management practices, there would be no cumulative effects to road management from implementing any project alternative. Because no changes are proposed to the FS road system, a separate Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP) is not required for this project.

3.15 Climate Change

Climate change is discussed here in two ways: (1) how climate change affects analysis area resources, and (2) how the project area alternatives affect climate change. Note: Some of the material in this section is adapted from (quoted) and referenced by the Cherokee National Forest Big Creek EA, July 2009.

Existing Condition and How Climate Change Affects Analysis Area Resources

The existing condition is an analysis area that is typical of the southern Appalachians. Climate change models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

future climate-changed conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States 2001). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the United States. However, the models differ considerably. One predicts little change in precipitation until 2030, followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years, followed by increased precipitation.

Either of these climate scenarios with their attendant changes could affect forest productivity, forest pest activity, vegetation types, major weather disturbances (droughts, hurricanes), and streamflow. These effects would likely be seen across the entire national forest system in the United States. In the southern Appalachians, it is possible that in the long run, a warmer climate will result in certain species’ (cold- adapted ones such as northern hardwoods) ranges moving northward. In turn, species that currently have a more southerly range might start appearing here. In general, concerning both vegetation and wildlife, species that are generalists and can tolerate a wider range of habitat conditions will probably fare better than those with a set of narrow habitat requirements and conditions.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Effects on Climate Change

Scope of Analysis

The scope of this analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on climate change includes the 576 acres of national forest lands in the compartments that comprise the analysis area. The time frame used in this analysis is up to ten years after completion of the project activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - Alternative A (No Action) would result in no change to the current trend for carbon storage or release. Forested stands are expected to be less resilient to possible climate change impacts, such as changes in productivity or insect and disease.

Alternatives B and C - It is not expected that the action alternatives (B and C) would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The vine control treatments in the previously-harvested areas would release the existing young, vigorous stands, which may be more resilient to the changes in climate than the surrounding forest with trees ages 70 and older.

Recent scientific literature confirms a general pattern of changes in net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and carbon stocks over the period of forest stand development. (The Net ecosystem productivity, or NEP, is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER). When NEP is positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with a positive NEP are referred to as a carbon sink. When NEP is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon than they absorb. Ecosystem with a negative NEP are referred to as a carbon source.) Most mature and old stands remained a net sink of carbon. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) synthesized results from 120 separate studies of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes for boreal, temperate, and tropical biomes. They found that in temperate forests NEP is lowest, and most variable, in young stands (0-30 years), highest in stands 31-70

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

years, and declines thereafter as stands age. These studies also reveal a general pattern of total carbon stocks declining after disturbance and then increasing, rapidly during intermediate years and then at a declining rate, over time until another significant disturbance (timber harvest or tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insects, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees and again converts the stands to a carbon source where carbon emissions from decay of dead biomass exceed that amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the stand.

These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. The stands would likely remain a carbon source for several years depending on the amount of dead biomass left onsite from prior harvesting and the new trees’ growth rates. As the stands continue to develop, the carbon source would change to a carbon sink. The strength of the carbon sink would increase until peaking at approximately 85 years of age (Vose 2009) and then would gradually decline but remain positive.

Management actions such as these proposed, that improve the resilience of forest stands to climate-induced change, may help sustain the current strength of the carbon sink in US forests (Birdsey et al. 2007).

Cumulative Effects to Climate Change

Long term, the proposed vine treatments may improve the overall capacity of the forest to sequester carbon. Sustainable forestry practices can increase the ability of forests to sequester atmospheric carbon while enhancing other ecosystem services.

When combined, the carbon from this and past projects in the analysis area has a minimal cumulative effect not only at the local level, but at the larger level.

4 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4.1. Preparers

This document was prepared by Joan Brown, Nantahala Ranger District Silviculturist. The Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared by Jason Farmer, Nantahala National Forest Fisheries Biologist.

4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted

The following additional persons have provided input or participated in the planning and/or analysis of this project:

Bryan Killian, Timber Management Assistant, Nantahala Ranger District Steverson Moffat, NEPA Planning Team Leader, Nantahala National Forest Eric Pullium, GIS Specialist, Nantahala National Forest April Punsalan, Botanist and Ecologist Trainee, National Forests in North Carolina Andrew Triplett, Archaeologist, Nantahala National Forest

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

4.3 Literature Cited

Biological Opinion for the Indiana Bat, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. April 2000, as amended April 2005 and February 2009.

Birdsey, Richard A.; Pregitzer, Kurt; Lucier, Alan. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-2100. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:1461-1469

Birdsey, Richard A.; Jenkins, Jennifer C.; Johnston, Mark; Huber-Sannwald, Elisabeth; Amiro, Brian; de Jong, Ben; Etchevers Barra, Jorge D.; French, Nancy; Garcia-Oliva, Felipe; Harmon, Mark; Heath, Linda S.; Jaramillo, Victor J.; Johnsen, Kurt; Law, Beverly E.; Marin-Spiotta, Erika; Masera, Omar; Neilson, Ronald; Pan, Yude; Pregitzer, Kurt S. 2007. North American forests. In: King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, D.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J., eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global

Boves TJ, Buehler DA, Sheehan J, Wood PB, Rodewald AD, et al. (2013) Emulating Natural Disturbances for Declining Late-Successional Species: A Case Study of the Consequences for Cerulean Warblers (Setophaga cerulea). PLoS ONE 8(1): e52107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052107

Carbon Cycle. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC: 117-126, 173-176.

Canadell JG, Pataki D, Gifford R, Houghton RA, Lou Y, Raupach MR, Smith P, Steffen W. (2007) in Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World, eds Canadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L (IGBP Series. Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), pp 59-78.

Climate Change Impacts on the United States. 2001. James J. McCarthy, Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A. Leary, David J. Dokken, and Kasey S. White, eds. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Durkin, Patrick R., Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., 2011. Triclopyr – Human Health and Risk Assessment, Final Report, Manlius, NY, pp 1-267. Greenberg, Cathryn H., Beverly S. Collins, and Frank R. Thompson, III. 2011. Sustaining Young Forest Communities – Ecology and Management of Early Successional Habitats in the Central Hardwood Region, USA. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York.

Heiligmann, Randall B., Ohio State University School of Natural Resources and Krause, Dave, Arborchem Products Company, July 2006. Relative effectiveness of herbicides commonly used to control woody vegetation in forest stands. The Ohio State University Extension, School of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH, pp 1-4.

Jackson, Bill. 2002. Personal communication regarding air quality classification for areas on the Nantahala National Forest. Asheville, NC.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

North Carolina Forest Practices Related to Water Quality. 15 NCAC 1I (.0100-.0200 Regulations). 1990.

Pacala, S., et al. 2007. The North American carbon budget past and present, in The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR), edited by A. W. King et al., pp. 29–26, NOAA Natl. Clim. Data Cent., Asheville, N. C.

Pregitzer, Kurt S. and Eugenie S Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology (2004) 10, 2052–2077.

Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S. 2004. Carbon Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in the United States, 1952-2040. Environmental Management. 33(4): 433-442.

Smith, H.Clay, 1984. Forest management guidelines for controlling wild grapevines. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper NE-548. Parsons, WVA, pp1-17.

Smith, H.Clay, 1984. Wild Grapevine Management, Central Hardwood Notes, USDA Forest Service North Central Hardwood Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, pp

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Forest Health Protection Website: Herbicide Risk Assessments. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml

USDA Agriculture Handbook Number 633. Pesticide Background Statements, Vol. I. (Herbicides). USDA Forest Service, Regional Office, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA., July, 1989.

USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Final Environmental Impact and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, North Carolina. March, 1987.

USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, North Carolina. March, 1994. USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), 1986-2000, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, Asheville, NC., March, 1989.

USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Land and Resource Management PlanAmendment 5, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, NC., March, 1994.

USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 10, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, North Carolina, 2000.

USDA Forest Service, Supervisor’s Office, Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends Report, Nantahala/Pisgah National Forest, Asheville, NC 2001.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Macon County, North Carolina. 1996. Franklin, NC.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina. 1997. Sylva, NC.

Wood, P.B., J. Sheehan, P. Keyser, D. Buehler, J. Larkin, A. Rodewald, S. Stoleson, T.B., Wigley, J. Mizel, T. Boves, G. George, M. Bakermans, T. Beachy, A. Evans, M. McDermott, F. Newell, K. Perkins, and M. White. 2013. Management guidelines for enhancing Cerulean Warbler breeding habitat in Appalachian hardwood forests. American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, Virginia. 28 pp.

5 APPENDICES

5.1 Appendix A – Biological Evaluation

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2014

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Biological Evaluation

Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project

Nantahala Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Jackson and Macon Counties, North Carolina

For Additional Information Contact: Nantahala Ranger District 90 Sloan Road Franklin, North Carolina 28734 (828) 524-6441 x426 – Joan Brown

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 63 1.1 Proposed Action ...... 63 1.2 Species Considered ...... 63

2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ...... 63 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...... 63 2.2 Botanical Resources ...... 64 2.3 Wildlife Resources...... 66 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 71

3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..………….……….71Error! Bookmark not defined.3.1 Aquatic Resources ...... 70 3.2 Botanical Resources ...... 71 3.3 Wildlife Resources...... 72 3.4 Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species ...... 76

4.0 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….77 4.1.Aquatic Resources……………………………………………………………………………………………………77 4.2.Botanical Resources…………………………………………………………………………………………………79. 4.3 Wildlife Resources…………………………………………………………………………………………………...80 4.4 Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species…………………………………………………...84

5.0 PREPARERS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….85

6.0 REFERENCES…………………………………………..……………………………..…………………………………………………………………….85

7.0 ATTACHMENTS………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91

......

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposed Action

The Nantahala Ranger District is proposing vine control treatments on 39 areas or units within Jackson and Macon Counties, totaling 597 acres (Table 1.1.1). In addition, one stand in the upcoming Haystack project needs preharvest vine control work. The proposed units are approximately 5-15 years old and are regenerating from a two-aged regeneration harvest method. Many of these units occur on rich sites and have persistent grape and smoke vines. In many cases, the vines have proliferated so that they are inhibiting or damaging the growth of the new timber stands. The vine control work would be implemented using Region 8 and National Forests in North Carolina (NFsNC) approved herbicides. Herbicide work would be applied according to the herbicide label and applied by certified pesticide applicators. The vine control work would be implemented during the dormant season.

Alternatives: Refer to Chapter One of the Nantahala Ranger District Crop Tree Release Environmental Assessment for detailed descriptions of alternatives.

Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Proposed Action

Alternative C: Implement vine control work using strictly manual methods. No herbicide application would occur.

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.

2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, AND THREATENED SPECIES

2.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

effects). The aquatic analysis areas for this project includes: Arrowwood Creek, Joe Hicks Branch, Little Tuni Creek, Willis Cove, Wests Branch, Blazed Creek, Tilley Creek, Wildcat Creek, Ray Branch, Fall Branch, Pol Miller Branch, and Downes Branch.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Table 2.1.1: Known and potential threatened and endangered aquatic species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

2.2 Botanical Resources

Botanical Analysis Area

Existing Conditions

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

slopes. These units have the highest density and most aggressive grape (Vitis spp.) and smoke (Isotrema macrophyllum) vines due to high moisture and nutrient availability.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

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 Macon, Jackson, and Swain County.

4. Reviewing TES and FC element occurrence (EO) records that occur in or immediately adjacent to the proposed vine control units.

5. Reviewing past environmental assessments and botanical analysis report's for the County Line and Second Look vegetation projects.

There are 245 TES and FC plant species that are known or historically known to occur in Jackson and Macon County (Attachment 2). However, none of these species are known or historically known to occur in the proposed vine control units. No federally threatened and endangered, Region 8 sensitive, or forest concern plant species occurs in the proposed vine control units. Three forest concern plant species, including American columbo (Frasera caroliniensis), American fly-honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis), and Huger's carrion-flower (Smilax hugeri) occur in close proximity (200-500 ft.) to the proposed treatment area. However, they do not occur in the proposed treatment areas. Because all of the proposed vine control units are stands that were surveyed and cleared in the past under different timber projects, they were botanically surveyed. Duke Rankin, former Botanist for Nantahala National Forest, did not find American columbo, Huger's carrion-flower, or American fly-honeysuckle in any of the proposed vine control units.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Table 2.2.1: Known federally threatened and endangered plant species in the proposed Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Natural Community/Habitat Local Occurrence Federally Threatened and Endangered Plants None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Threatened and Endangered Botanical Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Determination of Effect

2.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area

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.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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.

Table 2.3.1: Known and potential proposed, threatened, and endangered terrestrial animal species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and buildings (warmer may occur Northern long-eared bat (Proposed) 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)

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B:

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 (Alternative B) includes no 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 ft. of the snag.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the Indiana bat from this alternative would be the same as described for Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A: in the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Indiana bat from the no action alternative.

Determination of Effect

Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the Indiana bat.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of the Post-harvest Vine Control project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the Post-harvest Vine Control project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.

Determination of Effect

Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the northern long-eared bat.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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.

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 Alternative C MyMyotis septentrionalis No Effects No Jeopardy No Jeopardy Nonorthern long-eared bat MyMyotis sodalis Not Likely to Adversely No Effects N Not Likely to Adversely Affect In Indiana bat se Affect

2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES

3.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

The aquatic analysis area has been described in Section 2.1 above.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Table 3.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Present

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Implementation of this project would have no impacts to any aquatic T & E species because project design features would prevent herbicides from entering analysis area waters. Project design features would avoid suitable habitats and prevent off-site effects.

3.2 Botanical Resources

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

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Table 3.2.1: Documented Region 8 sensitive plant species in the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Nantahala Ranger

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

District Vine Control Project would have no impacts to any Region 8 sensitive plant species because none occur in the proposed treatment areas.

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

Table 3.3.1: Known and potential sensitive terrestrial animal species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence N Northern bush katydid Se SensitiveTre Treetops at edges of broadleaved Ma may occur (Sc (Scudderia septentrionalis) for forest Rock-loving grasshopper Se SensitiveLic Lichen-covered rock outcrops Ma may occur (Tr (Trimerotropis saxatilis) Fro Frosted elfin Se SensitiveOp Open woods and borders, in dry Ma may occur (Callophrys irus) situations Dia Diana fritillary butterfly Se Sen sitiveDe Deciduous and pine woodlands Ma may occur (Se (Speyeria diana) S. a Appalachian salamanderSe Sen sitiveMo Moist forests at all elevations Ma may occur (Pl (Plethodon teyahalee) Eas Eastern small-footed bat Se Sen sitiveRo Roosts in hollow trees in summer Ma may occur yot (Myotis leibii) So Southern water shrew Se SensitiveSm Small streams 12-15' wide above Ma may occur (So(Sorex palustris puntulatus) 3000'

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

(1) Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes treetops at the edges of broadleaved forest. Alternative A would have no effect. Alternative B and Alternative C would have no effects, since vine control activities would not be conducted in the existing overstory treetops on the edges of the stands proposed for treatment. No trees would be felled with either action alternative. Existing vines would be treated near the ground, either by herbicide or by cutting.

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

(2) Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes lichen-covered rock outcrops. Alternative A would have no effect. For Alternative B and Alternative C, there would be no effects to individuals of this species, since only vines would be treated, with no tree felling. There are few, if any rock outcrops in the proposed units. Treating vines at their source near the ground would not expose any existing rocks to herbicides.

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

Determination of Effect - This project would have no impacts on the rock-loving grasshopper.

(3) Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus)

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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

Determination of Effect – This project would have no impacts on the frosted elfin. . (4) Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana)

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

Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest roadside habitat. Because roadsides will be left undisturbed, this project would have no impacts on the Diana fritillary butterfly.

(5) Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee)

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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

will have achieved canopy cover and reformation of the litter layer sufficient to support salamander populations. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

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.

(6) Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii)

Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative A would result in no effects. With Alternative B and Alternative C, there would be no tree felling and no creation of new openings. Herbicide application or vine cutting would occur near the ground; since bats are aerial feeders and roosters, they would not be exposed to herbicide. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects. No special roosting habitats, such as hemlock forests, rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges or buildings would be adversely affected.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects - Habitat has been created in the past due to regeneration activities on 576 acres within the past 20 years. Approximately 157 of these acres are no longer in the 0-10-year age class and are no longer providing habitat. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.

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

Determination of Effect –This project would have no impacts on the eastern small-footed bat.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

(7) Southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus)

Direct and Indirect Effects – This species is known to occur in small first order streams up to 12- 15' wide, with rhododendron cover, across Macon and Jackson counties. Alternative A would have no effect. Alternative B and Alternative C would have no direct or indirect effects because herbicide would not be used within 30 feet of perennial streams; the herbicide proposed for treatment stays at site application, and does not move through the soil.

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

Determination of Effect - Alternative B and Alternative C would have no impacts on the southern water shrew.

3.4 Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

4.0 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES

4.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

The aquatic analysis area has been described in Section 2.1 above.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

Fifty-seven aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The NCNHP Database was queried for occurrences of forest concern species in Jackson and Macon Counties. Forty-six forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These 46 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 twenty 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.

Table 4.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Jackson and Macon Counties evaluated for the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Beraea gorteba Caddisfly Specifics unknown May occur Ceraclea sp. 3 Caddisfly Jackson County May occur Goerita flinti Caddisfly Swain County May occur Homoplecta monticola Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Hydropsyche carolina Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Hydroptila coweetensis Caddisfly Macon County May occur Oropsyche howellae Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Rhyacophila amicis Caddisfly Clay, Jackson, Macon, and May occur Swain Counties Rhyacophila montana Caddisfly Jackson and Macon Counties May occur Ladona Julia Dragonfly Jackson County May occur Stylurus scudderi Dragonfly Streams and rivers (Jackson, May occur Macon and Swain Counties Baetopus trishae Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur Barbaetis benfieldi Mayfly Jackson County May occur Plauditus cestus Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur Seratella spiculosa Mayfly Mountain streams May occur Haploperla parkeri Stonefly Macon County May occur Megaleuctra williamsae Stonefly UT Cullasaja River, Macon Co., May occur Mull Creek, Jackson Co Pternarcy comstocki Stonefly Specifics unknown May occur Rasvena terna Stonefly Specifics unknown May occur Zapada chila Stonefly Small streams, Swain County May occur

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Alternative A: There would be no impacts to any aquatic forest concern species because no activities would occur within the aquatic analysis area.

Alternative B: 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 the stream communities because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

Alternative C:

Implementation of this alternative would not require the use of herbicides and the mechanical treatments would all occur outside of riparian areas; therefore, there would be no impacts to any of the aquatic forest concern species.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects –

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

application of erosion and sedimentation control measures (e.g. silt fence, sediment traps, seeding, and mulch). Specifically, the effects of these actions would have included sedimentation from the ground disturbing activities (road construction, reconstruction, and culvert installations). All of these effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts on aquatic resources, and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the analysis area. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the analysis area as a result of past actions. As a result of the length of time since completion of these actions, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current affected environment. There are no existing effects to the aquatic resources resulting from these activities.

Cumulative Effects –

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). No forest concern plant species are known or historically known to occur in the proposed vine control units.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Table 4.2.1: Documented forest concern plant species in the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control Project.

Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

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

Table 1: Forest Concern wildlife species that are known to occur or may occur within the Nantahala Ranger District Vine Control 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 No5 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 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 Yes3 Golden-winged warbler season only]

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 No5 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 rafinesquii Mammal water No5 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Sylvilagus obscurus Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Mammal Yes3 Appalachian cottontail Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods Yes3 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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 supersoil 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 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 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.

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda)

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera)

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

target vines specifically. Cumulatively, the vine treatments within the analysis area would have no impacts to either species in the absence of direct or indirect effects.

Decorated Melanoplus (Melanoplus decoratus)

A Noctuid moth (Melanapamea mixta) and Yellow Stoneroot Borer Moth (Papaipema astuta)

Appalachian Cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus)

The Appalachian cottontail occurs in the dense cover of montane woods and thickets. The proposed vine treatments would be unlikely to alter the amount of dense cover available to this

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

species. In the absence of direct or indirect effect from the proposed action, there would be no cumulative effects of this project. This project would have no impacts to the Appalachian cottontail.

Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus)

4.4 Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

5.0 PREPARERS

Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest April Punsalan, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest

/s/ Jason Farmer March 6, 2014 Jason Farmer Fisheries Biologist Nantahala National Forest Cheoah Ranger District 1070 Massey Branch Road Robbinsville, NC 28771

6.0 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES

Aquatic

Bonner, W.R. 1983. Survey and classification of state-managed trout streams: district 9. Mountain Fish. Invest. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F24-S. 313 pp.

Bryan, S.A., J.D. Riley, and D.M Hill. 2004. NFMA Monitoring Report for Aquatic Resources of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (unpublished).

Ratzlaff, Allen. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801.

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.

Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 681 pages.

Freeman, M.C., M.D. Crawford, J.C. Barrett, D.E Facey, M.G. Flood, J. Hill, D.J. Stouder, and G.D. Grossman. 1988. Fish assemblage stability in a southern Appalachian stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 45: 1952.

Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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.

Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pages.

Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert, editors. 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 594 pages.

Meehan, W. R. (editor) 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their Habitat Components. American Fisheries Special Publication #19, Bethesda, Maryland. 751 pages.

Menhinick, E. F. 1991. Freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Publication, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 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.

Moran, J.D., C.N. Roghair. 2005. Stream channel and habitat attributes in the National Forests in North Carolina before and after the hurricane flooding events of 2004. Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer, U.S. Forest Service, pp 192-195 and 200-203.

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

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database.

NCDENR. 2005. Basinwide assessment report – Little Tennessee River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.

Ridout, S. 2002. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University. Richmond, Virginia.

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

Wohl, D.L., J.B. Wallace, and J.L. Meyer. 1995. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, function, and production with respect to habitat type, reach and drainage basin in the southern Appalachians (U.S.A.). Freshwater Ecology. 34: 447-464.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Botanical

NatureServe. 2014. 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.

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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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.

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

7.0 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species

Attachment 1a: Endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species, Nantahala National Forest.

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution

Endangered/Threatened Bivalve Alasmidonta raveneliana Little Tennessee River drainage and Tuckaseegee River; Nolichucky River Bivalve Pegias fabula Lower Little Tennessee River; historic record from Valley River, Cherokee Co.

Bivalve Villosa trabilis Hiwassee River downstream of Appalachia Lake

Fish Cyprinella monacha Little TN River; French Broad River system Sensitive Bivalve Alasmidonta varicose Little Tennessee River, Macon and Swain Co. 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. Fish Percina squamata Higher gradient upland rivers, Tennessee River system, Cherokee, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.

Attachment 1b: Endangered, threatened, proposed, sensitive, and forest concern aquatic species evaluated for the Nantahala RD Vine Control Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring rare aquatic species from Jackson and Macon Counties, 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 Alasmidonta raveneliana Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Pegias fabula Not likely to occur1 Fish Erimonax monachus Not likely to occur1 Sensitive Species Crustacean Cambarus chaugaensis Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Cambarus reburrus Dragonfly Macromia margarita Not likely to occur1 Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Not likely to occur1 Fish Percina squamata Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Alasmidonta varicose Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Fusconaia subrotunda Not likely to occur1 Forest Concern

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Type Name Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Not likely to occur1 Amphibian Necturus maculosus Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Villosa iris Not likely to occur1 Caddisfly Beraea gorteba May occur2 Caddisfly Ceraclea sp. 3 May occur2 Caddisfly Goerita flinti May occur2 Caddisfly Homoplecta monticola May occur2 Caddisfly Hydropsyche carolina May occur2 Caddisfly Hydroptila coweetensis May occur2 Caddisfly Oropsyche howellae May occur2 Caddisfly Rhyacophila amicis May occur2 Caddisfly Rhyacophila montana May occur2 Crustacean Cambarus tuckasegee Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Skistodiaptomus carolinensis Not likely to occur1 Dragonfly Ladona julia May occur2 Dragonfly Stylurus scudderi May occur2 Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 Not likely to occur1 Fish Etheostoma inscriptum Not likely to occur1 Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Not likely to occur1 Fish Micropterus coosae Not likely to occur1 Fish Moxostoma breviceps Not likely to occur1 Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 Not likely to occur1 Fish Notropis micropteryx Not likely to occur1 Fish Notropis lutipinnis Not likely to occur1 Fish Notropis volucellus Not likely to occur1 Fish Noturus flavus Not likely to occur1 Fish Percina caprodes Not likely to occur1 Mayfly Ameletus sp. 1 Not likely to occur1 Mayfly Ameletus tertius Not likely to occur1 Mayfly Attenella margarita Not likely to occur1 Mayfly Baetopus trishae May occur2 Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi May occur2 Mayfly Plauditus cestus May occur2 Mayfly Seratella spiculosa May occur2 Stonefly Haploperla parkeri May occur2 Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae May occur2 Stonefly Pteronarcy comstocki May occur2 Stonefly Rasvena terna May occur2 Stonefly Zapada chila May occur2

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Northern Hardwood Cove Forest, Aconitum Vascular Trailing Wolfsbane Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, High Elevation reclinatum plant Seep, Rich Cove Forest

Acrobolbus ciliatus A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest, Spray Cliff

Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Adlumia fungosa Climbing Fumitory plant Concern Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff

Aneura maxima A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive MP; in spray zones of waterfalls

Anthoxanthum Vascular Forest Holy Grass Southern Appalachian Bog hirtum plant Concern

Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Vascular Arabis patens Spreading Rockcress Sensitive Calcareous Cliff, nutrient-rich seepage plant from amphibolite Arisaema Vascular Forest triphyllum ssp. Bog Jack-in-the-Pulpit Southern Appalachian Bog plant Concern stewardsonii Spray Cliff, Montane Acidic Cliff, Asplenium Single-Sorus Vascular Forest outcrops near waterfall in escarpment monanthes Spleenwort plant Concern gorges

Bazzania nudicaulis A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest

Berberis Vascular American Barberry Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Glade, mafic rock canadensis plant

Botrychium Vascular Forest lanceolatum var. Lance-leaf Moonwort Rich Cove Forest plant Concern angustisegmentum

Botrychium Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Meadow, Grassy Daisy-leaf Moonwort matricariifolium plant Concern Bald

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Botrychium simplex Vascular Forest Least Moonwort Meadow, Roadside, Grassy Bald var. simplex plant Concern

Bouteloua Vascular Forest curtipendula var. Sideoats Grama Dry Rocky Slopes and Bluffs plant Concern curtipendula Brachydontium Peak Moss Moss Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest trichodes Brachyelytrum Vascular Forest Serpentine Forest, Northern Hardwood Northern Shorthusk aristosum plant Concern Forest, Rich Cove Forest

Brachymenium Anderson's Melon- Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Mixed hardwood- Moss andersonii moss Concern hemlock Brachymenium Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Mixed hardwood- Mexican Melon-moss Moss systylium Concern hemlock Brachythecium Forest Rota's Feather Moss Moss Acidic Cove Forest rotaeanum Concern Bryocrumia Spray Cliff, Moist Montane Acidic Gorge Moss Moss Sensitive vivicolor Cliff, Gorge Bryoerythrophyllum Forest Rust Foot Moss Moss High Elevation Forest ferruginascens Concern Bryoxiphium Forest Sword Moss Moss Spray Cliff, Gorge norvegicum Concern Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Acidic Buckleya Vascular Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Piratebush Sensitive distichophylla plant Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Slopes, Forests on lower slope Calamagrostis Vascular Forest canadensis var. Canada Reedgrass High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald plant Concern canadensis

Calamagrostis Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, Montane Oak- Porter's Reedgrass porteri plant Concern Hickory Forest

Campanula Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet Marsh Bellflower aparinoides plant Concern Meadow Campylopus Black Fish Hook Forest crevices and seepage zones on exposed atrovirens var. Moss Moss Concern granite atrovirens Campylopus atrovirens var. Cliff Campylopus Moss Watch High Elevation Rocky Summit cucullatifolius Boulderfield Forest, Northern Cardamine Vascular Mountain Bittercress Sensitive Hardwood Cove Forest, Spruce-Fir clematitis plant Forest, High Elevation Seep High Elevation Granitic Dome, Vascular Carex biltmoreana Biltmore Sedge Sensitive Montane Cedar-Hardwood Forest, plant Montane Acidic Cliff

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Vascular Forest Carex careyana Carey's Sedge Rich Cove Forest plant Concern

Vascular Forest Grassy Bald, Southern Appalachian Carex cristatella Small-crested Sedge plant Concern Bog

Carex Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Hitchcock's Sedge hitchcockiana plant Concern Forest, mafic rock

High Elevation Rocky Summit, Vascular Carex misera Miserable Sedge Sensitive Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation plant Granitic Dome High Elevation Seep, Southern Vascular Forest Carex projecta Necklace Sedge Appalachian Bog, Marsh, Wet plant Concern Meadow, Montane Alluvial Forest

Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge plant Concern Forest

Vascular Carex radfordii Radford's Sedge Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Escarpment Gorge plant

Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, High Carex trisperma Three-seeded Sedge plant Concern Elevation Seep

Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Vascular Forest Carex woodii Wood's Sedge Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- plant Concern Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- Celastrus scandens American Bittersweet plant Concern Hickory, mafic rock Cephalozia Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in macrostachya ssp. A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge australis Cephaloziella A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive High Elevation Rocky Summit massalongi Cephaloziella Forest High Elevation Rocky Summit, seeps A Liverwort Liverwort spinicaulis Concern on rock at low elevation Forest Cetraria arenaria Sea Storm Lichen Lichen High Elevation Rocky Summit Concern Cetrelia Sand-loving Iceland Forest Lichen High Elevation Forest cetrarioides Lichen Concern Cheilolejeunea Acidic Cove, Oak-White Pine Forest, A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive evansii Escarpement Gorge

Vascular Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert's Turtlehead Sensitive Southern Appalachian Bog plant

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Vascular Forest Chelone obliqua Red Turtlehead swamp forests, bogs plant Concern

Chenopodium Vascular Forest Giant-seed Goosefoot Montane Acidic Cliff simplex plant Concern

Cirriphyllum Forest Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic A Moss Moss piliferum Concern Cove Forest in Gorge Coeloglossum Long-bracted Frog Vascular Forest viride var. Seep, Rich Cove Forest Orchid plant Concern virescens

Corallorhiza Vascular Forest Spring Coral-root Rich Cove forest wisteriana plant Concern

Coreopsis Large-flowered Vascular Forest grandiflora var. granitic domes, rock outcrops Tickseed plant Concern grandiflora

Corydalis Vascular Forest Slender Corydalis Montane Acidic Cliff micrantha plant Concern

Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Crocanthemum Vascular Forest Plains Sunrose Calcareous Cliff, High Elevation bicknellii plant Concern Granitic Dome

Vascular Danthonia epilis Bog Oatgrass Sensitive High Elevation Granitic Dome, Seep plant

Delphinium Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Grassy Bald, Glade, Tall Larkspur Sensitive exaltatum plant Montane Oak-Hickory, mafic rock

Dendrolycopodium Vascular Forest Grassy Balds, Spruce-Fir, Northern Tree Ground-pine dendroideum plant Concern Hardwood

Desmodium Vascular Creamy Tick-trefoil Sensitive openings, Oak woodlands ochroleucum plant

Diarrhena Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- Eastern Beakgrass americana plant Concern Hickory, mafic rock

Vascular Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane Mafic Dicentra eximia Bleeding Heart plant Concern Cliff

Dichanthelium Vascular Forest Northern Witch Grass open moist woods boreale plant Concern

Dichodontium Forest A Moss Moss Spray Cliff pellucidum Concern Forest Dicranella varia Variable Fork Moss Moss Open wet calcareous rock Concern

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Diplophyllum Forest taxifolium var. A Liverwort Liverwort High Elevation Rocky Summit Concern mucronatum Ditrichum Ambiguous Acidic Cove Forest, High Elevation Moss Sensitive ambiguum Ditrichium Red Oak Ditrichum Forest sandy or clay soil, clearings in woods, Golden Tread Moss Moss rhynchostegium Concern rocks along streams

Dodecatheon Vascular Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Cedar- Eastern Shooting Star meadia var. meadia plant Concern Hardwood Forest

Vascular Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Draba ramosissima Branching Draba plant Concern Calcareous Cliff Acidic Cove, Montane Oak-Hickory, Drepanolejeunea A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine appalachiana Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Echinacea Vascular Forest Purple Coneflower Glade, Roadside, mafic rock purpurea plant Concern

Forest Encalypta procera Extinguisher Moss Moss Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff Concern Entodon Forest Ftattened Entodon Moss Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff compressus Concern Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Forest Entodon sullivantii Sullivant's Entodon Moss Cove Forest in Gorge, rock outcrop by Concern stream in rich cove forest Ephebe americana A Fructicose Lichen Lichen Sensitive High Elevation Rocky Summit

Forest Ephebe lanata A Fructicose Lichen Lichen Stream Concern

Vascular Forest Epilobium ciliatum Purpleleaf Willowherb Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep plant Concern

Euphorbia Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Glade Spurge Sensitive purpurea plant Forest, Mesic oak-hickory

Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet Filipendula rubra Queen-of-the-Prairie plant Concern Meadow Fissidens Appalachian Pocket Moss Sensitive High Elevation streams appalachensis Moss Fontanalis Forest A Water Moss Moss rocks in flowing water sphagnifolia Concern

Frasera Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Columbo caroliniensis plant Concern Forest

Frullania A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest appalachiana

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Frullania A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest oakesiana

Gentianopsis Vascular Forest Fringed Gentian Serpentine Woodland, Glade crinita plant Concern

Vascular Forest Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens Southern Appalachian Bog plant Concern

Lobed Barren- Vascular Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Geum lobatum Sensitive strawberry plant Hickory, Gorge

Vascular Forest Glyceria laxa Lax Mannagrass Seep plant Concern

Northern Hardwood Forest, Smoky Mountain Vascular Glyceria nubigena Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, High Elevation Mannagrass plant Seep, Spruce-Fir Forest High Elevation Rocky Summit, Moist Gymnoderma Endangere Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove in Gorge, Rock Gnome Lichen Lichen lineare d High Elevation Granitic Dome, Spruce- Fir Forest Vascular Forest Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed Woods and thickets, circumneutral soils plant Concern

Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Helianthus Vascular Whiteleaf Sunflower Sensitive Forest, High Elevation Red Oak Forest, glaucophyllus plant Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside

Vascular Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Helonias bullata Swamp Pink Threatened plant Forest-Bog Complex

Herzogiella Forest Flat Stump Moss Moss Acidic Cove Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest turfacea Concern Heterodermia Forest A Foliose Lichen Lichen Mountains? appalachensis Concern

Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Glade, Mesic Oak- Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot plant Concern Hickory, mafic rock

Homalia Forest Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Lime Homalia Moss trichomanoides Concern Cove Forest in Gorge Homaliadelphus Sharp's Moss Sensitive Dry Montane Calcareous Cliff sharpii Homaliadelphus Vascular Forest Huperzia porophila Rock Fir Clubmoss Spray Cliff plant Concern

Hydrastis Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Goldenseal canadensis plant Concern mafic rock Hygrohypnum Closter's Brook- Moss Sensitive Stream closteri hypnum

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Hylocomiastrum Forest trees and rocks in moist forest, mainly Shaded Feather Moss Moss umbratum Concern Spruce-Fir Forest

Hymenophyllum Vascular Gorge Filmy Fern Sensitive Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge tayloriae plant

Hypericum Mountain St. John's- Vascular High Elevation Seep, Wet Meadow, Sensitive graveolens wort plant Grassy Bald

Hypericum Mitchell's St. John's- Vascular High Elevation Seep, Wet Meadow, Sensitive mitchellianum wort plant Grassy Bald

Hypotrachyna Forest A Foliose Lichen Lichen High Elevation Forest sinuosa Concern Hypotrachyna A Foliose Lichen Lichen Sensitive High Elevation Forest virginica Northern Hardwood Forest, Vascular Boulderfield Forest, Southern Ilex collina Long-stalked Holly Sensitive plant Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest Bog Complex White Pine Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Small Whorled Vascular Isotria medeoloides Threatened Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Pogonia plant Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Vascular Forest Jeffersonia diphylla Twin Leaf Rich Cove Forest, mafic rock plant Concern

Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Juglans cinerea Butternut Sensitive plant Montane Alluvial Forest

Juniperus Vascular Forest High Elevation Granitic Dome, Low communis var. Dwarf Juniper plant Concern Elevation Rocky Summit depressa Lejeunea A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff blomquistii Leptodontium Grandfather Mountain Moss Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest excelsum Leptodontium Leptodontium Pale-margined Forest Moss High Elevation Rocky Summit flexifolium Leptodontium Concern Leptoscyphus Forest A Liverwort Liverwort Spruce-Fir Forest cunefolius Concern

Vascular Forest Glade, Montane Oak Woodland, Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star plant Concern Southern Appalachian Fen

Liatris Small-head Blazing Vascular Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Glade, Montane microcephala Star plant Concern Oak Woodland

Shale-barren Blazing Vascular High Elevation Granitic Dome, Liatris turgida Sensitive Star plant Montane Oak Woodland

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Lilium Vascular Forest philadelphicum var. Wood Lily Grassy Bald, Meadow, Glade plant Concern philadelphicum

Vascular Forest Liparis loeselii Fen Orchid Seep, Roadside plant Concern

Lobaria Forest High Elevation Forest primarily Textured Lungwort Lichen scrobiculata Concern Spruce-Fir

Lonicera American Fly- Vascular Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, High canadensis honeysuckle plant Concern Elevation Seep, Boulderfield Forest

Lophocolea A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff appalachiana Lophocolea Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in A Liverwort Liverwort muricata Concern Gorge Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, High Vascular Elevation Granitic, Rich Cove Forest, Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's Loosestrife Sensitive plant Acidic Cove Forest, Roadside, Dry- Mesic Oak Forest Macrocoma Forest Montane Cedar Hardwood Forest, Pine- Moss sullivantii Concern Oak/Heath Forest

Mannia californica A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Dry Montane Acidic Cliff

Marshallia Broadleaf Barbara's Vascular Sensitive Habitat unknown trinervia Buttons plant Marsupella emarginata var. A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff latiloba Forest Marsupella funckii A Liverwort Liverwort High Elevation Rocky Summit Concern Megaceros A Hornwort Hornwort Sensitive Stream aenigmaticus Forest Melanelia stygia A Foliose Lichen Lichen High Elevation Rocky Summit Concern Metzgeria furcata Spruce-Fir Forest, Acidic Cove Forest A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive var. setigera in Gorge Metzgeria A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive High Elevation Forest temperata Northern Hardwood Forest, Montane Micranthes Vascular Carolina Saxifrage Sensitive Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Rocky caroliniana plant Summit

Micropolypodium West Indian Dwarf Vascular Sensitive Spray Cliff nimbatum Polypody plant

Vascular Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, High Milium effusum Millet-grass plant Concern Elevation Red Oak Forest, Grassy Bald

100

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Vascular Forest Grassy Bald, Northern Hardwood Monarda media Purple Bee-balm plant Concern Forest

Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Monotropsis Vascular Sweet Pinesap Sensitive Dry Oak-Hickory,Dry-Mesic Oak odorata plant Forest, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest Forest Mylia tayorii A Liverwort Liverwort Spray Cliff Concern

Nardia lescurii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Acidic Cove Forest adjacent to streams

Vascular Forest Oenothera perennis Perennial Sundrops Southern Appalachian Bog, Roadside plant Concern

Orthodontium Translucent Forest Moss Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff pellucens Orthodontium Concern Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane Cedar- Packera Vascular Divided-leaf Ragwort Sensitive Hardwood Woodland, High Elevation millefolium plant Granitic Dome Palamocladium Forest Palamocladium Moss Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff, Gorge leskeoides Concern Forest Pannaria conoplea A Foliose Lichen Lichen High Elevation Forest Concern

Parnassia Large-leaved Grass- Vascular Forest Seep, Fen, Serpentine Woodland, grandifolia of-parnassus plant Concern Roadside, mafic rock

Parthenium Vascular Forest Glade Wild Quinine Glades, Oak Woodland, mafic rock auriculatum plant Concern

Serpentine Woodland, Southern Pedicularis Vascular Forest Swamp Lousewort Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, Wet lanceolata plant Concern Meadow Pellia A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive rock outcrop near spray Cliff appalachiana

Peltigera venosa An Aquatic Lichen Lichen Sensitive Stream

Vascular Penstemon smallii Small's Beardtongue Sensitive Montane Acidic Cliff plant

Phegopteris Vascular Forest Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest, High Northern Beech Fern connectilis plant Concern Elevation Seep Spray Cliff, Moist Montane Acidic Philonotis cernua Dwarf Apple Moss Moss Sensitive Cliff, Gorge Vascular Forest High Elevation Rocky Summit, Phlox subulata Moss Pink plant Concern Montane Mafic Cliff, mafic rock

Physcia A Foliose Lichen Lichen Sensitive High Elevation Granitic Dome pseudospeciosa

101

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Pilosium Forest moist area on trees in Acidic Cove A Moss Moss chlorophyllum Concern Forest

Plagiochila austinii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Moist Montane Acidic Cliff

Plagiochila Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Outcrop A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive caduciloba in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Plagiochila Forest A Liverwort Liverwort Fraser-Fir Forest corniculata Concern Plagiochila High Elevation Rocky Summit, Rock A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive retrorsa Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Plagiochila Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Outcrop A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive sciophila in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Plagiochila sullivantii var. A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff spinigera Plagiochila Sullivant's Leafy sullivantii var. Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest Liverwort sullivantii Plagiochila Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic virginica var. A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cove Forestin Gorge caroliniana Plagiochila virginica var. A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive on limestone virginica Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Plagiomnium Carolina Star-moss Moss Sensitive Gorge, Streambank, Montane Alluvial carolinianum Forest Plagiomnium Long-beaked Thread Forest Moss wet rocks rostratum Moss Concern

Platanthera flava Northern Green Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp var. herbiola Orchid plant Concern Forest-Bog Complex

High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Platanthera Large Purple-fringed Vascular Forest Roadside, Northern Hardwood Forest, grandiflora Orchid plant Concern Southern Appalachian Bog Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Platanthera Purple Fringeless Vascular Forest Marsh, rocky bar and shore, Montane peramoena Orchid plant Concern Alluvial Forest Plathynidium Long-beaked Water Forest moist hardwood forest, coniferous Moss riparioides Feather Moss Concern swamps

Vascular Forest Poa palustris Swamp Bluegrass Grassy Bald, Spruce-Fir Forest plant Concern

Spherical Bulb Forest Pohlia lescuriana Moss wet, noncalcareous soil in open areas Nodding Moss Concern Polytrichum Appalachian Haircap Moss Sensitive Rocky Summits, mid to high elevation appalachianum Moss Porella japonica A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff ssp. appalachiana

102

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Porella Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive wataugensis Gorge Northern Hardwood Forest, Grassy Prenanthes Vascular Roan Rattlesnakeroot Sensitive Bald, Meadow, Roadside, High roanensis plant Elevation Red Oak Forest

Pycnanthemum Beadle's Mountain- Vascular Sensitive rock outcrops, Oak woodlands beadlei mint plant

Pycnanthemum Torrey's Mountain- Vascular Sensitive Xeric Oak-Hickory, Glade torreyi mint plant

Vascular Xeric Oak-Hickory, Pine-Oak/Heath Quercus prinoides Dwarf Chinqupin Oak Watch plant Forest, Glade

Racomitrium Dark Mountain Fringe Forest wet acidic rock in shaded areas, Acidic Moss aciculare Moss Concern Cove Forest Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Radula sullivantii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cove Forest in Gorge

Radula voluta A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff

Rhabdoweisia Himalayan Ribbed- Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Moss creulata weissia Concern Gorge

Rhododendron Vascular Forest Grassy Bald, Heath Bald, High Cumberland Azalea cumberlandense plant Concern Elevation Red Oak Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, High Rhododendron Vascular Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Pink-shell Azalea Sensitive vaseyi plant Bog, Meadow, Roadside, Mesic Oak Forest, Granitic Rhytidadelphus Forest wet substrates in swamps and moist A Moss Moss subpinnatus Concern forests, streams, waterfalls Rotten Logs in Acidic Cove Forest in Riccardia jugata A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge Northern Hardwood Forest, Acidic Robinia hispida var Vascular Forest Fruitful Locust Cove Forest, High Elevation Granitic fertilis plant Concern Dome, Dry-Mesic Oak

Robinia viscosa var Vascular High Elevation Granitic Dome, Clammy Locust Sensitive viscosa plant woodlands, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Robinia viscosa Vascular Hartweg's Locust Sensitive High Elevation Granitic Dome var. hartwigii plant

Rubus idaeus ssp. Vascular Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Red Raspberry strigosus plant Concern Boulderfield Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest

Vascular Rugelia nudicaulis Rugel's Ragwort Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest plant

103

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Sarracenia Southern Appalachian Vascular Forest purpurea var. mountain bogs, seepage bogs Purple Pitcherplant plant Concern montana

Sceptridium Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Alabama Grape Fern Sensitive jenmanii plant Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Southern Sceptridium Blunt-lobed Grape Vascular Forest Appalachian Bog, Montane Alluvial oneidense Fern plant Concern Forest, Mesic Oak Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Schlotheimia Highlands Moss Moss Sensitive Forest, Hemlock Hardwood Forest, lancifolia Highlands Plateau, Gorge Scopelophila Agoyan Cataract Moss Moss Sensitive Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides cataractae Scopelophila Forest Copper Moss Moss Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides ligulata Concern

Sedum Vascular Forest Cliff Stonecrop Montane Cedar-Hardwood Woodland glaucophyllum plant Concern

Shortia galacifolia Southern Oconee Vascular Sensitive Acidic Cove Forest, Streambank, Gorge var. galacifolia Bells plant

Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly Sensitive plant Roadside, mafic rock

Huger's Carrion- Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Smilax hugeri flower plant Concern mafic rock, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Solidago rigida var. Prairie Bold Vascular Forest Montane Oak Woodland, Glade, rigida Goldenrod plant Concern Roadside, mafic rock

Granite Dome Vascular Solidago simulans Sensitive High Elevation Granitic Dome Goldenrod plant

Vascular Forest High Elevation Seep, Southern Solidago uliginosa Bog Goldenrod plant Concern Appalachian Bog

Vascular Forest Solidago ulmifolia Elm-leaf Goldenrod wooded stream banks plant Concern

Sphagnum Forest Narrowleaf Peatmoss Moss Southern Appalachian Bog angustifolium Concern Forest Sphagnum fallax Pretty Peatmoss Moss Southern Appalachian Bog Concern Sphagnum A Peatmoss Moss Sensitive Seeps on Rock or Spray Cliffs flavicomans Forest Sphagnum pylaesii Simple Peatmoss Moss Spray Cliff, Pool Concern

104

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Forest Sphagnum russowii Russow's Peatmoss Moss Southern Appalachian Bog Concern Sphagnum Forest Squarrose Peatmoss Moss Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest Seep squarrosum Concern Forest Sphagnum tenellum Delicate Peatmoss Moss High Elevation Granitic Dome Concern Sphenolobopsis A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Fraser-Fir Forest pearsonii

Vascular Riverside scour zone, Montane Alluvial Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea Threatened plant Forest Splachnum Southern Dung Moss Moss Sensitive Southern Appalachian Bog pennsylvanicum Sporobolus Vascular Forest Prairie Dropseed Serpentine Woodland heterolepis plant Concern

Clingman's Hedge- Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Stachys clingmanii Sensitive nettle plant Boulderfield Forest

Vascular Forest Stachys eplingii Epling's Hedge-nettle Southern Appalachian Bog plant Concern

Vascular Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Stewartia ovata Mountain Camellia plant Concern Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Powdered Moon Sticta limbata Lichen Sensitive High Elevation Forest Lichen High Elevation Seep, Northern Streptopus Vascular Forest White Mandarin Hardwood Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest, amplexifolius plant Concern Boulderfield Forest

Vascular Forest Synandra hispidula Synandra Rich Cove Forest, mafic rock plant Concern Taxiphyllum Japanese Yew-moss Moss Sensitive Spray Cliff, mafic rock alternans Thaspium Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Basic Montane Oak- Mountain Thaspium Sensitive pinnatifidum plant Hickory, Roadside, mafic rock

Dry Oak Forest, Montane Oak Thermopsis Ash-leaved Gloden- Vascular Sensitive Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath, Dry-Mesic fraxinifolia banner plant Oak Forest Tortula Moist Montane Mafic Cliff, mafic rock Ammon's Tortula Moss Sensitive ammonsiana in Rich Cove Forest Forest Moist Montane Mafic Cliff, mafic rock Tortula fragilis Fragile Tortula Moss Concern in Rich Cove Forest

Vascular Forest Triantha glutinosa Sticky Bog Asphodel Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep plant Concern

105

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIES COMMON NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Trichomanes Appalachian Filmy- Vascular Forest Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge boschianum fern plant Concern

Trichomanes Vascular Forest Dwarf Filmy-fern Montane Acidic Cliff, Grotto, Gorge petersii plant Concern

Trichophorum Vascular Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Deerhair Bulrush cespitosum plant Concern Granitic Dome

Vascular Forest Trillium discolor Mottled Trillium Rich Cove Forest, Gorge plant Concern

Vascular Forest Trillium flexipes Bent White Trillium Rich Cove Forest plant Concern

Southern Nodding Vascular Trillium rugelii Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, low elevation Trillium plant

Vascular Trillium simile Sweet White Trillium Sensitive Rich Cove Forest plant

Forest juniper branches on high elevation Usnea angulata Old Man's Beard Lichen Concern granitic domes

Vaccinium Northern Lowbush Vascular Forest High Elevation Acidic Forests and angustifolium Blueberry plant Concern Woodlands, Cliffs

Vascular Forest Open woods over mafic or calcareous Viola walteri Prostrate Blue Violet plant Concern rock, serpentine

Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Viola walteri var. Vascular Appalachian Violet Sensitive Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- appalachiensis plant Hickory Forest Warnstorfia fluitans Floating Sickle-moss Moss Spray Cliff Concern Xanthoparmelia A Foliose Lichen Lichen Sensitive High Elevation Rocky Summit monticola

106

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 Carolina northern flying squirrel (Endangered) hardwood 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) 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 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’

107

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Species Type Habitat 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 Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Mountain chorus frog

108

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Species Type Habitat 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 Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with hardwoods; Smyth’s green comma host plants: mainly birches

109

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Species Type Habitat 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 rafinesquii 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

110

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

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 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 melanoleucus Northern pine snake Sternotherus minor Reptile Streams and rivers in Mississippi drainage Loggerhead musk turtle

Attachment 3a: Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Terrestrial Wildlife Species that occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest

Species Type Habitat Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Microhexura montivaga Arachnid In moss of spruce-fir forests (endemic to NC and adjacent TN) Spruce-fir moss spider Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Mammal High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir and northern hardwood above 4,000’ Carolina northern flying squirrel Myotis grisescens Mammal Roosts in caves; forages mainly over open water Gray bat Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and snags (warmer months); in caves (winter months) Indiana bat Patera clarki nantahala Terrestrial Gastropod Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site in Swain Co) Noonday globe 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 area) Lost Nantahala cave spider Nesticus mimus Arachnid Rocky areas; known from Grandfather Mountain and Table Rock; also in VA

111

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

a cave spider Nesticus sheari Arachnid On ground in moist or rich forests (apparently endemic to Graham Co); Known from Joyce Kilmer Wilderness and a cave spider Wright Creek Nesticus silvanus Arachnid Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to southern mountains); Known from Water Rock Knob, Jackson County at a cave spider 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 winter) Peregrine falcon Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Mature forests near large bodies of water (for nesting); lakes and sounds Bald eagle Thryomanes bewickii altus Bird Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy fields at high elevations [breeding season only] Appalachian Bewick’s wren Trechus carolinae Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from the summit of Mt. Mitchell a ground beetle Trechus luculentus unicoi Beetle Apparently the mountains of Graham Co; known from Clingman’s Dome in Swain Co, Haw Knob and Laurel Top in a ground beetle Monroe Co, TN and Graham Co, NC above 5,200’ Trechus mitchellensis Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from Celo Mountain and Mt. Mitchell, Yancey Co, Balsam Gap, Buncombe a ground beetle Co, and Pinnacle Mountain, McDowell Co usually between 5,000-5,500’ Trechus rosenbergi Beetle Plott Balsam and Great Balsam mountains (endemic to NC); Known from Water Rock Knob, Haywood and Jackson Counties and a ground beetle Richland Balsam, Haywood Co above 6,000’ Trechus satanicus Beetle Vicinity of Devils Courthouse and Graveyard Fields (endemic to NC) a ground beetle Callophrys irus Butterfly Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; host plants: lupines (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia) Frosted elfin Speyeria diana Butterfly Montane and foothill forest edges and openings; host plant: violets (Viola) Diana fritillary Melanoplus divergens Grasshopper/ Katydid Glades and balds, 1,800-4,717’ Divergent melanoplus Melanoplus serrulatus Grasshopper/ Katydid Valley and lower slopes in the Nantahala Mountains Serrulate melanoplus Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshopper/ Katydid Mature oak, hickory, and maple forests Northern bush 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 carolinensis Mammal Rocky areas at high elevations, forests or fields Southern rock vole Myotis leibii Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and in rock crevices (warmer months), in caves and mines (winter) Eastern small-footed bat Sorex palustris punctulatus Mammal Stream banks in montane forest with rhododendron cover Southern water shrew Pallifera hemphilli Terrestrial Gastropod High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir Black mantleslug Paravitrea placentula Terrestrial Gastropod Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines Glossy supercoil Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets Bog turtle Forest Concern Species Ambystoma talpoideum Amphibian Breeds in fish-free semi-permanent woodland ponds; forages in adjacent woodlands Mole salamander Aneides aeneus Amphibian Damp, shaded crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in deciduous forests (southern mountains) Green salamander Desmognathus aeneus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme southwestern counties Seepage salamander Desmognathus folkertsi Amphibian Small streams and seeps in forests (Clay) Dwarf blackbelly salamander Desmognathus imitator Amphibian Cool, moist high elevation hardwood or spruce-fir forests; nearly confined to Great Smoky Mountains National Park Imitator salamander Desmognathus wrighti Amphibian Mid- to high elevation forests, often in spruce-fir; west of the French Broad River Southern pigmy salamander 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 border (Clay) Chattahoochee slimy salamander Plethodon cheoah Amphibian Mesic forests on Cheoah Bald (endemic to this area) Cheoah Bald salamander 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 Transylvania Counties, NC and Oconee Co, SC a nesticid spider Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 Bird Spruce-fir forests or mixed hardwood/spruce forests (for nesting) [breeding season only] Northern saw-whet owl – 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 and habitat only’

112

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Black-billed cuckoo Contopus cooperi Bird Montane conifer forests (mainly spruce-fir) with openings or dead trees [breeding season only] Olive-side flycatcher 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 only] Southern Appalachian black-capped chickadee Setophaga cerulea Bird Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in mountains [breeding season only] Cerulean warbler Setophaga coronata Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands [breeding season only] Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga magnolia Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands [breeding season only] Magnolia warbler Sphyrapicus varius Bird Mature, open hardwoods with scattered dead trees Yellow-bellied sapsucker 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 only] Blue-winged warbler Vireo gilvus Bird Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams [breeding season only] Warbling vireo 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 (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Golden banded skipper Celastrina nigra Butterfly Rich, moist deciduous forests; host plant: goat’s beard (Aruncus dioicus) Dusky azure Chlosyne gorgone Butterfly Woodland openings and borders; host plants: sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites Gorgone checkerspot Erynnis martialis Butterfly Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) Mottled duskywing Euchloe olympia Butterfly High elevation openings and glades; host plants: cresses (Arabis) Olympia marble Euphydryas phaeton Butterfly Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland woods; host plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove (Aureolaria) Baltimore checkerspot Papilio cresphontes Butterfly Primarily coastal in maritime forests or thickets; also in foothills and mountains near hoptree; host plants: prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum) and hoptree Giant swallowtail (Ptelea) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Butterfly Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at higher elevations; host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum Tawny crescent Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with hardwoods; host plants: mainly birches Smyth’s green comma Polygonia progne Butterfly Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly gooseberries (Ribes) Gray comma Satyrium caryaevorus Butterfly Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host plants: primarily hickories (Carya) Hickory hairstreak Satyrium edwardsii Butterfly Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly oaks (Quercus) Edward’s hairstreak Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja Butterfly Forest openings and edges west of the Little Tennessee River; host plants: violets (Viola) Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary 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 (Collinsonia canadensis) Yellow stoneroot borer moth Corynorhinus rafinesquii 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 Gastropod Cove hardwoods Queen crater Fumonelix jonesiana Terrestrial Gastropod Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Newfound Gap area of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Big-tooth covert Fumonelix orestes Terrestrial Gastropod Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Plott Balsam mountains (endemic to this area) Engraved covert Fumonelix wheatley clingmanicus Terrestrial Gastropod Clingman’s Dome region of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Clingman’s covert

113

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Glyphyalinia junaluska Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Dark glyph Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Pink glyph Haplotrema kendeighi Terrestrial Gastropod Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’; southwestern mountains Blue-footed lancetooth Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Gastropod Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) Spiral coil Helicodiscus fimbriatus Terrestrial Gastropod Rocky soils; extreme southwestern corner of the state Fringed coil Helicodiscus saludensis Terrestrial Gastropod No habitat or locality data Corncob snail Inflectarius ferrissi Terrestrial Gastropod Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Great Smoky Mountains and Plott Balsams (endemic to these ranges) Smoky Mountain covert Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Gastropod Forests (Swain) a snail Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Gastropod Wooded river bluffs and ravines Club supercoil Paravitrea clappi Terrestrial Gastropod High elevations in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Mirey Ridge supercoil Paravitrea lacteodens Terrestrial Gastropod Leaf litter on mountainsides in Graham County (endemic to this area) Ramp Cove supercoil Paravitrea lamellidens Terrestrial Gastropod Southern half of the mountains; deep moist leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines, affinity to rock talus Lamellate supersoil Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Gastropod Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme southwestern mountains Open supercoil Patera clarki clarki Terrestrial Gastropod Forested mountainsides Dwarf proud globe Pilsbryna nodopalma Terrestrial Gastropod Rock outcrops and rocky hillsides Oar tooth bud Stenotrema depilatum Terrestrial Gastropod Great Smoky Mountains National Park (essentially endemic to this area) Great Smoky slitmouth Striatura exigua Terrestrial Gastropod Swampy woods and moist forests Ribbed striate Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern mountains Appalachian gloss Eumeces anthracinus Reptile Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, roadbanks Coal skink Graptemys geographica Reptile Rivers in the Hiwassee system Common map turtle Pituophis melanoleucus 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

Attachment 3b: Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Forest Concern wildlife species that are known to occur or may occur within the Copeland Project wildlife analysis area

Species Type Habitat Description Further Analyzed Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and snags (warmer months); in caves (winter months) Yes3 Indiana bat Patera clarki nantahala Terrestrial Gastropod Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site in Swain Co) No4 Noonday globe Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Desmognathus santeetlah Amphibian Stream headwaters and seepage areas; southwestern mountains Yes3 Santeetlah dusky salamander Plethodon teyahalee Amphibian Moist forests at all elevations Yes3 Southern Appalachian salamander Nesticus cooperi Arachnid Caves and along Nantahala River (apparently endemic to this area) No4 Lost Nantahala cave spider Nesticus silvanus Arachnid Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to southern mountains); Known from Water Rock Knob, JacksonYes County3 at a cave spider 5,800’; Ellijay Creek, Macon County at 2,500’; Steestachee Bald, Haywood County at 4,799’ Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Mature forests near large bodies of water (for nesting); lakes and sounds Yes2 Bald eagle Thryomanes bewickii altus Bird Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy fields at high elevations [breeding season only] Yes3 Appalachian Bewick’s wren Speyeria diana Butterfly Montane and foothill forest edges and openings; host plant: violets (Viola) Yes1 Diana fritillary Melanoplus serrulatus Grasshopper/ Katydid Valley and lower slopes in the Nantahala Mountains No5

114

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Serrulate melanoplus Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshopper/ Katydid Mature oak, hickory, and maple forests Yes3 Northern bush katydid Myotis leibii Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and in rock crevices (warmer months), in caves and mines (winter) Yes2 Eastern small-footed bat Sorex palustris punctulatus Mammal Stream banks in montane forest with rhododendron cover Yes3 Southern water shrew Paravitrea placentula Terrestrial Gastropod Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines Yes3 Glossy supercoil Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets No4 Bog turtle Forest Concern Species Ambystoma talpoideum Amphibian Breeds in fish-free semi-permanent woodland ponds; forages in adjacent woodlands Yes3 Mole salamander Aneides aeneus Amphibian Damp, shaded crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in deciduous forests (southern mountains) Yes3 Green salamander Desmognathus aeneus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme southwestern counties Yes2 Seepage salamander Desmognathus wrighti Amphibian Mid- to high elevation forests, often in spruce-fir; west of the French Broad River Yes3 Southern pigmy salamander Eurycea longicauda Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Yes2 Longtail salamander Setophaga cerulea Bird Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in mountains [breeding season only] Yes2 Cerulean warbler Sphyrapicus varius Bird Mature, open hardwoods with scattered dead trees Yes2 Yellow-bellied sapsucker Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Old fields and successional hardwoods [breeding season only] Yes2 Golden-winged warbler Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Low elevation brushy fields and thickets [breeding season only] Yes3 Blue-winged warbler Vireo gilvus Bird Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams [breeding season only] Yes2 Warbling vireo Autochton cellus Butterfly Moist woods near streams; host plant: hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Yes2 Golden banded skipper Celastrina nigra Butterfly Rich, moist deciduous forests; host plant: goat’s beard (Aruncus dioicus) Yes3 Dusky azure Chlosyne gorgone Butterfly Woodland openings and borders; host plants: sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites Yes3 Gorgone checkerspot Erynnis martialis Butterfly Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) Yes3 Mottled duskywing Euchloe olympia Butterfly High elevation openings and glades; host plants: cresses (Arabis) No5 Olympia marble Euphydryas phaeton Butterfly Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland woods; host plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxgloveNo 5 Baltimore checkerspot (Aureolaria) Phyciodes batesii maconensisButterfly Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at higher elevations; host plants: asters, mainly SymphyotrichumYes 2 Tawny crescent undulatum Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with hardwoods; host plants: mainly birches Yes2 Smyth’s green comma Polygonia progne Butterfly Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly gooseberries (Ribes) No5 Gray comma Satyrium caryaevorus Butterfly Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host plants: primarily hickories (Carya) Yes3 Hickory hairstreak Satyrium edwardsii Butterfly Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly oaks (Quercus) Yes3 Edward’s hairstreak Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja Butterfly Forest openings and edges west of the Little Tennessee River; host plants: violets (Viola) Yes3 Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary Melanoplus decoratus Grasshopper Dry woodlands Yes3 Decorated melanoplus Melanapamea mixta Moth Savannas, wet meadows No5 a noctuid moth Merolonche dolli Moth Dry oak woodlands (Macon) No5 a noctuid moth Papaipema astuta Moth Open oak woodland and barrens; host plant: stoneroot (Collinsonia canadensis) Yes3 Yellow stoneroot borer moth Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquiiMammal Roosts in caves, mines, and hollow trees, usually near water Yes3 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Sylvilagus obscurus Mammal Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Yes3 Appalachian cottontail

115

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods Yes3 Queen crater Glyphyalinia junaluska Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Yes3 Dark glyph Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Yes3 Pink glyph Haplotrema kendeighi Terrestrial Gastropod Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’; southwestern mountains Yes3 Blue-footed lancetooth Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Gastropod Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) Yes2 Spiral coil Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Gastropod Forests (Swain) Yes3 a snail Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Gastropod Wooded river bluffs and ravines No5 Club supercoil Paravitrea lamellidens Terrestrial Gastropod Southern half of the mountains; deep moist leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines, affinity to rock talusYes 3 Lamellate supersoil Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Gastropod Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme southwestern mountains Yes3 Open supercoil Patera clarki clarki Terrestrial Gastropod Forested mountainsides Yes3 Dwarf proud globe Pilsbryna nodopalma Terrestrial Gastropod Rock outcrops and rocky hillsides Yes3 Oar tooth bud Striatura exigua Terrestrial Gastropod Swampy woods and moist forests No5 Ribbed striate Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Gastropod Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern mountains Yes3 Appalachian gloss Eumeces anthracinus Reptile Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, roadbanks Yes2 Coal skink 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.

116

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

5.4 Appendix B – AREA MAPS

117

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

118

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

119

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

120

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

121

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

122

Post-harvest Vine Control Project Environmental Assessment

123