Botanical Resources And

Home , Acmispon, Agastache nepetoides, Amianthium, Catalogue of Life, Cicuta virosa, Cleistes

United States Department of Agriculture Botanical Resources and

Forest Service

September 2019 Rare Communities Report

Foothills Landscape Project

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Habersham, Lumpkin, Murray, Rabun, and White Counties, Georgia

For Information Contact: James Rickard, Forest Ecologist and Botanist Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, 1755 Cleveland Hwy, Gainesville Georgia, 30501 (706) 297-3070

InIn accordance accordance with with Fed Federaleral civil civil rights rights law law and and U.S. U.S . DepartmentDepartment of of Agri Agricultureculture (USDA) (USDA) civil civil rights rights regulationsregulations and and policies, policies, the the USDA, USDA, its its Agencies, Agencies, offices,offices, and and employees, employees, and and institutions institutions participating in participatingor administering in or USDAadministering programs USDA are prohibitedprograms fromare discriminatingprohibited from based discriminating on race, color, based national on race, origin,color, religion, national sex, origin, gender religion, identity sex, (including gender identity gender expression),(including gender sexual expression),orientation, disability, sexual orientation, age, maritaldisability, status, age, family/parental marital status, status, family income/parental derived fromstatus, a public income assistance derived program,from a public political assistance beliefs, or reprisalprogram, or retaliation political beliefs, for prior or civilreprisal rights or activity, retaliation in anyfor program prior civil or rights activity activity, conducted in any or program funded byor USDAactivity (not conducted all bases orapply funded to all by programs) USDA (not. all Remediesbases apply and to complaint all programs) filing .deadlines Remedies vary and by programcomplaint or incidentfiling deadlines. vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative meansPersons of communication with disabilities for who program require informati alternativeon (e.g.,means Braille, of communication large print, audiotape, for program American information Sign Language,(e.g., Braille, etc.) large should print, contact audiotape, the responsible American Sign AgencyLanguage, or USDA’s etc.) should TARGET contact Center the atresponsible (202) 720 - 2600Agency (voice or andUSDA’s TTY) TARGET or contact Center USDA at through (202) 720 the- Federal2600 (voice Relay andService TTY) at or (800) contact 877 USDA-8339. through the Additionally,Federal Relay pro gramService information at (800) 877may-8339 be made. availableAdditionally, in languages program other information than English may be. made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete theTo USDA file a programProgram discriminationDiscrimination complaint, Complaint Form, ADcomplete-3027, found the USDA online Program at Discrimination http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htmlComplaint Form, AD-3027, found online at andhttp://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htm at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDAl and andat any provide USDA in office the letter or write all of a theletter information requestedaddressed in tothe USDA form. and To requestprovide ain copy the letter of the all of complaintthe information form, call requested (866) 632 in- the9992 form. Submit. To request your completeda copy of formthe complaint or letter to form, USDA call by: (866) (1) mail:632- 9992U.S. . DepartmentSubmit your of completedAgriculture, form Office or letterof the to Assistant USDA by: Secretary(1) mail: forU.S Civil. Department Rights, 1400 of Agriculture,Independence Office of Avenue,the Assistant SW, Washington, Secretary for D.C Civil. 20250 Rights,-9410; 1400 (2) fax: (202)Independence 690-7442; orAvenue, (3) email: SW, Washington, D.C. [email protected]; (2) fax: (202). 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, andUSDA lender. is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Table of Contents Botanical Resources and Rare Communities Report ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Management Direction ...... 1 Methodology ...... 2 Species Identified for Analysis ...... 3 Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species ...... 3

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) ...... 3

Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 4

Locally Rare Species ...... 4

Sources of Information ...... 4

Species Analyzed in Detail ...... 4

Habitat Elements ...... 5

Rare Communities ...... 5

Species Evaluation and Determination ...... 6

Analysis Indicators and Measures ...... 6 Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 7

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) ...... 7

Locally Rare Species ...... 10

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area ...... 10 Affected Environment ...... 10 Rare Communities, Habitat Elements, and Associated Species, ...... 11

Appalachian Highlands Riverine Vegetation...... 12

Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds...... 12

River Channels...... 16

Late-Successional Riparian ...... 17

Canebrakes ...... 19

Basic Mesic Forest ...... 20

Rock Outcrops and Cliffs ...... 21

Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests ...... 23

Mature Hemlock Forests ...... 26

Mature Oak Forest ...... 27

Early Successional Forest ...... 28

Canopy Gaps ...... 29

Glades, Barrens, and Associated Woodlands ...... 29

Table Mountain Pine Forest ...... 33

Caves and Mines ...... 33

Environmental Consequences ...... 34 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 38

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects...... 38

Cumulative Effects ...... 38

Determination of Effects ...... 43

Alternative 2 ...... 49

Project Design Features ...... 49

Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 49

Cumulative Effects ...... 58

Determination of Effects ...... 67

Literature Cited ...... 78 Appendix A – Evaluation of Actions and Activities from Alternative 2 ...... AP1 Appendix B - Botanical Species List Considered for Evaluation ...... AP7

List of Tables Table 1 Rare Communities Listed in the Forest Plan Considered for this Report ...... 5

Table 2 Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Endangered Species Act Species and Management Indicator Species in the Foothills Landscape Project Area ...... 7

Table 3. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Foothills Landscape Project Area ...... 8

Table 4 Estimated Level of Effects to Rare Communities for Both Alternatives ...... 34

Table 5 Effects of Alternative 1 on Habitat Elements ...... 40

Table 6 Miles and Estimated Acres of Trail within the Foothills Landscape Project Area Designated by Primary Use ...... 52

Table 7 Alternative 2 Activities Potentially Affecting Riparian Corridor (100 Feet of Perennial and Intermittent Streams) ...... 54

Table 8 Alternative 2 Effects on Analysis Indicators ...... 64

iii Botanical and Rare Communities Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Botanical Resources and Rare Communities Report ______

Introduction The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests (CONF) is planning an effort designed to restore the biological integrity, resilience to disturbance, connectivity, and soil and water quality across the Foothills Landscape. The proposed activities would help move National Forest System (NFS) lands in these areas towards desired conditions described in the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2004a) (Forest Plan or LRMP), which is incorporated by reference. Specifically, the CONF is seeking to enhance and provide quality habitat for rare and declining species, as well as desired game and non-game species; to reduce hazardous fuel loading across the landscape to diminish damaging wildfires; to improve soil and water quality; to provide sustainable recreation and access opportunities; and to awaken and strengthen a connection to these lands for all people. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the Foothills Landscape Project (FLP) and to assess effects of management on botanical resources including federally-protected species (including proposed, endangered, threatened or candidate species) (T&E), the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) list, and management indicator species (MIS) as identified in the Forest Plan. This report also evaluates locally rare species and rare communities, the management of, or the treatments and proposed actions that may affect these communities in relation to the Forest Plan.

Management Direction The LRMP provides the principal management direction relevant to management of botanical resources and rare communities on the Forest. The LRMP provides goals, objectives, and standards for land management that are consistent with pertinent laws and guidance such as the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq], and the Forest Service Manual (FSM) (FSM 2670). The following is a summary of the laws and direction related to botanical resources: • NFMA requires the Forest Service (USFS) to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of all native botanical species and conserve all T&E populations (36 CFR 219.19). • ESA requires the USFS to manage for the recovery of T&E species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are also required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a T&E species. • FSM direction provides additional guidance for T&E species. It also requires that the USFS identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species (FSM 2670).

1 Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

• The FSM directs the Regional Forester to identify sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern. Under FSM 2670.32, the manual gives direction to analyze, if impacts cannot be avoided, the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. Only alternatives that do not lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability can be selected. The preceding pertinent laws and direction provides the basis for this project in conserving botanical resources and enhancing biologic integrity. The purpose of ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Through consultation with the USFWS, the project is designed to minimize impacts to T&E species while improving habitat for those species over the long term. For RFSS, this project is designed to improve the habitat that would, in turn, aid in improving species viability and meet the goal of conserving those species. This project is also designed to enhance rare communities and provide a diversity of habitat for MIS, locally rare, and many other species that are not identified in any of the mentioned species lists. The FLP Proposed Action (Alternative 2) includes numerous activities that enhance the biologic integrity of botanical resources and habitats in the FLP area, including: • Restoration and maintenance of rare communities (woodland communities, wetlands and bogs, Table Mountain pine, canebrakes); • Restoration and maintenance of declining native pine communities (shortleaf and pitch pine); • Restoration and maintenance of oak and oak/pine communities; • Expanding the role of fire as a key to ecological restoration; • Improving forest structure and function in ways which affect botanical habitat (woodland communities, canopy gap creation, young forest creation, thinning); • Increasing and improving permanent openings across the project area; and • Ensuring project activities do not promote the introduction or spread of non-native invasive species.

Methodology Methodology for the following analysis includes field review of this project and adjacent projects that were previously implemented, review of the latest scientific research and literature, spatial data (Geographic Information Systems), and local expertise from USFS specialists along with many other specialists from other organizations that have helped with the planning of this project. All these resources were used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Professional judgment is the method used to forecast effects. This judgment is backed by applying the most applicable scientific information related to botanical resources and habitats in the project area, through experience assessing impacts from proposed activities to botanical resources and habitats, and through interaction with subject matter experts and informal consultation with the USFWS and Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR). The

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project proposed action and alternatives in the FLP, include actions the CONF has been implementing over the past decade and therefore effects may be reasonably forecasted. The following analysis uses several terms that could be interpreted in various ways, so the following definitions are used for this discussion: Project area – The project area is the maximum extent of where actions could be planned for the FLP. The project area is sometimes referred to as the project boundary. Analysis area – The analysis area is a biologically relevant spatial extent where a species may experience direct or indirect effects resulting from project actions. The analysis area is often specific to a species, although multiple species may have the same analysis area because of similar habitat associations. Treatment area – The treatment area is the spatial extent where a project action(s) is proposed to occur. Sometimes treatment areas are broken into smaller components and are called treatment units, but the general action remains the same as the treatment area. Project actions or proposed actions – Project actions and proposed actions are used interchangeably. The proposed actions generically represent all the actions described in the proposed action of the project such as thinning a stand of trees or a prescribed burn. High potential for occupancy – High potential for occupancy is used to quickly reference the areas that contain sufficient quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat to support individuals or populations of a particular species.

Species Identified for Analysis The information provided in this section were the methods used to identify the T&E, RFSS, and MIS species and/or its associated habitat that were analyzed in the effect analysis. Locally rare species were evaluated to assess whether the proposed alternatives were consistent with LRMP goals, objectives, and standards. However, locally rare were not analyzed in detail in this report. The following information provides a more specific process for identifying those species analyzed in this report. Detailed information about each species is listed in Appendix B.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species To determine which T&E species were known to occur, or may potentially occur, within the project area, we used the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ to generate a list of T&E species that may occur in the project area (USFWS 2019), (see Appendix B). The IPaC system provides a list of those species that may occur in the general area of the project. Only four T&E were analyzed in detail (Table 2).

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) The recently updated RFSS list (updated February 2, 2018) was used as the starting list for evaluation (see Appendix B). The RFSS list is generated for each of the forests or aggregation of forests in the region. We used the CONF’s RFSS list, and each of those species were evaluated to determine which may be affected by the project. However, only 18 species from the RFSS list were analyzed in detail (Table 3).

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Management Indicator Species (MIS) MIS identified in the LRMP (pg. 2-5) were evaluated for this project. Although the LRMP identifies specific species, those species are associated with particular habitat types (called “community indicator species”). Those habitats are the focus of this analysis. In other words, the MIS list includes species that may occur in the project area, but the habitat associated with those species may not occur within the project area. For this situation, only those species where the associated habitat (as identified in the LRMP) occurs in the project area were evaluated in this report.

Locally Rare Species The LRMP Goal 19 describes the need to “contribute to the conservation of State-identified locally rare species in cooperation with the GaDNR.” The State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) describes high priority species for GaDNR, some of which are also listed as T&E or RFSS which have a higher standard for analysis and protection. All SWAP high priority species are evaluated under the category with the highest category for analysis and protection, any high priority SWAP species not evaluated as a T&E or RFSS was evaluated as locally rare. Neither the LRMP nor any other law or regulation specifically identifies the need for an effect analysis for these species. For the purpose of this project, the locally rare species were qualitatively evaluated to determine whether the project would need further protective measures to meet the LRMP goal and standard (see Appendix B).

Sources of Information Generally, the species analyzed in this report are those (T&E, RFSS, and MIS) species with a range that overlaps the project area, and habitat that is also likely to exist in the project area. To determine which rare species are known to occur or may potentially occur within the project boundaries, the following resources were consulted: • the Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP) element occurrence records; • USFS plant inventory records; and • Biologists from Federal, State, and other professional organizations.

Species Analyzed in Detail After evaluating the botanical T&E, RFSS, MIS, and Locally Rare species that may occur on the CONF, a subset of those species were analyzed in detail because the project could affect those species. The remaining species were not likely to occur in the project area or were determined to not be affected by the project. A total of 22 rare species, including four T&E (including one MIS) and 18 RFSS, occur in the vicinity of the project area and would be analyzed in detail. Only one botanical MIS is designated in the LRMP (smooth coneflower) and occurs within the project area, but this species is also on the T&E list as well. For the purpose of this report, smooth coneflower would be analyzed as part of the T&E species, which would also meet the requirements of the MIS analysis.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Elements Habitat elements exhibit the habitat characteristics (composition, structure, and function) necessary to support vigorous populations of species characteristic of the community, including relevant federally listed species and species at risk of losing viability, and ecological disturbances are at the frequency and intensity needed to maintain desired habitat characteristics. Habitat characteristics are generally maintained by natural process in large landscapes; however, in many cases environmental factors have changed to the extent that natural processes are inhibited from maintaining the desired habitat characteristics. Where natural processes are inhibited, management activities used to restore or maintain desired conditions, such as prescribed burning or vegetation cutting, may be evident. To remain consistent with the method used to assess the effects to viability of botanical species during Forest Plan revision (USDA-FS 2004b, pages 3-332-359), changes in habitat elements would be evaluated in order to assess effects to each species. To simplify the description of the preferred habitat/community utilized by each species, Table 2 and Table 3 lists habitat elements (vegetation community types, successional stages, rare communities, and/or habitat attributes) associated with each species. The following is a list of habitat elements that support botanical T&E, RFSS, MIS, and Locally Rare species in the analysis area: Bogs, fens, seeps and seasonal ponds; open wetlands; river channels; glades and barrens; Table Mountain Pine Forest; basic mesic forest; rock outcrops and cliffs; spray cliffs; grassy balds; canebrakes; mature mesic hardwood forest; mature high- elevation mesic hardwood forest; mature hemlock; mature oak forest; early-successional forest; canopy gaps; woodlands, savannas, and grasslands; and late successional riparian.

Rare Communities Rare communities are assemblages of plants and animals that occupy a small portion of the landscape but contribute significantly to plant and animal diversity. They generally are limited in number of occurrences, are small in size, and have relatively discrete boundaries. Some rare communities also function as habitat elements. Rare communities, wherever they occur on the forest, would be managed to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. Alternatives would be assessed to determine that the project is consistent with the LRMP. The LRMP requires all rare communities to be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription, wherever they occur on the CONF. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. The following table (Table 1) list rare communities listed in the forest plan that are consider in this report:

Table 1 Rare Communities Listed in the Forest Plan Considered for this Report

Habitat Type Rare Communities

Appalachian Highlands Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Ponds Wetland Communities Appalachian Highlands Riverine Vegetation Forest Communities Table Mountain Pine Forest and Woodland 5

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Type Rare Communities

Basic Mesic Forest Talus Slopes Forested Boulderfields Cliffs and Rock Outcrops Cliffs and Bluffs Rock Outcrops Rocky Summits Glades, Barrens, and Associated Woodlands Balds Other Rare Communities Canebrakes Caves and Mines

Species Evaluation and Determination Each botanical T&E, RFSS, MIS, and Locally Rare is addressed individually in terms of 1) its status, distribution and trend, 2) its habitat relationships and likely limiting factors, 3) potential effects of management, and 4) a determination of effect and supporting rationale. Status, distribution, and trend information is based on a variety of sources that represent the best information currently available. Habitat relationships of botanical T&E, RFSS, MIS, and Locally Rare were defined during species viability evaluation of the Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Each botanical species was linked to habitat elements. In some cases, habitat elements are also designated as a rare community. This biological evaluation was based on these habitat relationships. Risks from these habitat relationships were assessed along with other non-habitat factors identify what were believed to be the most critical factors limiting populations. This report analyzes management effects to habitats important to botanical T&E, RFSS, MIS, and Locally Rare. Each of the habitat elements was analyzed for current and future distribution and abundance, the general likelihood that they would be liming to associated specie, and effects of management. Determinations represent the overall expected effect of FLP implementation on each species.

Analysis Indicators and Measures The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the project are based on law, policy, and direction. The significance of management activities upon species of concern depends upon many factors. The alternatives are evaluated in terms of how they would affect the analysis indicators for each species of concern. Analysis measures were designed to estimate the potential effects resulting from the project actions on the analyzed species as related to the relevant laws and direction. The intent of the project is to improve habitat conditions for these species, which is consistent with the LRMP and ESA. The analysis measures focus on the effects to species’ habitat. Table 2 and Table 3 displays the analysis indicators and measures for the project.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species and Management Indicator Species (MIS) Table 2 provides a list of the threatened, endangered, or proposed and MIS species that may occur in the project area. The table briefly describes the habitat commonly associated with each species and the measure used to estimate the effects to those species.

Table 2 Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Endangered Species Act Species and Management Indicator Species in the Foothills Landscape Project Area

Habitat Species Indicators Measures Element/Community

Woodlands, Smooth savannas, and Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of woodlands, Coneflower grasslands: Glades distribution, and quality of savannas, and grasslands: Glades and (Echinacea and Barrens. preferred habitat/community Barrens. laevigata) * (Parries and limestone glades.)

Swamp pink Bogs, Fens, Seeps Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of bogs fens, (Helonias and Seasonal ponds. distribution, and quality of seeps, and seasonal ponds. bullata) (Open swamps.) preferred habitat/community

Mature Mesic Small Hardwood Forest: Whorled Mature hemlock Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of mid-story Pogonia forest. (Mixed distribution, and quality of reduced around known locations (Isotria hardwood-pine preferred habitat/community medeoloides) forests with an open understory.)

Bogs, Fens, Seeps White and Seasonal ponds; fringeless (swamps; peaty Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of bogs fens, orchid seeps and distribution, and quality of seeps, and seasonal ponds. (Plantanthera streambanks with preferred habitat/community integrilabia) Parnassia asarifolia and Oxypolis rigidior.)

*Smooth Coneflower is both a MIS and a T&E Species. For the purposes of this report, it would be analyzed with the T&E species.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) Table 3 provides a list of RFSS that may occur in the project area. The table briefly reports the habitat commonly associated with each species and the measure used to estimate the effects to those species.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Table 3. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Foothills Landscape Project Area

Habitat Species Indicators Measures Element/Community

Change in the abundance, Bogs, Fens, Seeps Cuthbert’s Turtlehead distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of bogs and Seasonal ponds. (Chelone cuthbertii) preferred fens, seeps, and seasonal ponds. (Open swamps.) habitat/community

Small spreading Change in the abundance, pogonia (Cleistesiopsis Woodlands, Change in total acres of distribution, and quality of bifaria) Savannas, and woodlands, savannas, and preferred (synonym Cleistes grasslands grasslands habitat/community bifaria)

Mature Oak forest Change in total acres of and Woodlands, Change in the abundance, woodlands, savannas, and Whorled stoneroot savannas, and distribution, and quality of grasslands and Late- (Collinsonia verticillata) grasslands; Late- preferred Successional Riparian: Mature Successional habitat/community oak Riparian.

Mature Hemlock Total acres of community treated Forest; woodlands, Change in the abundance, to create woodlands, savannas, Large witchalder Savannas, and distribution, and quality of and grasslands: Late- (Fothergilla major) Grasslands; Late- preferred Successional Riparian: Mature Successional habitat/community hemlock Riparian

Change in the abundance, Woodlands, Change in total acres of Smith's sunflower distribution, and quality of Savannas, and woodlands, savannas, and (Helianthus smithii) * preferred grasslands grasslands habitat/community

Change in the abundance, Basic mesic forest; Change in total acres of Basic Butternut distribution, and quality of Mature Mesic mesic forest and Mature Mesic (Juglans cinerea) preferred Hardwood Forest Hardwood Forest habitat/community

River channels, Late- Successional Riparian (open gravel bars and Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of River Fraser’s loosestrife streambanks, edges distribution, and quality of Channels and Late-Successional (Lysimachia fraseri) of granite and preferred Riparian habitat. sandstone outcrops: habitat/community sunny, rocky slopes, rocky, wet open roadsides.)

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Species Indicators Measures Element/Community

Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of Mature Sweet pinesap Mature Oak forests; distribution, and quality of Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature (Monotropsis odorata) woodlands, preferred Oak forests; woodlands, Savannas, and habitat/community Savannas, and Grasslands. Grasslands.

Change in the abundance, largeleaf grass-of Bogs, Fens, Seeps distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of bogs Parnassus and Seasonal ponds. preferred fens, seeps, and seasonal ponds. (Parnassia gifloia) (Open swamps.) habitat/community

Mature mesic Change in the abundance, Change in total acres of Mature Hardwood forests; Blue Ridge Catchfly distribution, and quality of Mesic Hardwood Forest; Early Early successional (Silene ovata) preferred successional Forest and Mixed Forest; Mixed habitat/community landscape landscape.

Change in the abundance, Georgia aster Woodlands, Change in total acres of distribution, and quality of (Symphiotrichum Savannas, and woodlands, savannas, and preferred georgianum) * grasslands grasslands habitat/community

Change in the abundance, Ash-leaf bush pea Mature Oak Forest distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of canopy (Thermopsis (Ridges and preferred gaps on ridges fraxinifolium) clearings) habitat/community

Change in the abundance, Canopy Gaps Hairy false lupine distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of canopy (Forest openings and (Thermopsis villosa) preferred gaps clearings) habitat/community

Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests Change in the abundance, (mesic hardwood Jeweled trillium distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of Mature forest on very rich (Trillium simile) preferred Mesic Hardwood Forest. soils over mafic or habitat/community calcareous rocks, often near seepage.)

Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest Change in the abundance, Piedmont barren (stream terraces, distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of Mature strawberry floodplain forests, preferred Mesic Hardwood Forest. (Waldsteinia lobata) and rocky, lower habitat/community slopes with oak- hickory-pine forest.)

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Species Indicators Measures Element/Community

Late-Successional Riparian (Grows on rocks and boulders, Change in the abundance, A liverwort trees and logs, distribution, and quality of Change in total acres of Late- (Lejeunea blomquist) relatively dry, preferred Successional Riparian habitat. sometimes moist, habitat/community always in or along a water way.) * The LRMP does not address this species, and so there is not an associated habitat element, or the habitat element is not in the Foothills Landscape. Therefore, the habitat element that makes the most sense for this species has been assigned as part of this analysis.

Locally Rare Species Locally rare species are not analyzed in detail, however effect to locally rare was considered to ensure that viability on the Forest would not be threatened (see Appendix B).

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area The spatial bounds of the analysis area for botanical resources is the 157,625 acres of National Forest lands within the FLP area. This project boundary was selected for analysis of both direct and indirect effects because it includes all areas proposed for treatment and is representative of conditions on the Forest. It can also be used to assess landscape conditions (e.g. vegetative and topographic) that may influence botanical distribution. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in analyzing cumulative effects on all land ownership within the FLP boundary. The long-term temporal bounds for the effects of the FLP on botanical resources is 15 years, because it may take up to 15 years to complete the proposed action and connected actions within that timeframe.

Affected Environment The Foothills Landscape (157,625 acres) stretches across the CONF and marks the area where the mountains are visibly reduced to foothills. Over 98% of the project area is forested: Pine, mixed pine-hardwood, oak and northern hardwood stands are common across the Foothills and are analogous of conditions across the southern Appalachians (SAMAB, 1996). The project area is dominated by mature forest cover with approximately 73% in an age classification of 80 years or older (see the Vegetation Report). This is valuable habitat for a variety of botanical resources. Less than 1% of the area is comprised of young forest habitat. This habitat is extremely limited and is of importance for many species in decline. Permanent openings (wildlife openings, utility and road rights-of-way, other improvements) comprise the remainder of the area. The project area is dominated by yellow pine and oak forest. There is a current trend of oak decline and a reduction in acorn masts across the FLP. Fire suppression and prior management has resulted in a closed, dense forest rather than an open forest or woodland structure with widely spaced trees and multilayered vegetation (Rankin and Herbert, 2014). Woodland habitats maintained by fire are preferred by many rare plant species. Less than 1% of the project area is 10

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

comprised of open woodland conditions. Epidemic levels of native pests and aggressive non- native invasive species have led to a trend of loss of diversity and the undesired effect of mesophication of the forests due to past practices and exclusion of fire. Fire has been a natural and human-caused disturbance for more than 10,000 years in the southern Appalachian Mountains. The forests were shaped and evolved with this disturbance. In recent times, the last 80 years or so, fire has been excluded from the landscape (See Fire and Fuels Report). The lack of fire has led to an increase in fuel loading and changes to vegetation conditions make the forest more susceptible to high fire intensity. This combined with the entanglement of neighborhoods with forested lands leads to a reduced ability for the landscape to be resilient to wildfire (SAMAB, 1996). Riparian or streamside habitats in the Foothills Landscape are almost completely forested and provide buffers to streams and rivers. This area is defined as within 100 feet of streams, but in reality, they may be much wider based on local conditions. Approximately 29,000 acres, or 18% of the landscape, may be considered riparian habitat.

Rare Communities, Habitat Elements, and Associated Species, Rare communities are important for Appalachian biological diversity. About 84% of the federally listed terrestrial plant and animal species found in the southern Appalachian region are associated with rare communities and streamside habitats. There are also 31 rare habitats in the southern Appalachians. Although most of these rare habitats in the southern Appalachian region occur on private lands, about 23% occur on NFS lands (SAMAB, 1996). Integrated resources management for restoration and maintained of rare communities is a high priority for the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). The following rare communities are found and contribute to the viability of rare species specifically in the Foothills Landscape: • Appalachian Highlands Riverine Vegetation; • Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds; • Cliffs and Rock Outcrops (including Talus Slopes, Forested Boulderfields, Cliffs and Bluffs, Rock Outcrops, and Rocky Summits); • Table Mountain Pine Forest and Woodland; • Basic Mesic Forest; Glades, Barrens, and Associated Woodlands; • Balds; • Canebrakes; and • Caves and Mines. These rare communities, such as Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds, may require active management (i.e. prescribed burning, invasive plant and encroaching woody plant removal) to remain suitable for rare plants and animals. Some of these rare communities may also function as habitat elements. These rare communities and habitat elements are used as measures to assess species viability and are discussed with associated species below.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Appalachian Highlands Riverine Vegetation This rare community is characterized by 1) sites adjacent to or within stream channels that are exposed to periodic flooding and scour, and 2) presence of significant populations or associations of species at risk. This community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions of the LRMP wherever they occur on the CONF. Primary management needs are protection from disturbance during development of road crossings and maintenance of desirable instream flows. There are several habitat elements that might occur with this Rare Community including Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds; Mature Hemlock, Canebrakes, River Channels and Late-Successional Riparian.

Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds An estimate of more than 2,300 acres of wetland habitat including Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds can be found in the FLP area. Identified as a high priority habitat by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015) as well as the LRMP, this community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions of the LRMP wherever they occur on the Forest. Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds are a habitat element with several associated rare species that are analyzed in this report including two T&E species: swamp pink and white fringeless orchid; as well as two species from the RFSS list: the largeleaf grass-of parnassus and Cuthbert’s turtlehead. Bogs and fens are rare communities characterized by 1) soils that are semi-permanently to permanently saturated as a result of groundwater seepage, perched water tables, rainfall, or beaver activity, but otherwise are generally non-alluvial; and 2) presence of wetland associated species such as sphagnum, ferns, and sedges. Dominant vegetation may be herbs, shrubs, trees, or some complex of the three. Mountain bogs are one of Georgia’s rarest natural communities. Bogs are characterized by mats of sphagnum moss and by deep, peaty, acidic soils that are usually saturated year-round by rain, downslope seepage, beaver impoundment, and overbank stream flooding. Historically, mountain bogs were kept free of shrubs and trees by occasional reflooding by beavers or by fire. Today, most bogs are densely vegetated by rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and other shrubs, with a dense canopy of trees such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubra), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). Where the understory is open, a variety of grasses, sedges, and herbs, including pitcherplants and orchids, dominate the ground layer, however a dense mid-story and overstory generally preclude the herbaceous layer under current conditions. All of Georgia’s mountain bogs have been degraded or destroyed by drainage and conversion to agriculture or by encroachment of woody plants (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). In the FLP there are eight known bogs which have been degraded. With approximately 35 acres of bog habitat in the FLP, habitat loss through changes in the hydrologic regime including ditching, damming, draining, filling, development, or timber harvest in wetlands; canopy closure due to encroaching trees, shrub and invasive species as well as collection and trampling are all cited as threats to these habitats (NatureServe, 2019 and GaDNR, 2019). Feral hogs, considered the highest priority terrestrial vertebrate invasive species in the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015), severely disturb the soil and herbaceous layers in wetlands and should be eliminated when possible. Efforts are underway to save several bogs by restoring hydrology, clearing woody plants, and re- planting native vegetation. The long-term management of restored bogs may involve the use of 12

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

prescribed fire, periodic manual clearing of shrubs, and maintenance of perennially saturated soil. Springs and seeps develop where groundwater emerges from fractures in exposed bedrock, or where water is forced to the soil surface by shallow bedrock or an abrupt change in the steepness of a slope. There is usually year-round (although often nearly imperceptible) water flow, except in drought years, and little accumulation of peat around seeps and springs. Herbs and ferns, such as pale jewelweed (Impatiens pallida), umbrella leaf (Diphylleia cymosa), Turk’s - cap lily (Lilium superbum), grass-of-parnassus, Canadian wood nettle (Laportea canadensis), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and cinnamon fern (Osmandastrum cinnamoneum), may establish around spring or seepy areas. Base-loving plant species such as Virginia mountain mint, fringed gentian and swamp lousewort may thrive in or around spring runs and seeps that develop over mafic bedrock (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). The waters of springs and seeps provide important habitat for a number of animal species. Ponds in this group include limesink, karst, and depression ponds, which may hold areas of shallow open water for significant portions of the year. Also included are all impoundments and associated wetlands resulting from beaver activity. Artificial impoundments are not included. These communities may be found across the FLP area. Primary management needs are protection from non-target management disturbance and resource impacts, particularly to local hydrology. Periodic vegetation management may be necessary to maintain desired herbaceous and/or shrubby composition at some sites. Swamp Pink (Federally Threatened and SWAP) Swamp pink was designated as federally threatened in 1988, but no critical habitat has been designated (USFWS, 1991). Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds was the habitat element used to analyze the viability of swamp pink, which occurs in a variety of wetland types including bogs, springs, seeps, wet meadows, and swampy forests that border small streams (GaDNR, 2019 Chaffin, 2007; Patrick, 1995; USFWS, 1991). Swamp pink is not known to naturally occur on the CONF; however, the Forest has two non-experimental populations that were established by the Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance (GPCA) In coordination with FWS and GaDNR (FWS, 2005 and GaDNR, 2003), using propagated material from plants occurring several miles away on private land. One of the non-experimental populations occurs in the FLP area. The primary threat to this species on the Forest is loss of habitat due to altered hydrology, exotic species, and woody encroachment (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019; Chaffin, 2007; Patrick, 1995). Private landowners are not required to protect federally listed plants, and thus public land is critical in protecting and aiding in the recovery of swamp pink. The Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds habitat element is critical to the recovery of this species. Recovery opportunities for swamp pink on the CONF consist primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting, and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations (USFWS, 1991). Managing transplanted (safeguarding) populations is one of the highest conservation actions for the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). Actions to be taken for protection and recovery are avoidance of logging; elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles; ditching and draining in wetlands; and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include restoration of hydrology, protection of plants, reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2018). Because swamp pink is protected under the ESA, no activities with potential to affect the plants either adversely or beneficially can take place in occupied sites without concurrence from, or consultation with, USFWS. Any sites occupied by swamp pink (established or natural) would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Wetland habitats necessary for the swamp pink would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect individuals and sites of federally listed species, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting federally listed species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate.

White Fringeless Orchid (Federally Threatened) Listed as a federally threatened species in 2016, a draft recovery plan is being developed and critical habitat has not been designated (81 FR62826, 2016). Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds was the habitat element used to analyze the viability of white fringeless orchid which occupies seepage sphagnum bogs, springheads, seepy streambanks, red maple-black gum swamps. It often grows with primrose-leaved violet (Viola primulifolia), green woodland orchid (Platanthera clavellata), cowbane (Cicuta virosa), and grass-of-parnassus (USFWS, 2012 and Patrick, 1995). The primary threat to this species on the Forest is loss of habitat due to altered hydrology, exotic species and woody encroachment (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019; USFWS, 2012). Eight extant populations are known, but most are decreasing in size and vigor; all but one is on private land (USFWS, 2012). The only known occurrence of this species on protected land occurs on the Forest but not in the FLP. Private landowners are not required to protect federally listed plants, and thus public land is critical in protecting and aiding in the recovery of white fringeless orchid. The Bogs, Fens, Seeps, And Seasonal Pond habitat element is critical to the recovery of this species. Recovery opportunities are similar to swamp pink above, and consist primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Actions to be taken for protection and recovery are avoidance of logging; elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles; ditching and draining in wetlands; and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include restoration of hydrology, protection of plants, reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, use of fire to create sunny openings, prevent woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019; USFWS, 2012; Chaffin, 2007). Because white fringeless orchid is protected under the ESA, no activities with potential to affect the plants either adversely or beneficially can take place in occupied sites without concurrence from, or consultation with, USFWS. Any sites of white fringeless orchid, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Wetland habitats necessary for the white fringeless orchid would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

standards that would protect individuals and sites of federally listed species, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting federally listed species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate.

Cuthbert’s Turtlehead (RFSS and SWAP) Cuthbert’s turtlehead is listed on the RFSS list. Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds was the habitat element used to analyze the viability of Cuthbert’s turtlehead, which occupies mountain bogs, wet meadows, sphagnum seeps, and swamps (GaDNR, 2019 and Chaffin, 2007). One natural extant population is known on the CONF, but not known on the FLP. Two populations have been outplanted by GPCA with one of those in the FLP area. The primary threat to this species on the Forest is loss of habitat due to altered hydrology, exotic species, and woody encroachment (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019). Maintaining and restoring bogs, fens, seeps and open wetlands would contribute to the viability of Cuthbert’s turtlehead. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Actions to be taken are avoidance of logging; elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles; ditching and draining in wetlands; and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include restoration of hydrology, protection of plants, and reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019 and Chaffin, 2007). Any sites of Cuthbert’s turtlehead, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Wetland habitats necessary for Cuthbert’s turtlehead would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate.

Largeleaf Grass-Of Parnassus (RFSS) Largeleaf grass-of parnassus is listed on the RFSS. Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds was the habitat element used to analyze the viability of largeleaf grass-of parnassus which occupies seepage slopes (NatureServe, 2019) and calcareous seeps, fens, and springs (Weakley, 2015; GaDNR, 2019). Largeleaf grass-of parnassus is rare throughout its range. It occurs on state lands near the Foothills Landscape but is not known to occur in the FLP area. Most sites have relatively small numbers of individuals making it especially threatened by land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation. Intense forest management practices irreparably damage the habitat for this species (NatureServe, 2019). The primary threat to this species on the Forest is loss of habitat due to altered hydrology, exotic species and woody encroachment (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019). Maintaining and restoring bogs, fens, seeps and open wetlands would contribute to the viability of largeleaf grass-of-parnassus. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists 15

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing transplanted populations. Actions to be taken are avoidance of logging; elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles; ditching and draining in wetlands; and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include restoration of hydrology, protection of plants, reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019). Any sites of largeleaf grass-of-parnassus, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Wetland habitats necessary for largeleaf grass-of-parnassus would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate.

River Channels Almost 1,900 acres of River Channels are estimated to occur in the FLP area, and many river channels or stream features are high priority SWAP habitats (GaDNR, 2015). This habitat element was used to analyze the viability of Fraser’s loosestrife. River Channels have the physical structure, biological components, and ecological processes that sustain aquatic, riparian, and associated upland functions and values. River Channels include the fluvial aquatic riparian habitat and are highly structured networks that change in a systematic fashion from the headwaters downstream. Primarily, natural processes (floods, erosion, seasonal fluctuations, etc.) would modify most of the areas within the riparian corridor. However, management activities could be used to provide terrestrial or aquatic habitat improvement, favor recovery of native vegetation, control insect infestation and disease, comply with legal requirements (e.g. ESA, Clean Water Act), provide for public safety, and meet other riparian functions and values. River Channels would be managed and protected under the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription which is embedded in all other management prescriptions of the LRMP.

Fraser’s Loosestrife (RFSS and SWAP) Fraser’s loosestrife is a RFSS. Both River Channels and Late-Successional Riparian are the habitat element used to analyze the viability of Fraser’s loosestrife. Preferred habitats are maintained by disturbance regimes, such as periodic flooding or fire. Although rare throughout its range, Fraser’s loosestrife can be found locally in populations of over 500 individuals. Many occurrences are stable, and the plant is not very vulnerable to extinction depending on the locations. There are five populations that are found on islands in the Chattooga River, and three on the banks of the Chattooga, all in the FLP area. This plant is generally found in wet areas such as alluvial meadows, moist stream and riverbanks, flats along streams, moist pastures, and roadside ditches (Chaffin, 2007 and Patrick, 1995). It is also known in rocky upland and hardwood forests (Weakley, 2015) and alluvial soil (Radford et al., 1968). The greatest threats to populations in general are shading and competition from successional growth. However, streamside populations can also be threatened by disruption of hydrological processes, and roadside populations are threatened by road maintenance and construction. 16

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Succession poses the greatest threat to populations, with occurrences along roadsides threatened by succession and human activities (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Threats include road construction and related maintenance, logging activities, and succession. Population trends are directly related to the condition of the habitat in which populations are found (NatureServe, 2019). Populations occurring in natural habitats, such as streambanks and river flats, are threatened by human disturbance. Human activities that may damage or destroy populations include dam construction and fire suppression. Intensive logging activities can increase drying of habitat, which can increase the suitability of sites for non-native or more aggressive native species. Populations may undergo natural increases and declines as disturbance and succession change habitat characteristics. In locations where succession is kept in check, populations remain stable; however, fire suppression and human activities have had negative effects in many states (NatureServe, 2019). This would be a good species to consider for out planting in natural settings with suitable habitats. Maintaining River Channels and Late-Successional Riparian habitat elements would contribute to viability of Fraser’s loosestrife. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing any potential transplanted populations. Actions to be taken are avoidance of logging, introduction of non-native exotic species to include non-native grasses, elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles, and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include restoration of hydrology, protection of plants reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2018d). Any sites of Fraser’s loosestrife, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. The river channels necessary for Fraser’s loosestrife would be protected through the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting the viability of rare species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats prior to on the ground implementation, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate.

Late-Successional Riparian There are more than 22,000 acres of Late-Successional Riparian habitat in the FLP. Floodplains and bottomlands include wooded wetlands bordering streams and rivers, as well as sandbars and rocky areas in the stream channel. At higher elevations, they are often narrow, steep, rocky habitats with a canopy of eastern hemlock, sweet birch (Betula lenta), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and tulip poplar, and a dense shrub layer of tag alder (Alnus incana), rhododendron, and mountain laurel. In lower elevation valleys, some floodplains are broader and flatter with a canopy of typical streamside species (tulip poplar, green ash, sycamore, red maple, and sweet gum) mixed with other hardwoods. Sandbars and rocky borders support grasses, sedges, composites, and shrubs such as Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). A few floodplains still include thickets

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

of giant cane, called Canebrakes, a once widespread habitat that is especially important to migratory birds (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). Almost all low-elevation floodplains in Georgia’s Blue Ridge have been converted to farmland or residential areas. The hemlock woolly adelgid, has largely eradicated hemlocks along streams: Without the overhanging hemlocks, the temperature and pH of many streams would rise killing fish and other aquatic animals. Feral hogs, which severely disturb the soil and herb layer in floodplains and bottomlands, should be eradicated. Floodplains are especially sensitive to hydrologic disturbances and should be protected from damming, road-building, and development (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). Floodplain and bottomland forests should be preserved for flood control and for use by wildlife; however, management activities may be used to provide terrestrial or aquatic habitat improvement, favor recovery of native vegetation, control insect infestation and disease, comply with legal requirements (e.g. ESA, Clean Water Act), provide for public safety, and meet other riparian functions and values. Late-Successional Riparian habitats would be managed and protected under the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription which is embedded in all other management prescriptions of the LRMP. Whorled Stoneroot (RFSS) Also known as whorled horsebalm, this plant is in the mint family and is known in Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. It can be locally abundant but is scattered throughout its range and is not tracked by GaDNR. It is listed as vulnerable in Georgia (NatureServe, 2019). On the forest, it has a ranking of F3, rare and uncommon, with 21 to 100 known occurrences. This plant is considered a late-successional plant in moist forests and may persist in forest openings or open forest. Mining activities may threaten this species’ habitat. Forest management practices such as clearcutting and site preparation for reforestation could impact this species. Land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation are also threats. Maintaining the Late-Successional Riparian habitat elements would contribute to the viability of whorled stoneroot. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting, and managing populations if they are found. Actions include avoidance of logging, introduction of non-native exotic species to include non- native grasses, elimination of elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles, and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include restoration of hydrology, protection of plants reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019). Any sites of whorled stoneroot, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. The river channels necessary for Fraser’s loosestrife would be protected through the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting the viability of rare species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats prior to on the ground implementation, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Large Witchalder (RFSS and SWAP) The viability of large witchalder is affected by three habitat elements: Mature Hemlock Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands; and Late Successional Riparian. The baseline information for this species is given below under the Mature Hemlock Forest habitat element. Fraser’s Loosestrife (RFSS and SWAP) The viability of Fraser’s loosestrife is affected by two habitat elements: River Channels and Late-Successional Riparian. The baseline information for this species is given under the River Channel element above. A Liverwort (RFSS) A liverwort is listed on the RFSS list, and Late-Successional Riparian was the habitat element used to analyze the viability of this species. It occurs predominantly on rocks and boulders (including cliff faces), which are usually relatively damp and are often composed of sandstone or streamside boulders in areas with filtered light. The species also occasionally grows on tree trunks, tree bases, and dead logs. Substrates are almost always in, along, or near creeks and streams or in the spray zone of waterfalls. Streams are usually situated within gorges or ravines where humidity is high and where dominant species include hemlock, sweetgum, tulip poplar, sweet birch and other cove hardwoods (NatureServe, 2019). This species is known in eastern Kentucky, the mountains of western North Carolina, South Carolina, and eastern Tennessee, and historically from the mountains of northeastern Georgia, but is not known to occur in the FLP area (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019). Maintaining Late-Successional Riparian habitat would contribute to the viability of this species. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations and protecting and managing populations if they are found. Actions include avoidance of logging, avoidance of introducing non-native exotic species, elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles, and protection of streams from sedimentation. Restoration may include protection of plants, eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019). Any sites of this species would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Late-Successional Riparian habitats would be managed and protected under the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription which is embedded in all other management prescriptions of the LRMP. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate.

Canebrakes There are no known functional Canebrakes in the FLP area. Canebrakes are identified as a high priority habitat by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015) as well as a Rare Community identified by the LRMP. This community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) and Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions of the LRMP wherever they occur on the Forest. There are no rare species analyzed for this habitat element. This community is characterized by almost monotypic stands of giant or switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), usually with no or low densities of overstory tree canopy. It is typically found in bottomlands or stream terraces. 19

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Although cane is found commonly as an understory component across the Forest, provisions of the Rare Community Prescription apply only to larger patches (generally greater than 0.25 acres) exhibiting high densities that result in nearly monotypic conditions, or to areas selected for restoration of such conditions. This community is found in the Appalachian, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain regions. Primary management needs are restoration and maintenance through overstory reduction and periodic prescribed fire.

Basic Mesic Forest An estimated 3,225 acres of Basic Mesic Forest occurs in the FLP area, may be referred to as cove forest. Identified as a high priority habitat by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015) as well as a Rare Community identified in the LRMP, this community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) prescription of the LRMP wherever they occur on the Forest. This habitat element was used to analyze the viability of butternut from the RFSS list. These communities are characterized by a complex multi-storied deciduous canopy and rich and diverse understories of calciphilic herbs, underlain by high-base geologic substrates. On moderate to high elevation sites, these communities are typically found in protected coves and can be distinguished from more acidic mesic cove forests by the abundance of species such as white basswood (Tilia americana), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), black walnut (Juglans nigra), faded trillium (Trillium discolor), jeweled trillium, black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), whorled stoneroot, mock orange (Philadelphus inodorus), sweet shrub (Calycanthus floridus), sweet cicely (Ozmorhiza spp.), doll’s eyes (Actaea racemosa), maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), and plantainleaved sedge (Carex plantaginea) (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). Good examples of moderate and high elevation Basic Mesic Forests have a low incidence of white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern hemlock, rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). An oak-dominated variant of moderate to high elevation Basic Mesic Forest occurs over limestone on upper to mid slopes of the Ridge-and-Valley Appalachians of Georgia. This basic mesic community is dominated or co-dominated by shumard oak (Quercus shumardii) or chinquapin oak (Quercus muehlenbergii) in combination with various species of oaks and hickories, and either sugar maple (A. saccharum), chalk maple (A. leucoderme), or southern sugar maple (A. barbatum). Typical calciphilic understory species also are present. On lower elevation sites, these communities are more typically found on north slopes where dominant and characteristic overstory species are American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra), with tulip poplar, white oak (Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (C. ovata), or white ash (Fraxinus americana), with southern sugar maple, chalk maple, painted buckeye (A. sylvatica), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba) in the mid-story and shrub layers; and understories that include faded trillium, nodding trillium (T. rugelii), black cohosh, doll’s eyes, foam flower (Tiarella cordifolia var. collina), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), bellworts (Uvularia sp.) and trout lilies (Erythronium spp.). Good examples of low elevation Basic Mesic Forests have a low incidence of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (P. taeda), and exotics such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) or Chinese privet (Lingustrum vulgare). Basic Mesic Forest communities are found in both the Appalachian and Piedmont regions. Provisions of the Rare Community Prescription apply only to prime examples of this

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project community that support significant populations or associations of viability of species. Primary management needs are the protection from non-target management disturbance. Butternut (RFSS and SWAP) Butternut is listed on the RFSS list and occupies habitats that include Basic Mesic Forest and Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. Butternut can be found in rich mesophytic forests with edaphic features that might include amphibolite or serpentine or mafic, lower slopes, ravines, and various types of bottomland forests, especially along banks and terraces of creeks and streams. It attains its best growth in well-drained bottomland and floodplain soils. Formerly distributed across most of the eastern United States (U.S.) and southeastern Canada, it is now in severe decline throughout its range due to butternut canker disease. This disease has depleted populations and left the species in peril throughout large portions of its range; however, even in some areas with clear die-off, some trees are found to be healthy and persistent suggesting a natural resistance to the disease. Based on this, the species is not considered to be immediately vulnerable to extinction, but there is certainly reason for longer-term concern. Short-term trends suggest a continued decline in butternut populations, however due to research into disease resistance and outplantings, the long-term outlook is slightly better (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019). There is not good data for this species in Georgia, and in the FLP area there is only one known occurrence. Maintaining Basic Mesic Forest and Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest would contribute to the viability of Butternut. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing potential transplanted populations. Actions include avoidance of logging, introduction of non-native exotic species, and elimination of elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles. Restoration may include protection of plants, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs. Any sites with butternut, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Basic Mesic Forest habitats necessary for butternut would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) and the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription would be protective of populations located in floodplain habitats. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate.

Rock Outcrops and Cliffs Just over 200 acres of Rock Outcrops and Cliffs are estimated to occur in the FLP area. These habitats are defined by edaphic features and are a Rare Community identified in the LRMP. They include Talus Slopes, Forested Boulderfields, Cliffs and Bluffs, Rock Outcrops and Rocky Summits. There are no rare species analyzed to this habitat element. Rock Outcrops and Cliffs would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) prescription of the LRMP wherever they occur on the Forest.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Talus Slopes This community is characterized by non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated accumulations of rock at 2,500 to 4,600 foot in elevation and is identified as a high priority habitat by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). It is found in the Appalachian region and is distinguished from Forested Boulderfields by the lack of trees. It is distinguished from Rocky Summits by its occurrence on side slopes as opposed to ridges and peaks. Primary management needs are protection from non- target management disturbance. Cliffs and Bluffs These communities are characterized by steep, rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, usually above streams or rivers. Moist cliff faces and sprays are identified as high priority habitats by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). Cliff communities may be dry or wet, and include communities associated with waterfalls such as spray cliffs and rock houses. These communities are found in the Appalachian region. Primary management needs are protection from management disturbance and maintenance of hydrology near wet cliffs. This community includes Calcareous Cliffs, Mafic Cliffs, Sandstone Cliffs, and Spray Cliffs as defined in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB, 1996). Rock Outcrops These communities are characterized by significant areas of exposed, usually smooth, exfoliating granite or related rocks, with scattered vegetation mats and abundant lichens. These communities are found in both the Appalachian and Piedmont regions. Primary management needs are protection from non-target management disturbance and recreational impacts. This community includes Granitic Dome and Granitic Flatrock as defined in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB, 1996). Rocky Summits This community is characterized by sparsely vegetated outcrops of fractured, irregular rock found above 4,000 feet elevation on peaks, ridges, and upper slopes, identified as a high priority habitat by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). It is distinguished from Rock Outcrop communities by its fractured, irregular rock surface, and from Talus Slopes and cliff communities by its topographic position on or near summits. It differs from Forested Boulderfields in its general lack of forest cover. This community is found in the Appalachian region. Primary management needs are protection from recreational impacts. This community includes High Elevation Rocky Summits as defined in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB, 1996). Balds Identified as high priority habitats by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015), there are two types of balds: grassy balds and shrub (or heath) balds. Grassy balds are characterized by extensive areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation at high elevation (generally over 5,000 feet). They generally are found on ridgetops, domes, and gentle slopes. Shrub bands are typically found on steep exposed slope and ridges at elevation ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 feet and are characterized by dominance of ericaceous shrubs. These communities are found in the Appalachian region. This community is characterized by sparsely vegetated outcrops of fractured, irregular rock found above 4,000 feet elevation on peaks, ridges, and upper slopes. It is distinguished from

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Rock Outcrop communities by its fractured, irregular rock surface, and from Talus Slopes and cliff communities by its topographic position on or near summits. It differs from Forested Boulderfields in its general lack of forest cover. This community is found in the Appalachian region. Primary management needs are protection from recreational impacts. This community includes High Elevation Rocky Summits as defined in the Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB, 1996). Forested Boulderfields Balds Identified as a high priority habitat by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015), boulderfields generally north- facing, high elevation slopes above 3,500 feet consisting of large, angular boulders from rubble colluvium or talus with little visible soil. Boulders and trees are covered in moss and lichens. Canopy trees include basswood, buckeye, black birch and tulip poplar with a diverse herbaceous ground cover (Edwards et.al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). The Foothills Landscape has very little habitat above 3,500 feet and few Forested Boulderfields.

Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests More than 15,500 acres of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is estimated to occur in the FLP area. This habitat element has a dominate hardwood canopy greater than 60 years old and is associated with one federally listed species and five RFSS species analyzed in detail, including the small whorled pogonia, butternut, sweet pinesap, blue ridge catchfly, jeweled trillium, and piedmont barren strawberry. Small Whorled Pogonia (Federally Endangered and SWAP) The small whorled pogonia was listed by the USFWS as endangered in 1982 and revised to threatened status in 1994 based on discovery of new sites, achievement of protection for many of the sites, and additional life history and population information (USFWS, 1992; USFWS, 2008). A number of the small whorled pogonia sites occur on state and federal lands, affording the species protection from development. According to the Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1992), the only small whorled pogonia sites occurring on NFS lands are located on the CONF and Sumter National Forests in Georgia and South Carolina, respectively. The locations on these National Forests are especially important because they are the only known sites of the orchid in the two states. The Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest and the Mature Hemlock Forest (described below) habitat elements would contribute to the conservation of pogonia. Site characteristics are highly variable but are usually mesic with sparse to moderate ground cover and a relatively open understory canopy. Old logging roads or streams are often nearby. Many sites show signs of past agricultural use (USFWS, 1992). Small whorled pogonia typically occurs in a late-successional, even-aged mixed deciduous, hardwood and evergreen forest with an approximate estimated canopy age of 35 to 50 years. The most common associated canopy species include young oak (Quercus sp.) and hickory (Carya sp.) species, with the occasional American beech, tulip poplar, sourwood (Oxydendron arboretum), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Hemlock and, particularly, white and Virginia pines (P. virginiana) may be present and dominant at all sites. Young red maple and sweet birch may also be found. Mid-story vegetation may be dominated by the presence of mountain-laurel and rhododendron, with typical herbaceous species such as

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), hearts-a-bustin’, (Euonymous americana), Christmas fern (Polystichtum acrosticoides) and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens) (Richards and Sanders, 2012; Chaffin, 2007; Patrick, 1995). Recreational use, herbivory, clearcutting and exotic species are considered threats. Selective harvest may not be harmful to a population (GaDNR, 2019; Patrick, 1995; USFWS, 1992), and there is growing evidence that an overly dense mid-story and canopy are posing a threat to the species viability (Brumback et al., 2011). Recovery opportunities consist primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs, and the use of fire, hand-clearing and limited herbicides to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion (GaDNR, 2019). Because the orchid is protected under the ESA, no activities with the potential to affect the plants either adversely or beneficially can take place in the sites without concurrence from or in consultation with USFWS. Any small whorled pogonia, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. The LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect individuals and sites of federally listed species, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting federally listed species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. Butternut (RFSS and SWAP) The viability of butternut is affected by two habitat elements: Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest and Basic Mesic Forest. The baseline information for this species is given under the Basic Mesic Forest habitat element above. Sweet Pinesap (RFSS and SWAP) Sweet pinesap is listed on the RFSS list and occupies three habitat elements: Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest, Mature Oak Forest, and Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands. This includes dry to mesic pine and mixed pine-hardwood woodlands, especially on slopes or bluffs with acidic soils and abundant heath understories (Weakley, 2015, GaDNR, 2019), and mixed pine- hardwood or chestnut oak dominated forests with dry, acidic soil, often with mountain laurel, rhododendron, and blueberry. This species can often be found in Virginia pine thickets. The species lacks chlorophyll and is an epiparasite extracting carbohydrates from fungus that parasitizes photosynthesizing plants (likely pines) (GaDNR, 2019). Therefore, the distribution of this species may be tied, in part, to the distribution of particular fungi species and other vascular plants. Where found, populations often occupy only a few square meters, thus only a tiny fraction of available habitat is utilized. Although sweet pinesap has a wide distribution and fairly non-specific habitat requirements, it remains an extremely rare plant throughout its range. This plant exhibits a unique timing of reproductive growth with implications related to natural fire regimes versus prescribed burning. The species has been observed doing well in recently burned areas, and it has been suggested that prescribed fire may be necessary to maintain this plant’s habitat (GaDNR 2019). Historic records show this species in the FLP area, but no recent records have been found. It is also possible that the habitat element for this species should be changed to Young Pine Stands.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Maintaining Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest, Mature Oak Forest, and Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands would contribute to the viability of sweet pinesap. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, as well as protecting and managing populations if they are found. This plant would persist following a pine thinning; however, as an epiparasite, this species would not survive a clearcutting operation. Any sites with sweet pinesap would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Woodland habitats necessary for the sweet pinesap would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) prescriptions. Also, the LRMP which includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. Blue Ridge Catchfly (RFSS and SWAP) Blue Ridge catchfly is listed on the RFSS list and occupies Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest habitat. Populations are known to occur in rich mountain forests at moderate elevations on circumneutral soils, often over mafic or calcareous substrates (NatureServe, 2019; Weakley, 2015; Chaffin, 2007). This species is rare throughout its range, with only one known occurrence in Lumpkin County of the FLP area. This plant blooms best in openings and would benefit from canopy gaps. Threats include logging, grazing, trampling, road construction, right-of-way maintenance, and feral hogs. (NatureServe, 2019; GaDNR, 2019). This species benefits from hog control efforts and potentially from treatments that create canopy gaps (Chaffin, 2007). Maintaining Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest habitats would contribute to the viability of Blue Ridge catchfly. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting, and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Actions to maintain or protect populations include avoidance of logging, introduction of non-native exotic species, and elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles. Restoration may include protection of plants, eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019). Any sites with Blue Ridge catchfly, natural or established, would be protected by the LRMP, which includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. Jeweled Trillium (RFSS) Jeweled trillium is listed on the RFSS list and occupies the Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest habitat element of the southern Appalachians, in the western Cohuttas in forested habitats, and along road rights-of-way (ROW). Several populations are known in the FLP area. Maintaining Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest would contribute to the viability of jeweled trillium. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting, and managing populations if they are found. Actions for

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

management include avoidance of logging and disturbances, introduction of non-native exotic species, and elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles. Restoration may include protection of plants and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2018). Any sites with jeweled trillium would be protected by the LRMP, which includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. Piedmont Barren Strawberry (RFSS and SWAP) Piedmont barren strawberry is listed on the RFSS list and occupies Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. This species occupies stream terraces, floodplain forests, and rocky, lower slopes with oak-hickory-pine forests; it often is found with mountain laurel (Chaffin, 2007 and Patrick, 1995). Populations are known in Cedar Creek, Panther Creek and from Dawson County. Maintaining Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest habitat would contribute to the viability of Piedmont barren strawberry. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Threats include converting habitat to pine plantations, logging, clearing along slopes and floodplains, and competition from non-native species (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Actions include avoidance of logging, avoidance of introducing non-native exotic species, elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles, and protection of streams from sedimentation and impoundment. Restoration may include protection of plants by reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and prevent woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019). Any sites with Piedmont barren strawberry would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions would be protective of populations in floodplain habitats. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate.

Mature Hemlock Forests There is approximately 7,275 acres of forest with a hemlock component, with hemlock mixed forest identified as high priority habitats by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015), however, there is only approximately 336 acres of mature hemlock forest with a dominate canopy greater than 60 years old in the FLP area. Over the last decade, significant mortality has occurred in this habitat element caused by hemlock woolly adelgid. Hemlock wooly Adelgid is listed as the top invasive terrestrial invertebrate by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). Approximately 50 acres of the mature hemlock is in established Hemlock Conservation Areas that are receiving treatments in an attempt to reduce the mortality of hemlocks (See Vegetation Report). This habitat element is associated with one species analyzed in detail, large witchalder.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Large Witchalder (RFSS) Large witchalder is listed on the RFSS list and occupies three habitat elements: Mature Hemlock Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; and Late-Successional Riparian. These habitats include mixed hardwood-pine forests on dry, rocky (sandstone or granite) slopes and bluffs, often with pine, scarlet oak, and black oak. Occasionally this species can be found in moist forests with tulip poplar, silverbell (Halesia sp), and cucumber tree (Mangnoia acuminate) along rocky streambanks often on acidic soils. Populations are known in Camp Merrill, Cooper Gap, Lookout Mountain, Cedar Creek, Panther Creek and Dawson County. Maintaining Mature Hemlock Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; and Late- Successional Riparian habitat would contribute to the viability of large witchalder. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Threats include converting habitat to pine plantations, logging and clearing along slopes and floodplains, and competition from non-native species (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Actions for management include avoidance of the introduction of non- native exotic species to include non-native grasses, and elimination of soil compaction by off- road vehicles. Restoration may include protection of plants by the reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and preventing woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs. Any sites with large witchalder would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Woodland habitats necessary for the large witchalder would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) also Riparian Corridors (11) prescriptions would be protective of populations in riparian habitats. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate.

Mature Oak Forest Within the analysis area, 55,434 acres of oak-dominated forest types, with approximately 45,173 acres of mature oak forest are estimated to occur in the FLP area. A variety of oak forest are listed as high priority habitats in the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). This habitat element is associated with three RFSS analyzed in detail: Sweet pinesap, ash-leaf bush pea, and whorled stoneroot. This habitat element is dominated by mature oaks greater than 60 years old. Mature Oak Forest habitats are slowly transitioning into forests dominated by more mesic species. As described in the Foothills Restoration Plan (page 19), mesophication of oak dominated sites occurs when fire is excluded from oak stands resulting in mesophytic hardwoods invading the mid-story, excluding oak regeneration, and eventually taking over the canopy as mature oaks die creating canopy gaps. Mesophytic hardwoods are displacing oak species creating an overall decline in this habitat element.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Sweet Pinesap (RFSS) The viability of sweet pinesap is affected by three habitat elements: Mature Mesic Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands, and Mature Oak Forest. The baseline information for this species is given under the Mature Mesic Forest habitat element above. Ash-Leaf Bush Pea (RFSS and SWAP) Ash-leaf bush pea is listed on the RFSS list and occupies Mature Oak Forest habitat elements. This species is a southern Appalachian endemic that is known in northern portions of Georgia (mostly the Blue Ridge). Habitat includes forest openings in dry woodlands and along ridges (Weakley, 2015). Ash-leaf bush pea typically occurs in forest openings and dry woodlands along ridges where natural fire historically played a role in shaping plant communities. There is little information in the literature regarding the effects of fire on this species, however, based upon the habitats and landscape position where the species is found, it would be expected that the species would show a favorable or neutral response to fire. Many of the locations are associated with roads and trails, which simulate the more open habitat that is needed by this species. Maintaining Mature Oak Forest habitats would contribute to the viability of ash-leaf bush pea; however, this species should also respond very well to canopy gap creation and woodland management. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations and protecting and managing populations if they are found. Threats include logging, clearing along slopes and floodplains, and competition from non-native species (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Management includes the avoidance of the introduction of non-native exotic species, and elimination of soil compaction by off-road vehicles. Restoration may include protection of plants by the reduction of woody competition using hand clearing, limited herbicides, fire to create sunny openings and preventing woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs. Any sites with ash-leaf bush pea, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. The LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. Whorled Stoneroot (RFSS) The viability of whorled stoneroot is affected by three habitat elements: Mature Oak Forest, Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands; and Late-Successional Riparian. The baseline information for this species is given under the Late-Successional Riparian habitat element above.

Early Successional Forest Approximately 306 acres of Early Successional Forest occur in the Foothills Landscape, with high elevation early successional habitat maintained by prescribed fire listed as a high priority by the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015). This habitat element is associated with the Blue Ridge catchfly. Early-successional stage habitats (early successional habitat) include regenerating forest from 0 to10 years old and are produced by even or two-aged regeneration cutting or by natural

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

disturbances (windstorms, severe wildfire, and insects/disease outbreaks). During this stage, forest stands are characterized by dense woody growth of regenerating trees and shrubs with a significant herbaceous component and a sparse or absent overstory of mature trees. This successional stage provides a number of important wildlife habitat attributes including diverse food sources (forage, insect production, soft mast, and browse) and nesting and escape cover. Blue Ridge Catchfly (RFSS) The viability of Blue Ridge catchfly is affected by two habitat elements: Mature Mesic Forest and Early Successional Forest. The baseline information for this species is given above under the Mature Mesic Forest habitat element.

Canopy Gaps This habitat element is associated with the hairy false lupine. Old growth or late-successional forests in the eastern U.S. are characterized by complex vertical structure due to the presence of “canopy gaps” (Runkle, 1982). Most mid-successional forest stands have a closed-canopy structure that inhibits the development of a structurally complex understory and mid-story. Stands in this closed-canopy condition are also less affected by disturbances, such as wind and ice damage, which result in canopy gaps. These characteristics may develop, but this generally requires many decades or even centuries. Diverse vertical structure would result as young growth develops in the variable-sized openings. Hairy False Lupine (RFSS and SWAP) Hairy false lupine is listed on the RFSS list and benefits from the Canopy Gaps habitat element, which includes openings in floodplains, woodland edges, and road banks, often in sandy soil (Chaffin, 2007). Rare in Georgia, there are fewer than 10 known populations: most of them found on the CONF, and several in the FLP area. Many of the locations are associated with roads and trails which simulate the more open habitat that is needed by this species (Chaffin, 2007). Canopy Gap creation would contribute to the viability of hairy false lupine. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations and protecting and managing populations if they are found. Management actions should include avoidance of herbicide use in roadside ROW maintenance and timing mowing to avoid flowering and fruiting periods. (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Restoration may include protection of plants; the use of fire, hand-clearing, and limited herbicides to reduce woody competition to maintain sunny openings and edges; preventing woody species invasion; and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs. Any sites with hairy false lupine would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. The LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate.

Glades, Barrens, and Associated Woodlands There are no known functioning Glades, Barrens, and Associated Woodlands in the FLP area. Glades, Barrens, and Associated Woodlands are a high priority habitat identified by the SWAP 29

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

and are a Rare Community identified by the LRMP (GADNR, 2015). This community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) prescriptions of the LRMP wherever they occur on the Forest. Botanical species analyzed in detail using this habitat element include one federally protected species, smooth coneflower, and six species from the RFSS list including whorled stoneroot, large witchalder, Smith’s sunflower, sweet pinesap, small spreading pogonia, and Georgia aster. These communities are characterized by thin soils and exposed parent material that result in localized complexes of bare soil and rock, herbaceous and/or shrubby vegetation, and thin, often stunted woods (Edwards et al., 2013 and Chaffin, 2011). During wet periods they may include scattered shallow pools or areas of seepage. The communities vary widely in species composition depending on the type of underlying parent material. They differ from rock outcrop communities by exhibiting some level of soil and vegetation over the majority of the site. Primary management needs are protection from recreational impacts and non-target management disturbance. Woodland forests are slowly transitioning into forests dominated by more mesic species. As described in the Foothills Landscape Restoration Plan (page 19), mesophication occurs when fire is excluded resulting in mesophytic hardwoods invading the mid-story, excluding regeneration, and eventually taking over the canopy as mature trees die creating canopy gaps. Mesophytic hardwoods are displacing woodland canopy species creating an overall decline in this habitat element. Periodic vegetation management, especially prescribed fire, is necessary to maintain or restore desired canopy and herbaceous and/or shrubby composition. Smooth Coneflower (Federally Threatened and MIS and SWAP) Smooth coneflower was designated as federally threatened in 1992, but no critical habitat has been designated (USFWS, 1995). The habitat element for the coneflower is Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands (GaDNR, 2019; USFWS, 1991). On the CONF, smooth coneflower occurs in roadsides, open woods, barrens and glades, utility ROWs or other sunny situations, usually in association with calcium or magnesium-rich soils underlain by mafic rock (USFWS, 2009). Smooth coneflower is known to occur only on the Chattooga Ranger District in Habersham and Stephens Counties. There are 25 known sites on NFS land in Georgia ranging in size from one individual to approximately 1,000 plants. On the CONF, sites for smooth coneflower occur predominantly along roadsides and in powerline ROWs. In the FLP area, there is only one known population consisting of a few individual plants that are isolated to a road. Historically, much of the species’ habitat was xeric woodlands, savannas, or grasslands that were maintained in an open condition by fires caused by lightning or Native American burning. Optimal sites for smooth coneflower have little herbaceous competition and an abundance of sunlight. Habitat management, including removal of encroaching woody vegetation and prescribed burning, has been ongoing on the CONF for several years to provide these open conditions for the plants. Threats to the species include habitat loss from fire suppression and subsequent ecological succession, forestry practices, development, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect listed plants on privately owned uplands. In addition, there is some evidence that this species has been collected for horticultural purposes from roadside locations in Georgia (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019).

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

The woodland habitat element is critical to the recovery of this species. Recovery opportunities for smooth coneflower on the CONF consist primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Management actions include, avoidance of herbicide use in roadside ROW maintenance, and timing of mowing to avoid flowering and fruiting periods. Restoration may include protection of plants; the use of fire, hand-clearing and limited herbicides to reduce woody competition to maintain sunny openings and edges; prevention of woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019). Because smooth coneflower is protected under the ESA, no activities with potential to affect the plants either adversely or beneficially can take place in occupied sites without concurrence from or consultation with USFWS. Any sites occupied by smooth coneflower (established or natural) would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Woodland habitats necessary for the smooth coneflower would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) prescription. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect individuals and sites of federally listed species, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting federally listed species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. Whorled Stoneroot (RFSS) The viability of whorled stoneroot is affected by three habitat elements: Mature Oak Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands; and Late-Successional Riparian. The baseline information for this species is given above under the Late-Successional Riparian element. Large Witchalder (RFSS) The viability of large witchalder is affected by three habitat elements: Mature Hemlock Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands, and Late-Successional Riparian. The baseline information for this species is given under the Mature Hemlock Forest element above. Smith’s Sunflower (RFSS and SWAP) Smith’s sunflower is listed on the RFSS list and benefits from Woodlands, Savannas, and Grassland habitats. It can often be found in sunny gaps in dry, upland oak-hickory-pine woodlands. Rare in Georgia, three populations have been observed, with one on NFS land; plants in Rabun County have not been seen since the late 1800s. Populations may be associated with roads and trails which simulate the more open habitat that is needed by this species. Smith’s sunflower is a perennial herb that reproduces sexually as well as vegetative by sprouting from crown buds and rhizomes. Its flower heads are composed of sterile ray flowers and fertile disk flowers. The flowers are pollinated by bees and a variety of other insects. Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands would contribute to the viability of Smith’s sunflower. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations and protecting and managing populations if they are found. Management actions include the avoidance of herbicide use in roadside ROW maintenance, and timing of mowing to avoid flowering and fruiting periods. Restoration may include protection of plants; the use of fire, hand-clearing, and limited herbicides to reduce woody competition to maintain sunny

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

openings and edges; preventing woody species invasion; and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Any sites with Smith’s sunflower, would be protected in the FLP area under the revised Forest Plan. Woodland habitats necessary for the Smith's sunflower would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) prescription. The LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR as appropriate. Sweet Pinesap (RFSS) The viability of sweet pinesap is affected by three habitat elements: Mature Mesic Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands; and Mature Oak Forest. The baseline information for this species is given above under the Mature Mesic Forest element. Georgia Aster (RFSS and a Candidate for Federal Listing) In 1999 Georgia aster became a candidate for listing under the ESA (64 FR 57535 57547 and 79 FR 56041 56047) and in 2014 the USFS signed a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) with the USFWS for the conservation of this species (USFWS, 2014). Establishing CCA’s to conserve botanical resources is identified as a priority of the SWAP (GaDNR). Georgia aster is also listed on the RFSS list. This species benefits from the Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands habitat element, and occupies woodlands or piedmont prairies, edges and openings in rocky, upland oak-hickory-pine forests, and ROWs through these habitats usually with circumneutral soils on sites dominated by native plant species. The primary limiting factor for this species appears to be the availability of light: The species is a good competitor with other early successional species but tends to decline when shaded by woody species. Populations can persist for an undetermined length of time in the shade, but these species rarely flower and reproduce only by rhizomes. This species is not currently known in any part of the FLP, however, there is potential habitat. Furthermore, this species should be considered for outplanting. Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands would contribute to the viability of Georgia aster. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations. Management actions include the avoidance of herbicide use in roadside ROW maintenance, and timing of mowing to avoid flowering and fruiting periods. Restoration may include protection of plants; the use of fire, hand-clearing, and limited herbicides to reduce woody competition to maintain sunny openings and edges; preventing woody species invasion, and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs (USFWS, 2014; GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Any sites with Georgia aster would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Woodland habitats necessary for the Georgia aster would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) prescription. The LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as 32

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

appropriate. The CCA establishes site management guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for ROW management to enhance the conservation of this species (USFWS, 2014). Small Spreading Pogonia (RFSS and SWAP) Small spreading pogonia is listed on the RFSS list with a key habitat element being Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands. It is found in a variety of habitats including streamhead seeps, moist sandy soils in open areas, and dry ridgetops along road cuts and cliffs. This species is known from the Lake Russel area outside of the FLP area and one bog within the FLP area. This species benefits from canopy gaps as well as woodland habitat and responds well to prescribed fire. Maintaining mature oak forest, would contribute to the viability of small spreading pogonia, however, this species should also respond very well to canopy gap creation and woodland management. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations and protecting and managing populations if they are found. Threats include logging and clearing along slopes and floodplains, and competition from non- native species (GaDNR, 2019; NatureServe, 2019). Management actions include the avoidance of herbicide use in roadside ROW maintenance, and timing of mowing to avoid flowering and fruiting periods. Restoration may include protection of plants; the use of fire, hand-clearing, and limited herbicides to reduce woody competition to maintain sunny openings and edges; preventing woody species invasion; and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs. Any sites of small spreading pogonia, natural or established, would be protected in the Foothills Landscape under the revised Forest Plan. Woodlands occupied by small spreading pogonia would be protected through the Rare Community (9F) prescription. Additionally, the LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting species viability. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate.

Table Mountain Pine Forest A Rare Community identified by the LRMP, this community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) prescription of the LRMP wherever it occurs on the Forest. While there are scattered trees of Table Mountain pine, there are not enough to qualify as a stand. There are no species analyzed that use this community as a habitat element. This community is characterized by a dominant or significant component of Table Mountain pine (P. pungens) in the overstory, often in combination with pitch pine (P. rigida), shortleaf, and oaks including chestnut, scarlet, black, southern red, post, and blackjack. Many of the dry, rocky ridges and steep, west and south-facing slopes support woodlands with less than 60% tree cover. Primary management needs are maintenance and expansion of existing occurrences using thinning and prescribed fire.

Caves and Mines Two mines are located in the FLP area on private land (no caves or mines are known on the Forest in the FLP area). Identified as high priority habitat in the SWAP (GaDNR, 2015) and a Rare Community identified by the LRMP, this community would be managed and protected under the Rare Community (9F) prescription of the LRMP wherever they occur on the Forest. 33

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

There are no known botanical resources analyzed for this habitat element. This community is characterized by natural and human-made openings in the ground that extend beyond the zone of light, creating sites buffered in relation to the outside environment. Karst and sinkhole features that lead to such subterranean environments are included. Provisions of the Rare Community Prescription apply only to those sites supporting cave-associated species. This community is found in the Appalachian region. Primary management needs are protection from non-target management disturbance and recreational impacts and maintaining quality of water flowing into underground streams. There are no known significant caves or mine in the treatment area however there are a few located within the project boundary on private property.

Environmental Consequences A variety of vegetation management activities would occur across the FLP including but not limited to mechanical ground-based harvest, mastication, gap creation, and hand planting. Table 4 compares the estimated level of effects from each alternative.

Table 4 Estimated Level of Effects to Rare Communities for Both Alternatives

Known to Occur Rare in the Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Community Project Area?

Rare communities exhibit the Rare communities exhibit the composition, structure, and function composition, structure, and function necessary to support the vigorous necessary to support the vigorous population of species characteristic of population of species characteristic of the community. Natural processes are the community. Environmental factors Bogs, Fens, not sufficient to maintain these have changed to the extent that natural Seeps, and conditions. No management would not processes are prevented or hindered Yes Seasonal contribute to the conservation of from maintaining the community. Active Ponds species occurring in the Foothills management would contribute to the Landscape and would not be consistent conservation of species occurring in the with the forest plan direction. This Foothills Landscape and would be habitat element would be maintained on consistent with the forest plan direction: a very limited scale with volunteers and Project design features would be partners. protective of this habitat.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Known to Occur Rare in the Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Community Project Area?

Rare communities exhibit the composition, structure, and function Rare communities exhibit the necessary to support the vigorous composition, structure, and function population of species characteristic of necessary to support the vigorous the community. Environmental factors population of species characteristic of have changed to the extent that natural Highland the community. Natural processes are processes are prevented or hindered Riverine Yes not sufficient to maintain these from maintaining the community. Active Vegetation conditions. No management would not management would contribute to the contribute to the conservation of conservation of species occurring in the species occurring in the Foothills Foothills Landscape and would be Landscape and would not be consistent consistent with the forest plan direction: with the forest plan direction. Project design features would be protective of this habitat.

No management would be consistent Active management would be consistent with the forest plan direction: Rare with the forest plan direction: Project communities exhibit the composition, design features would be protective of Cliffs and structure, and function necessary to this habitat. Rare communities exhibit Rocks and Yes support the vigorous population of the composition, structure, and function Outcrops species characteristic of the community. necessary to support the vigorous Natural processes are sufficient to population of species characteristic of maintain these conditions. the community.

No management would be consistent Active management would be consistent with the forest plan direction: Rare with the forest plan direction: Project communities exhibit the composition, design features would be protective of Forested structure, and function necessary to this habitat. Rare communities exhibit Yes Boulderfields support the vigorous population of the composition, structure, and function species characteristic of the community. necessary to support the vigorous Natural processes are sufficient to population of species characteristic of maintain these conditions. the community.

No management would be consistent Active management would be consistent with the forest plan direction: Rare with the forest plan direction: Project communities exhibit the composition, design features would be protective of Cliffs and structure, and function necessary to this habitat. Rare communities exhibit Yes Bluffs support the vigorous population of the composition, structure, and function species characteristic of the community. necessary to support the vigorous Natural processes are sufficient to population of species characteristic of maintain these conditions. the community.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Known to Occur Rare in the Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Community Project Area?

No management would be consistent Active management would be consistent with the forest plan direction: Rare with the forest plan direction: Project communities exhibit the composition, design features would be protective of structure, and function necessary to this habitat. Rare communities exhibit Rock Outcrops Yes support the vigorous population of the composition, structure, and function species characteristic of the community. necessary to support the vigorous Natural processes are sufficient to population of species characteristic of maintain these conditions. the community.

No management would be consistent Active management would be consistent with the forest plan direction: Rare with the forest plan direction: Project communities exhibit the composition, design features would be protective of Rocky structure, and function necessary to this habitat. Rare communities exhibit Yes Summits support the vigorous population of the composition, structure, and function species characteristic of the community. necessary to support the vigorous Natural processes are sufficient to population of species characteristic of maintain these conditions. the community.

Rare communities exhibit the Rare communities exhibit the composition, structure, and function composition, structure, and function necessary to support the vigorous necessary to support the vigorous population of species characteristic of population of species characteristic of the community. Natural processes are the community. Environmental factors Table not sufficient to maintain these have changed to the extent that natural Mountain Pine conditions. No management would not processes are prevented or hindered Yes Forest and contribute to the conservation of from maintaining the community. Active Woodland species occurring in the Foothills management would contribute to the Landscape and would not be consistent conservation of species occurring in the with the forest plan direction. This Foothills Landscape and would be habitat element would be maintained on consistent with the forest plan direction: a very limited scale with volunteers and Project design features would be partners. protective of this habitat.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Known to Occur Rare in the Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Community Project Area?

Rare communities exhibit the composition, structure, and function Rare communities exhibit the necessary to support the vigorous composition, structure, and function population of species characteristic of necessary to support the vigorous the community. Environmental factors population of species characteristic of have changed to the extent that natural the community. Natural processes are Basic Mesic processes are prevented or hindered Yes not sufficient to maintain these Forest from maintaining the community. Active conditions. No management would not management would contribute to the contribute to the conservation of conservation of species occurring in the species occurring in the Foothills Foothills Landscape and would be Landscape and would not be consistent consistent with the forest plan direction: with the forest plan direction. Project design features would be protective of this habitat.

This is not a community known to occur from the project area, no management This is not a community known to occur would occur in this community, from the project area, no management management would be consistent with would occur in this community, Glades, the forest plan direction: Rare management would be consistent with Barrens, and communities exhibit the composition, No the forest plan direction: Rare Associated structure, and function necessary to communities exhibit the composition, Woodlands support the vigorous population of structure, and function necessary to species characteristic of the community. support the vigorous population of This habitat element would be species characteristic of the community. maintained on a very limited scale with volunteers and partners.

This is not a community known to occur This is not a community known to occur from the project area, no management from the project area, no management would occur in this community, would occur in this community, management would be consistent with management would be consistent with Balds No the forest plan direction: Rare the forest plan direction: Rare communities exhibit the composition, communities exhibit the composition, structure, and function necessary to structure, and function necessary to support the vigorous population of support the vigorous population of species characteristic of the community. species characteristic of the community.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Known to Occur Rare in the Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Community Project Area?

Rare communities exhibit the Rare communities exhibit the composition, structure, and function composition, structure, and function necessary to support the vigorous necessary to support the vigorous population of species characteristic of population of species characteristic of the community. Natural processes are the community. Environmental factors not sufficient to maintain these have changed to the extent that natural conditions. No management would not processes are prevented or hindered Canebrakes No contribute to the conservation of from maintaining the community. Active species occurring in the Foothills management would contribute to the Landscape and would not be consistent conservation of species occurring in the with the forest plan direction. This Foothills Landscape and would be habitat element would be maintained on consistent with the forest plan direction: a very limited scale with volunteers and Project design features would be partners. protective of this habitat.

This is not a community known to occur This is not a community known to occur on the forest from the project area, no on the forest from the project area, no management would occur in this management would occur in this Yes, but community, management would be community, management would be Caves and not on consistent with the forest plan direction: consistent with the forest plan direction: Mines USFS Rare communities exhibit the Rare communities exhibit the land composition, structure, and function composition, structure, and function necessary to support the vigorous necessary to support the vigorous population of species characteristic of population of species characteristic of the community. the community.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, is expected to affect some habitat elements. Under Alternative 1, habitat elements that don’t need any disturbance would not be affected. Small- scale projects would occur with limited timber harvest or prescribed fire. A few disturbance dependent rare communities would be maintained on a very small scale, largely through the efforts of volunteers and partners. Habitat elements were assessed by considering the effect on the Abundance, Distribution, Likelihood of Limitation, and resulting Management Effect shown in Table 5 below.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

utility corridors, developed and dispersed recreation, wildlife openings, and hemlock conservation areas. Since 2011, there have been a few commercial tree thinning operations from previously planned projects within the Foothills Landscape totaling approximately 485 acres. Timber harvest activities have resulted in altered canopy conditions where old skid trails, landings, and temporary roads were once constructed. About 0.3% of the FLP area contains past/ongoing timber harvest and associated actions that could affect the abundance and distribution of habitat elements on the landscape. Since 2007, periodic prescribed burning activities have been implemented on approximately 6,887 acres or 4.4% of the Foothills Landscape. Cumulative impacts on botanical resources from past prescribed burning is considered minimal for the majority of areas burned. Past prescribed burns have all been within the low to moderate burn intensity categories, therefore promoting nutrient cycling and vegetative cover. Prescribed burning has not occurred with a frequency that would alter forest structure or habitat elements. Therefore, even though prescribed fire has occurred and is likely to occur into the future in part of previously planned projects that happen to occur in the Foothills Landscape, the fire prescriptions are infrequent and designed to burn at low to moderate intensity. Consequently, the effects of these burns are not expected to change the tree canopy structure. In total, there are approximately 15,885 acres of burn blocks within the Foothills Landscape; therefore, multiple prescribed burns are reasonably foreseeable future actions that would occur in the Foothills Landscape area with BMPs and Forest Plan standards in place to limit burning to low and moderate intensities that would not substantially alter canopy cover or forest structure. The amount of dozer line to support prescribed fire operation in the Foothills Landscape is estimated to be 160 acres or 0.1% of the Foothills Landscape. Wildlife openings occur on 275 acres or 0.2% of the Foothills Landscape. The maintenance and restoration activities within these areas includes mowing, disking, prescribed burning, herbicide, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime. Ongoing management efforts are designed to maintain the existing structure and vegetation in wildlife openings. Other activities on federal lands within the Foothills Landscape include a variety of maintenance measures. For ROW, activities are performed to ensure the safety of the public and to prevent degradation of infrastructure and the environment. Road maintenance operations such as blading the road surface, mowing the ROW and pulling the ditches can lead to disturbance of botanical resources. Herbicides and pesticides used on various projects are applied within label guidelines. Timed properly, ROW maintenance can mimic natural disturbances and benefit botanical resources that rely on open habitats. On private lands, timber harvesting, farming operations, prescribed burning, road construction/maintenance, and housing development have occurred and are likely to continue. These activities on private lands are expected to contribute to both short- and long-term negative impacts to botanical resources and would interact cumulatively with the proposed lack of management activities under Alternative 1. Table 5 outlines the management effects of Alternative 1 on the abundance and distribution of habitat elements and the viability of botanical resources.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Table 5 Effects of Alternative 1 on Habitat Elements

Likelihood of Habitat Element Abundance Distribution Management Effects Limitation

Poor – The habitat element is Rare – The habitat element High- General expected to decrease in is poorly distributed likelihood that distribution and The habitat element within the project the habitat abundance as a result of is rare, with area and intermixed element would management action or generally less than Bogs, Fens, lands relative to be limiting to inaction. Opportunity to 100 occurrences, or Seeps, and conditions present viability of reduce risk to viability of patches of the Seasonal Ponds prior to European associated associated species is element generally settlement. Number species based primarily through adopting covering less than and size of high- on its and implementing 1% of the project quality habitat abundance and objectives to maintain or area patches is greatly distribution. increase this habitat reduced. element.

Good - Abundance and Low- distribution of the habitat The habitat element element is maintained or is fairly well General Common – improved by providing distributed within the likelihood that optimal protection, The habitat element project area and the habitat maintenance, and is abundant and intermixed lands element would restoration to all River Channels frequently relative to conditions be limiting to occurrences (with limited encountered, and present prior to viability of exceptions in some generally found on European associated cases). Little additional more than 10% of settlement. Number species based opportunity exists to the project area. and size of high- on its decrease risk to viability of quality habitat abundance and associated species patches is distribution. because management is somewhat reduced. at or near optimal.

Good – Abundance and Low- distribution of the habitat The habitat element element is maintained or is fairly well General Common – improved by providing distributed within the likelihood that optimal protection, The habitat element project area and the habitat maintenance, and is abundant and intermixed lands element would restoration to all Late-Successional frequently relative to conditions be limiting to occurrences (with limited Riparian encountered, and present prior to viability of exceptions in some generally found on European associated cases). Little additional more than 10% of settlement. Number species based opportunity exists to the project area. and size of high- on its decrease risk to viability of quality habitat abundance and associated species patches are distribution. because management is somewhat reduced. at or near optimal.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Likelihood of Habitat Element Abundance Distribution Management Effects Limitation

Fair – Abundance and High- distribution of the habitat The habitat element Rare – element is maintained or is fairly well General improved by providing The habitat element distributed within the likelihood that optimal protection, is rare, with project area and the habitat maintenance, and generally less than intermixed lands element would restoration to all Basic Mesic 100 occurrences, or relative to conditions be limiting to occurrences (with limited Forest patches of the present prior to viability of exceptions in some element generally European associated cases). Little additional covering less than settlement. Number species based opportunity exists to 1% of the project and size of high- on its decrease risk to viability of area. quality habitat abundance and associated species patches are distribution. because management is somewhat reduced. at or near optimal.

Fair – Abundance and Low- distribution of the habitat The habitat element element is improved is fairly well General Common – through purposeful distributed within the likelihood that restoration, either through The habitat element project area and the habitat active management or is abundant and intermixed lands element would passively by providing for Mature Mesic frequently relative to conditions be limiting to successional progression. Hardwood Forests encountered, and present prior to viability of Opportunity for generally found on European associated decreasing risk to more than 10% of settlement. Number species based associated species is the project area. and size of high- on its primarily through quality habitat abundance and increasing rates of patches is distribution. restoration, where somewhat reduced. possible.

Regardless of Poor – management efforts, the High- habitat element is Rare – The habitat element General expected to decrease in is poorly distributed The habitat element likelihood that distribution and within the project is rare, with the habitat abundance as a result of area and intermixed generally less than element would factors substantially lands relative to Mature Hemlock 100 occurrences, or be limiting to outside of USFS control conditions present Forests patches of the viability of (e.g., invasive pests, acid prior to European element generally associated deposition). Opportunity to settlement. Number covering less than species based reduce risk to viability of and size of high- 1% of the project on its associated species is quality habitat area. abundance and primarily through patches is greatly distribution. cooperative ventures with reduced. other agencies and organizations.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Likelihood of Habitat Element Abundance Distribution Management Effects Limitation

Fair – The habitat element is The habitat element Low- General expected to decrease in is fairly well Common – likelihood that distribution and distributed within the the habitat abundance as a result of The habitat element project area and element would management action or is abundant and intermixed lands be limiting to inaction. Opportunity to Mature Oak frequently relative to conditions viability of reduce risk to viability of Forest encountered, and present prior to associated associated species is generally found on European species based primarily through adopting more than 10% of settlement. Number on its and implementing the project area. and size of high- abundance and objectives to maintain or quality habitat distribution. increase this habitat patches is element. somewhat reduced.

The habitat element is maintained at Poor – approximately current Moderate- distribution and Rare – The habitat element General abundance, though is poorly distributed likelihood that The habitat element location of elements may within the project the habitat is rare, with shift over time as a result area and intermixed element would Early generally less than of management action or lands relative to be limiting to successional 100 occurrences, or inaction. Opportunity to conditions present viability of Forest patches of the reduce risk to viability of prior to European associated element generally associated species is settlement. Number species based covering less than primarily through adopting and size of high- on its 1% of the project and implementing quality habitat abundance and area. objectives to increase patches is greatly distribution. reduced. abundance and distribution of the habitat element.

The habitat element is Fair – maintained at approximately current Moderate- The habitat element distribution and General is fairly well abundance, though likelihood that Occasional – distributed within the location of elements may the habitat project area and shift over time as a result The habitat element element would intermixed lands of management action or is encountered be limiting to Canopy Gaps relative to conditions inaction. Opportunity to occasionally, and viability of present prior to reduce risk to viability of generally found on 1 associated European associated species is to 10% of the project species based settlement. Number primarily through adopting area. on its and size of high- and implementing abundance and quality habitat objectives to increase distribution. patches is abundance and somewhat reduced. distribution of the habitat element. 42

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Likelihood of Habitat Element Abundance Distribution Management Effects Limitation

The habitat element is Poor – maintained at High- approximately current The habitat element Rare – distribution and is fairly well General abundance, though The habitat element distributed within the likelihood that location of elements may is rare, with project area and the habitat shift over time as a result Woodlands, generally less than intermixed lands element would of management action or Savannas, and 100 occurrences, or relative to conditions be limiting to inaction. Opportunity to Grasslands patches of the present prior to viability of reduce risk to viability of element generally European associated associated species is covering less than settlement. Number species based primarily through adopting 1% of the project and size of high- on its and implementing area. quality habitat abundance and objectives to increase patches is distribution. abundance and somewhat reduced. distribution of the habitat element. Since Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative, there are no cumulative effects on botanical resources. Design criteria and mitigation measures from past projects were used to reduce negative effects on botanical resources.

Determination of Effects Determination of Effect: Swamp Pink (Federally Threatened) The viability of swamp pink is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Those activities would mostly consist of limited removal of encroaching vegetation using volunteer efforts and no hydrologic restoration could be implemented. Volunteer efforts are limited in the scope, scale and pace of restoration or maintenance that can be accomplished. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” swamp pink. Determination of Effect: White Fringeless Orchid (Federally Threatened) The viability of white fringeless orchid is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Those activities would mostly consist of limited removal of encroaching vegetation using volunteer efforts and no hydrologic restoration could be implemented. Volunteer efforts are limited in the scope, scale and pace of restoration or maintenance that can be accomplished. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects “May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” white fringeless orchid. Determination of Effect: Cuthbert’s Turtlehead (RFSS) The viability of Cuthbert’s turtlehead is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Those activities would mostly consist of limited removal of

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

encroaching vegetation using volunteer efforts and no hydrologic restoration could be implemented. Volunteer efforts are limited in the scope, scale and pace of restoration or maintenance that can be accomplished. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of Cuthbert’s turtlehead. Determination of Effect: Largeleaf Grass-Of Parnassus (RFSS) The viability of largeleaf grass-of parnassus is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Those activities would mostly consist of limited removal of encroaching vegetation using volunteer efforts and no hydrologic restoration could be implemented. Volunteer efforts are limited in the scope, scale and pace of restoration or maintenance that can be accomplished. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of largeleaf grass-of parnassus. Determination of Effect: Fraser’s Loosestrife (RFSS) The viability of Fraser’s loosestrife is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (River Channels and Late Successional Riparian). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Distribution and abundance of late-successional riparian habitat is expected to increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. Fraser’s loosestrife is largely a disturbance plant. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire or flood, creates and maintains favorable habitat (NatureServe 2018). Management that mimics natural processes, such as cutting and mowing, has been demonstrated to be beneficial to populations of this species. Habitat conditions for this plant are probably not as favorable on private lands, making habitat protection and management on the forest important to moderate cumulative effects to the population. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of Fraser’s loosestrife. Determination of Effect: Whorled Stoneroot (RFSS) The viability of whorled stoneroot is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (Mature Oak; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands and Late-Successional riparian). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Distribution and abundance of late-successional habitat is expected to increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of mature hemlock forest is expected to decrease over time, generally reducing available habitat for this plant species. Habitat conditions for this plant are probably not as favorable on private lands, making habitat protection and management on the forest important to moderate cumulative effects to the population. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects would have a no impact on the viability of whorled stoneroot.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Determination of Effect: Large Witchalder (RFSS) The viability of large witchalder is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (Mature Hemlock Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands and Late Successional Riparian). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. Distribution and abundance of late-successional habitat is expected to increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of mature hemlock is expected to decline, generally not benefiting this plant species. Large witchalder is largely a disturbance plant. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire or flood, creates and maintains favorable habitat. Management that mimics natural processes, such as cutting and mowing, has been demonstrated to be beneficial to populations of this species. Habitat conditions for this plant are probably not as favorable on private lands, making habitat protection and management on the forest important to moderate cumulative effects to the population. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of large witchalder. Determination of Effect: A Liverwort (RFSS) The viability of a liverwort is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Late-Successional Riparian). Design criteria provide optimal protection of riparian and gorge habitat where this species occurs. Current distribution and increased abundance of Late- Successional Riparian habitats in the future should be maintained. As a result, habitat conditions for this plant are expected to improve as a result of plan implementation. Cumulatively, many of these habitats on private lands are not likely to be protected, making their presence on the forest increasingly important to the species. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects would have no impact on the viability of A liverwort. Determination of Effect: Butternut (RFSS) The viability of butternut is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element Basic Mesic Forest and Mature Mesic Forest. Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Basic Mesic Forest is expected to remain stable over time, generally benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. Although butternut canker is the primary global threat to this species, butternut is also threatened to some extent by plant succession in areas where the pre- settlement disturbance regime no longer exists, preventing the creation of open conditions necessary for the successful reproduction of this shade-intolerant species (NatureServe, 2018). Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of butternut. Determination of Effect: Small Whorled Pogonia (Federally Endangered) The viability of small whorled pogonia is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest and Mature Hemlock Forest). Under

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of mature hemlock forest is expected to decrease over time, generally reducing available habitat for this plant species. Small whorled pogonia needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire, creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” small whorled pogonia. Determination of Effect: Sweet Pinesap (RFSS) The viability of sweet pinesap is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest, Mature Oak Forest and Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of mature oak forest is expected to decrease over time, generally reducing available habitat for this plant species. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands would be expected to remain relatively stable as there is very little on the landscape generally not benefiting this plant species. Sweet pinesap needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of sweet pinesap. Determination of Effect: Blue Ridge Catchfly (RFSS) The viability of Blue Ridge catchfly is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest and Early successional Forest). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. The distribution and abundance of early successional forest is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. Blue Ridge catchfly needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance- dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of Blue Ridge catchfly.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Determination of Effect: Jeweled Trillium (RFSS) The viability of jeweled trillium is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. Jeweled trillium needs protection form disturbance. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects would have no impact on the viability of jeweled trillium. Determination of Effect: Piedmont Barren Strawberry (RFSS) The viability of Piedmont barren strawberry is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase over time, generally benefiting this plant species. Piedmont barren strawberry needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of Piedmont barren strawberry. Determination of Effect: Ash-Leaf Bush Pea (RFSS) The viability of ash-leaf bush pea is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Oak Forest). Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of mature oak forest is expected to decrease over time, generally reducing available habitat for this plant species. Ash-leaf bush pea needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of ash-leaf bush pea.

Determination of Effect: Hairy False Lupine (RFSS) The viability of hairy false lupine is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Canopy Gaps). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of canopy gaps is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. Hairy false lupine needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of hairy false lupine. Determination of Effect: Smooth Coneflower (Federally Threatened and MIS) The viability of smooth coneflower is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. Coneflower often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” smooth coneflower. Determination of Effect: Smith’s Sunflower (RFSS) The viability of Smith’s sunflower is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of Smith’s sunflower. Determination of Effect: Georgia Aster (RFSS and Candidate) The viability of Georgia aster is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of Georgia aster.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Determination of Effect: Small Spreading Pogonia (RFSS) The viability of small spreading pogonia is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. The distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to remain relatively stable, as there is very little on the landscape, generally not benefiting this plant species. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Alternative 1 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability of small spreading pogonia.

Alternative 2

Project Design Features Project design features (PDFs) include activities that occur during implementation that are designed to mitigate or reduce impacts to rare communities and botanical resources. The EA identifies specific PDFs that provide an overview of important aspects of the project that would be implemented to address soil and water resources, riparian corridors, heritage resources, non- native invasive species, vegetation management, and visual quality.

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed activities associated with the treatments being proposed that may impact the desired conditions for botanical resources include ground based mechanical harvest, mastication, prescribed fire, scarifying, disking, decompacting, recontouring, mowing, mechanical planting, road, trail, and recreation site activities, parking lot expansion, hydrologic restoration, and change in motorized access (see Appendix A, Error! Reference source not found. for a description of proposed actions with activities and the affected indicator (habitat element)). All treatments within the proposed action would not occur simultaneously but would be implemented over a long period of time. Many of these activities could overlap in space, but most likely not in time. Therefore, the following analysis assumes a sequence of actions that occur in a shorter time period than would likely occur. Consequently, the level of effects shown below may be an overestimate of those effects to botanical resources. Ground Based Harvest (Mechanical Equipment) The following treatments include ground based harvest with mechanical equipment and are included in this section: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Young Forest Creation, Woodland, Canopy Gaps, Hemlock Conservation, Chestnut Orchards, Canebrakes, Wildlife Opening Creation, Pine Plantation Maintenance, Insect/Disease Response, and Wildland Urban Interface (see Error! Reference source not found.). See the FLP Vegetation Report appendix for details of the vegetation management activities.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Timber harvest activities change the forest structure and may thin or remove the canopy and mid-story. Changes in the forest structure can change the amount of sunlight available to herbaceous vegetation and alter the availability of water and other resources. The potential total number of acres proposed for mechanical harvest would be 80,681 acres or 51% of the FLP. This number was derived by summing up all the acres proposed in Alternative 2 that listed mechanical harvest as a potential activity (see Appendix A). Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Ground-based harvest may be used to maintain or increase several habitat elements including Mature Oak Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands; and Canopy Gaps. Ground-based harvest can also enhance several other habitat elements including Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic Forest; and Late-Successional Riparian. Mastication The following treatments include mastication and are considered in this section: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Young Forest Creation, Woodland, Canopy Gaps, Hemlock Conservation, Chestnut Orchards, Canebrakes, Pine Plantation Maintenance, Insect/Disease Response, and Wildland Urban Interface (see Appendix A). Mastication is described as an option for small tree thinning, release, and mid-story work. Many of these treatments may include a combination of the use of hand tools or herbicides or mastication to obtain the desired condition. Mastication activities change the forest structure and may thin or remove the canopy and mid- story. Changes in the forest structure can change the amount of sunlight available to herbaceous vegetation and alter the availability of water and other resources. Potential number of acres proposed for mastication is 83,850 acres. This number was derived by summing up all the acres proposed in Alternative 2 that listed mastication as a potential activity (see Appendix A). Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Mastication includes use of mechanical equipment therefore the acres all are under a 35% slope. Given the proposed actions and the possibility that mastication could be used in other areas to achieve desired results, this analysis used 83,850 acres to estimate potential effects. Mastication may be used to maintain or increase several habitat elements including Mature Oak Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands; and Canopy Gaps. It can also enhance several other habitat elements including Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic Forest; and Late-Successional Riparian. Prescribed Burning The following treatments include possible prescribed burning either in established burn blocks or in new burn blocks: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Woodland, Canopy Gaps, Bog Restoration, Canebrakes, Small Whorled Pogonia, Wildlife Opening Creation And Maintenance, Pine Plantation Maintenance, Insect/Disease Response, and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Acreage proposed for prescribed fire would be 50,000 acres of ecological fire use (31.7% of the FLP area), plus 2,000 acres WUI (1.3% of FLP 50

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

area) equaling a total of 52,000 acres or 33% of the FLP area. Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Prescribed burning changes the forest structure and may thin or remove the canopy and mid- story. Changes in the forest structure can change the amount of sunlight available to herbaceous vegetation and alter the availability of water and other resources. The intent of prescribed burning in many of the proposed treatments are to a) reduce fuel loading, and b) aid in site preparation. The proposal would attempt to mimic a natural fire (historic role). Prescribed burning may be used to maintain or increase several habitat elements including Mature Oak Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, And Grasslands; Canopy Gaps. It would enhance several other habitat elements including Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic Forest; Bogs, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds, and Late-Successional Riparian. Scarifying, Disking, Decompacting, Recontouring The following treatments that may include these activities and that are considered in this section are: Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance, Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Oak & Oak-Pine Maintenance, Oak & Oak-Pine Restoration, Oak Or Southern Yellow Pine Restoration, Young Forest Creation, Hemlock Conservation, Chestnut Orchards, Canebrakes, Insect/Disease Response, Wildlife Opening Creation And Maintenance, Decommissioning User Created Trails/Undesired Camp Sites, Decommissioning Campgrounds, Decommissioning Low Use Trails, And Decommissioning Roads. Acreage proposed for scarifying, disking, decompacting, or recontouring totals 39,781 acres or 25% of the FLP area. Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Decompaction or sub-soiling would be done by utilizing a sub-soiler attachment in areas that are compacted. The effects to the surface cover and erosion are similar to that of scarification, but with slightly larger incisions where the equipment goes into the soil. Periodic disking would be common in wildlife openings with the overall size (average wildlife opening is 1 acre), and the occurrence of disking is usually once every 3-5 years. These areas are disked to promote desired vegetation growth. Recontouring closed trails, campsites, landings, or roads would attempt to restore the site back to natural conditions. As the slope becomes revegetated over time, however, erosion levels eventually mimic natural slope conditions. The soil disturbance from scarifying, disking, decompacting and recontouring treatments would directly affect plants where these activities occur. These treatments are designed to favor growing conditions for desires trees and herbaceous plants and would likely kill plants that occur in the treatment area. Scarifying, disking, decompacting and recontouring may be used to restore sites that have departed from natural conditions either due to recreational use or off-site trees. These treatments would not occur in any of the rare communities managed under the F9 prescription. These treatments would not be beneficial to any of the habitat elements evaluated in this report; however, they are unlikely to affect the habitat elements evaluated in this report.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Mowing, Mechanical Planting, Application of Fertilizer and Lime These activities are considered together since they would most likely all be done within the same treatment, and because the end goal for these activities is to enhance plant growth. The following treatments include mowing, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime and are considered in this section: Wildlife Opening Creation and Maintenance and Chestnut Orchards. Acreage proposed for mowing, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime totals 1,131 acres or 0.7% of the FLP area. Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Mowing, mechanical planting and application of fertilizer and lime treatments would directly affect plants where these activities occur. These treatments are designed to favor growing conditions for desired trees and herbaceous plants and would likely benefit plants that occur in the treatment area. Mowing, mechanical planting and application of fertilizer and lime treatments may be used to in wildlife openings to favor pollinator habitat and management of wildlife openings. These treatments would not occur in any of the rare communities managed under the F9 prescription and are unlikely to occur in areas with the evaluated habitat elements. These treatments would not be beneficial to any of the habitat elements evaluated in this report however they are unlikely to affect the habitat elements evaluated in this report. Road, Trail, and Recreation Site Activities The following treatments include new trail construction or road to trail conversion and are considered in this section: New Trail Construction, Trail Reroutes, and Road to Trail Conversion. Acreage proposed for trail construction, reroutes, and road to trail conversion totals 39 acres or 0.02% of the FLP area. The Foothills Landscape has approximately 191 miles of trail (Table 6) occupying 80 acres, or 0.05% of the FLP area.

Table 6 Miles and Estimated Acres of Trail within the Foothills Landscape Project Area Designated by Primary Use

Primary Use Miles Acres

Bike 16 4

Hike 60 16

Hike-Horse-Bike 26 10

Horse 41 19

OHV 48 32

TOTAL 191 80 The main goal of New Trail Construction, Reroutes, and Road to Trail Conversion is to increase the overall sustainability of the trail system by creating or rerouting trails in areas that are better suited, would provide the opportunity to spread out visitor use, and ultimately reduce resource impacts causing the resource protection rating to improve. For example, new trail construction has been proposed in order to provide loop trails rather than out-and-back. While this would

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

cause new soil disturbance during trail construction, it would ultimately reduce user impacts on the soil resource, therefore reducing erosion and compaction providing a more sustainable trail. Reroutes have been proposed in areas that currently have unsustainable trails that may have a steep section with a high amount of erosion. The reroutes may result in more miles of trail, but the end result would be a more sustainable portion of trail that would have reduced impacts on the soil resource. See the Recreation Report for a complete analysis. New trail construction could include removal of vegetation, construction of tread using both manual and mechanical methods, and construction of structures (turnpikes, causeways, retaining walls, climbing turns, and switchbacks) to increase the sustainability and longevity of the trail. Additionally, installation and maintenance of drainage structures such as culverts, low-water crossings, bridges, and water diversion methods would occur. During the process of road to trail conversion, mechanical equipment would be used to narrow the road surface, remove culverts or other road infrastructure, and creation of trail tread with proper drainage features. This process would ultimately reduce the amount of bare soil and erosion with the narrowing of tread. New trail construction would directly affect plants where these activities occur resulting in displacing herbaceous plants and would likely kill plants that occur in the treatment area. These treatments would not occur in any of the rare communities managed under the F9 prescription and are unlikely to occur in areas with the evaluated habitat elements. These treatments would not be beneficial to any of the habitat elements evaluated in this report; however, they are unlikely to affect the habitat elements evaluated in this report. Parking Lot Expansion The following treatments include parking lot expansion and are considered in this section: Improving Parking Access. Acreage proposed for parking lot expansion totals 3 acres, or less than 0.01% of the FLP area. Parking lot expansion would directly affect plants where these activities occur resulting in displaced trees and herbaceous plants and killing plants that occur in the treatment area. These treatments would not occur in any of the rare communities managed under the F9 prescription and are unlikely to occur in areas with the evaluated habitat elements. These treatments would not be beneficial to any of the habitat elements evaluated in this report; however, they are unlikely to affect the habitat elements evaluated in this report. Access Changes Access changes are proposed directly or indirectly in the following treatments: Road to Trail Conversion, Trail to Road Conversion, Decommissioning User Created Trail/Undesired Dispersed Camp Sites, Decommissioning Low-Use Developed Campgrounds, Decommissioning Low-Use Trails, Decommissioning Roads, Decreasing Maintenance Level (ML), and Seasonal Closures of Roads. Acreage proposed for access changes equals 1,650 acres or 1.0% of the FLP area. Some of these acres may overlap in time and space throughout the course of the FLP, and these activities may not occur on all acres listed in Appendix A. Access changes would not affect the habitat element evaluated in this report. Outplanting Desired Vegetation There are several species of plants analyzed in this report that have populations that have declined due to a lack of habitat. In order to supplement the recovery of desired species, seed 53

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

from local wild plants would be collected and grown in botanical gardens. As restoration efforts create the appropriate forest conditions (e.g. forest structure, fire regime, and hydrology) plants would be outplanted. This effort would be done in coordination with partners including GPCA, GaDNR and USFWS. Outplanting would increase the abundance of plants, supplement diversity on the forest and increase the viability of species. Effects in Riparian Corridors While most activities would occur in upland habitats, a number of activities would occur in riparian corridors and would affect several habitat elements, including: Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds; River Channels; Late-Successional Riparian; Canopy Gaps; Early successional Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests, and Mature Hemlock Forest. There are approximately 28,678 acres of riparian habitat (acres within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream) within the Foothills Landscape. Riparian corridors on the Forest are managed and protected through application of the Riparian Corridor Prescription (11) standards, which meet or exceed State BMPs. All silvicultural activities would comply with Georgia BMP recommendation that an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained. A minimum of 100 feet from the defined stream channel (on each side) defines the riparian corridor on perennial and intermittent streams (Forest Plan page 3-175). Research in the southeastern U.S. has shown that properly implemented BMPs are effective at preserving water quality through the control of non-point source sediment pollution (Phillips et al., 2000, Sun et al., 2004, and Stuart and Edwards, 2006). Table 7 Alternative 2 Activities Potentially Affecting Riparian Corridor (100 Feet of Perennial and Intermittent Streams)

Potential Activities Affecting Riparian Potential Total Acreage Projected Riparian Acreage1 Habitat

Silvicultural activities • Canopy Gap creation in mesic 8,100 2,250 hardwoods: • Young forest creation in mesic 500 75 hardwoods: • Pine plantation maintenance: 27,300 1,060 Hemlock conservation activities (pesticide 600 300 use) Permanent opening improvement activities 1,400 55

1 These acreage amounts are conservative estimates based on several assumptions, including: that commercial harvest activities would not be completed on steep slopes; that virtually all riparian habitat in the project area is late- successional habitat; that no new permanent openings would be created in riparian corridors; that 15% of mesic hardwood acreage would be in riparian corridors, and that 50% of new hemlock conservation areas would be in riparian corridors. 54

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Potential Activities Affecting Riparian Potential Total Acreage Projected Riparian Acreage1 Habitat

Stream improvement projects (aquatic passage projects, stream structure ~10 ~10 maintenance, adding large woody debris to streams, streambank stabilization) Road and trail projects (decommissioning roads, ORV trails, other trails, dispersed ~1000 ~860 sites; new trails, trail reroutes, improvements to parking) Improvements to canebrakes, bogs, small- 88 88 whorled pogonia sites (pesticide use) Total ~4700 acres Activates proposed in Alternative 2 would be designed to benefit specific habitat elements that are limited on the landscape, except for Late-Successional Riparian. The majority of the 28,678 acres of riparian corridor is likely to be in Late-Successional Riparian habitat. Activities that favor other habitat elements generally would decrease the amount of late-successional riparian habitat. However, increasing the abundance of rare habitat elements by a few acres at the expense of a relatively abundant habitat element (Late-Successional Riparian) would increase structural diversity and be beneficial to botanical resources with a discountable impact to late- successional riparian habitat. Silvicultural activities proposed in Alternative 2 were evaluated regarding their potential to affect Late-Successional Riparian Habitat. The majority of the activities would be implemented outside the riparian corridor. The silvicultural activities that may occur in the riparian corridor would result in patches of open canopy. The following actions could directly or indirectly affect Late- Successional Riparian habitat structure and function: The creation of canopy gaps in mid-late mesic deciduous hardwood stands could affect portions of stands that fall into the riparian corridor. Gaps in the canopy (up to 0.75 acre) would be created by retaining variable tree densities throughout the stand at relatively low intensities (less than 25% of the stand) and thinning the remainder of the stand to an average of 70-80 square feet of basal area per acre. A more diverse and complex vertical structure would result as young growth develops in the patchy canopy. This alternative proposes to treat 8,100 acres of mesic deciduous stands in this manner, and approximately 1,172 acres of this could occur in riparian corridors. Young forest creation in mesic stands is proposed on 500 acres in the Foothills. Approximately 15% of this treatment could affect riparian corridors (75 acres) across the project area, not exceeding 1-2% of each 6th level sub watershed in young forest habitat (Forest Plan objective 4.1). This activity increases the early successional habitat element. Both the canopy gap creation and young forest creation would comply with the Forest Plan and meet Georgia BMP for forestry with a requirement of an average of at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre and all streambank trees would be retained. Hemlock conservation actions, including the expansion of existing HCAs into adjacent areas if live hemlock is present could potentially affect the riparian corridor. This would include noncommercial release of hemlock trees from competition and involve soil injection of the pesticide 55

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

imidacloprid or other approved insecticides at the base of hemlock trees and using PDFs for stream/water protection. The potential pesticide effects and pesticide PDFs are summarized in Appendix B of the Vegetation Report; there is a low risk to botanical resources from soil injections of imidacloprid and dinotefuran. Wildlife opening maintenance actions in the riparian corridor would be limited to the maintenance of the existing 55 acres of wildlife openings by mowing or planting. New permanent openings are prohibited in the riparian corridor (FW-11-001). Stream improvement activities including Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) projects, stream structure maintenance, adding Large Woody Debris (LWD) to streams and stabilizing streambanks would have a small short term affect riparian corridors. Stream improvement projects may remove individual trees in close proximity to the stream, but PDFs, BMPs and LRMP standards protecting water quality would be mandatory. AOP projects would consist of removing and/or replacing existing barriers to aquatic species passage. These actions could include replacement of existing culverts or other barriers within the riparian corridor. AOP project could potentially affect riparian corridors temporarily, but to such a small degree as to be insignificant to their structure and function. Individual trees may be removed, impacts to habitat would be discountable. Maintenance of structures already placed in streams and the addition of new structures to provide aquatic species habitat and stabilize streambanks may affect riparian corridors. Trees selected for structures are typically not on the streambank. Dead or dying eastern hemlocks are the preferred species. A reduction in tree canopy may occur, however, holes in the tree canopy created from trees selected for use are small in size but allow sunlight to the ground benefiting herbaceous plants. The amount of sunlight that may reach the stream would be minimal based on the residual tree canopy in the riparian corridor throughout the FLP area. Stream structures could potentially affect riparian corridors by removing selected trees, but to such a small degree as to be insignificant to their structure and function. Individual trees may be removed, impacts to habitat would be discountable. Adding LWD to sections of cold and cool water streams would occur by felling or placing selected trees directly into the streams. A reduction in tree canopy may occur, however, holes in the tree canopy created from trees selected for use are small in size but allow sunlight to the ground benefiting herbaceous plants. The amount of sunlight that may reach the stream would be minimal based on the residual tree canopy in the riparian corridor throughout the FLP area. Adding LWD could potentially affect riparian corridors by removing selected trees, but to such a small degree as to be insignificant to their structure and function. Individual trees may be removed, impacts to habitat would be discountable. Road, trail, and recreation site activities could potentially affect riparian corridors in various ways. Trail construction and reroutes would have little effect because no new roads, or trails are permitted within the riparian corridor, only crossings of streams by roads or trails. Several Off- Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails would be decommissioned; most would be converted to system roads and gated year-round. The removal of OHVs from these trails and the user-made trails associated with them would potentially benefit riparian vegetation. Road decommissioning could affect riparian corridors if portions of roads cross them. Recreation site decommissioning could

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

potentially affect riparian corridors by the removal of amenities and vegetation recovery (see Soil Resource Report). Improvements to canebrakes, bogs, or small-whorled pogonia sites could involve tree removal or girdling or injection or cut-surface treatment with aquatic-labeled herbicides. These projects would affect the riparian corridor by opening the canopies or reducing competing vegetation, resulting in more open conditions and increasing foraging potential for bats. The potential pesticide effects and pesticide PDFs are summarized in Appendix B of the Vegetation Report; there is a low risk to botanical resources from cut-surface applications of aquatic labeled triclopyr (1.5 lbs. ai/acre). Hydrologic restoration using mechanical equipment would be used for bog restoration within the riparian corridor. The only soil disturbance activity that would occur during restoration of bogs within the FLP would be equipment use associated with restoring the hydrologic regime. Total acres of bogs found in the FLP is 103 acres, and approximately one third of this area requires hydrologic restoration. The natural hydrologic regimes of bogs within the FLP have been altered (when the land was privately owned) with straightening of the main hydrologic stream. This activity has caused head cutting and incision of the current stream, ultimately disconnecting it from its floodplain and natural bog habitat. The soils in bogs are naturally hydric, however, the drop in the water tables has decreased or caused these natural properties to be non-existent. Hydrologic restoration would result in a short-term disturbance of soil and plants. Vegetation on the site would likely be killed by the restoration effort as soil is moved onsite. However, the effort should connect the stream hydrology with the floodplain increasing the acreage of functioning bog habitat and significantly increase the amount of available bog habitat. Because the abundance of bog habitat is very limited on the landscape, increasing the available habitat by a few acres is very beneficial for those species that utilize this habitat. Other activities could occur in riparian corridors, but are unlikely to alter their structure and function, would be actions such as prescribed burning. Very few acres would be affected in riparian habitats because planned ignitions in proposed burning units would occur primarily on upper slopes and ridgetops, and fire would be allowed to back down slopes into more mesic sites. Low intensity prescribed fire burns poorly in moist, sheltered coves and drains; a mosaic of burned and unburned areas would result. Low intensity prescribed burning and associated fireline construction has little effect on riparian function or structure, water quality, or aquatic habitats (Elliot and Vose, 2005). In summary, riparian corridors on national forest in the Foothills Landscape are almost completely forested with mid-to late-successional forest. Alternative 2 includes some activities which could affect vegetation within the riparian corridor (Table 7) on an estimated 4,700 acres or 16% of the total riparian acreage. Over the temporal life of the project, estimated at 10 years, approximately 1.6% of riparian corridor would be affected each year as these activities would be conducted across the landscape. The area estimated for each potential project activities have been estimated through the use of GIS shapefiles of potential treatments, overlaid with shapefiles of riparian corridors, or through conservative estimates with stated assumptions. These estimates do not consider site-specific situations which may greatly reduce the actual affected acreage or expansion of riparian corridors due to slopes.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future activities on both federal and private lands include timber harvesting, prescribed burning, grazing and agriculture, urban areas, roads and trail maintenance activities, utility corridors, developed and dispersed recreation, wildlife openings, and hemlock conservation areas. Since 2011, there have been a few commercial thinning operations from previously planned projects within the foothills totaling approximately 485 acres. Timber harvest activities have likely resulted in altered canopy conditions where old skid trails, landings, and temporary roads were once constructed. About 0.3% of the FLP area contains past/on-going timber harvest and associated actions that could affect the abundance and distribution of habitat elements on the landscape. Since 2007, periodic prescribed burning activities have been implemented on approximately 6,887 acres or 4.4% of the Foothills. Cumulative impacts on botanical resources from past prescribed burning is considered minimal for the majority of areas burned. Past prescribed burns have all been within the low to moderate burn intensity categories therefore promoting nutrient cycling and vegetative cover. Prescribed burning has not occurred with a frequency that would alter forest structure or habitat elements. Therefore, even though prescribed fire has occurred and is likely to occur into the future in part of previously planned projects that happen to occur in the Foothills, the fire prescriptions are infrequent and designed to burn at low to moderate intensity and consequently, the effects of these burns are not expected to change the canopy structure. In total, there are approximately 15,885 acres of burn blocks within the Foothills therefore, multiple prescribed burns are reasonably foreseeable future actions that would occur in the Foothills area. With BMPs and Forest Plan standards in place to limit burning to low and moderate intensities that would not substantially alter canopy cover or forest structure. The amount of dozer line present within the Foothills is estimated to be 160 acres or 0.1% of the Foothills. Wildlife openings occur on 275 acres or 0.2% of the Foothills. The maintenance and restoration activities within these areas includes mowing, disking, prescribed burning, herbicide, mechanical planting, and application of fertilizer and lime. Ongoing management efforts are designed to maintain the existing structure and vegetation in wildlife openings. Other activities on federal lands within the Foothills include a variety of maintenance measures. For roads and ROWs, activities are performed to ensure the safety of the public and to prevent degradation of infrastructure and the environment. Road maintenance operations such as blading the road surface, mowing the ROW and pulling the ditches can lead to disturbance of botanical resources. Herbicides and pesticides used on various projects are applied within label guidelines. Timed properly, ROW maintenance can mimic natural disturbances and benefit botanical resources that rely on open habitats. On private lands, timber harvesting, farming operations, prescribed burning, road construction/maintenance, and housing development have occurred and are likely to continue. These activities on private lands are expected to contribute to both short- and long-term negative impacts to botanical resources and would interact cumulatively with the proposed activities under Alternatives 1. However, overall cumulative additional impacts from the proposed action

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

are expected to be minimal, since the majority of the Foothills is forested and would remain in forest land use. Past actions and long-term effects from timber harvesting and prescribed burning are evident on the landscape within the project and are reflected in the discussion of Alternative 1. The only reasonably foreseeable future actions would be prescribed burns which these existing burn units are also incorporated into Alternative 2. All the activities associated with proposed treatment have been analyzed separately. Many of these activities would be occurring over the same piece of ground, however it is uncertain as to when treatments may overlap or exactly where. As identified in Alternative 1 the estimated acreage to be impacted long term is 5.5% of the FLP area. The combined long-term effects from Alternative 2 would have some negative effects, but cumulatively would improve habitat elements that botanical resource depend on. Due to the multitude of treatments proposed and some overlapping with others it is difficult to identify exact acreages. Therefore, the activities were analyzed as if they were all occurring on separate pieces of ground resulting in acreages in totaling over what the actual FLP area is. Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds: There are effects of Alternative 2 on the Bogs, Fens, Seeps, and Seasonal Ponds habitat element. This habitat element is a Rare Community; wherever rare communities occur on the forest, they would be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Restoration efforts would remove woody competition, control non-native exotic species, use prescribed fire, restore natural hydrologic regimes and outplant rare native plants to benefit this habitat element. Removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid- story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation and sphagnum. Controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Restoration of the hydraulic regimes would increase the total number of acres of bog habitat available. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of bog habitats. The LRMP limits management activities in this Rare Community, except to increase the quality of the habitat. Volunteer efforts to maintain selected bogs have been limited in scale and pace, implementation of Alternative 2 would increase the capacity of work that can be accomplished. Implementation of Alternative 2 should substantially increase the abundance of this habitat element. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is improved through purposeful restoration, either through active management or passively by providing for successional progression. Opportunity for decreasing risk to associated species is primarily through increasing rates of restoration, where possible. River Channels River channels are managed by the Riparian Corridors (11) prescription of the LRMP and would therefore be managed accordingly to restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and function of the associated aquatic, riparian, and upland components within the corridor. Activities such as the addition of large woody debris would, control non-native exotic species,

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project and outplant groundcover and rare native plants could be implemented to improve habitat conditions. Controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of river channels. Furthermore, road and trail maintenance as well as streambank stabilization activates to decrease sediment issues would help to stabilize this habitat. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not significantly change the abundance or distribution of this habitat element. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is maintained or improved by providing optimal protection, maintenance, and restoration to all occurrences (with limited exceptions in some cases). Little additional opportunity exists to decrease risk to viability of associated species because management is at or near optimal. Late-Successional Riparian Late-Successional Riparian would be in the Riparian Corridors (11) of the LRMP at least for the first 100ft and would therefore be managed accordingly to restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and function of the associated aquatic, riparian, and upland components within the corridor. Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would create canopy gaps, young forest creation, establish hemlock conservation areas, allow prescribed fire, remove woody competition, control non-native exotic species, and outplant ground cover and rare native plants to benefit this habitat element. Removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid-story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation. Controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of bog habitats. Activities that favor other habitat elements generally would decrease the amount of late-successional riparian habitat. Limited activities that decrease the relatively abundant late-successional riparian would increase structural diversity and be beneficial to botanical resources with a discountable impact to late- successional riparian habitat. Furthermore, road and trail maintenance as well as streambank stabilization activates to decrease sediment issues would help to stabilize this habitat. Implementation of Alternative 2 would decrease abundance or distribution of this habitat element, however the relative amount is discountable. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is maintained or improved by providing optimal protection, maintenance, and restoration to all occurrences (with limited exceptions in some cases). Little additional opportunity exists to decrease risk to viability of associated species because management is at or near optimal. Basic Mesic Forest Effects of Alternative 2 on the Basic Mesic Forest habitat element would be very limited. This habitat element is a Rare Community; wherever rare communities occur on the forest, they would be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Localized hand thinning may occur in the vicinity of rare species. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not substantially change the abundance or distribution of this habitat element. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is maintained or improved by providing optimal protection, maintenance, or restoration (with limited exceptions in some cases). Little 60

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project additional opportunity exists to decrease risk to viability of associated species because management is at or near optimal. Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would create canopy gaps, create young forest, establish hemlock conservation areas, remove woody competition, use prescribed fire, control non-native exotic species, and outplant rare native plants to benefit this habitat element. Removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid-story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation. Controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. Implementation of Alternative 2 should increase the abundance and distribution of this habitat element. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is improved through purposeful restoration, either through active management or passively by providing for successional progression. Opportunity for decreasing risk to associated species is primarily through increasing rates of restoration, where possible. Mature Hemlock Forest Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would maintain 30 Hemlock Conservation Areas and seek to create 600 acres of new Hemlock Conservation Areas (See the Vegetation Report, White Pine and Hemlock Forests). Hemlock conservation areas would receive chemical treatments, release of predator beetles, and silvicultural treatments to abate the threat of Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, however, many of these may be young stands many decades from maturity. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of mature hemlock forest. Implementation of Alternative 2 may be able to stabilize the abundance of this habitat element. Regardless of management efforts, the habitat element is expected to decrease in distribution and abundance as a result of factors substantially outside of USFS control (e.g. invasive pests, acid deposition). Opportunity to reduce risk to viability of associated species is primarily through cooperative ventures with other agencies and organizations. Mature Oak Forest Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would use silvicultural treatments and prescribe fire to benefit mature oak forest, other actives would remove woody competition, control non-native exotic species, and outplant rare native plants to benefit this habitat element. Approximately 41,800 acres of commercial thinning and understory treatments (burning, herbicide and manual methods) would be applied in mid and late-successional oak and oak-pine dominated stands. Non-commercial treatments (manual, mastication and herbicide) would be implemented in immature oak forest types. The treatments are intended to increase oak regeneration potential within existing oak-dominated stands, establish areas of young oak forests, or increase the dominance of oak in existing immature oak stands. Prescribed fire would complement the proposed maintenance treatments by reducing fire- intolerant species such as red maple and Virginian pine, improving oak regeneration and by stimulating growth in the understory. Prescribed burning would be used to further reduce competition and to maintain the desired understory environment for seedling development.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Initial understory treatments would include herbicide application in conjunction with proposed maintenance treatments to control unwanted vegetation persisting on site after thinning. Herbicide treatments could also include directed foliar, cut-stem or basal bark/streamline methods. Under Alternative 2, oak maintenance treatments would treat 75% of the total oak dominated forest types within the analysis area by enhancing conditions for oak reproduction capable of replacing parent overstory trees (see Vegetation Report, Oak and Oak Pine Forests). Activities would interrupt the process of mesophication by providing forest diversity. Removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid-story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation. Controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of mature oak forest. Implementation of Alternative 2 should increase the abundance and distribution of this habitat element. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is improved through purposeful restoration, either through active management or passively by providing for successional progression. Opportunity for decreasing risk to associated species is primarily through increasing rates of restoration, where possible. Early Successional Forest Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would use silvicultural treatments and prescribe fire to create early successional habitat, other activities would remove woody competition, control non-native exotic species, and outplant rare native plants to benefit this habitat element. Removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid-story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation. Controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. Under Alternative 2, 10,500 acres of young forest would be established (see Vegetation Report, Successional Stage Habitat). This would result in an improved distribution of young forest habitat across a wide range of sites and forest types (Forest-Wide Goal 2, USDA Forest Service 2004b) – from dry, xeric ridges associated with yellow pine restoration to upper slopes of north facing aspects associated with oak regeneration and mesic coves dominated by regenerating mesic hardwoods. Likewise, these habitats would be well-distributed spatially across the landscape, proportional to the desired ranges of this habitat type within each Management Prescription. Implementation of Alternative 2 should increase the abundance of this habitat element. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is improved through purposeful restoration using active management (e.g. prescribed fire) or through natural disturbances that would interrupt successional progression. Opportunity for decreasing risk to associated species is primarily through increasing rates of habitat restoration, where possible. Canopy Gaps Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would use silvicultural treatments and prescribe fire to create canopy gaps, other activities would remove woody competition, control non-native exotic species, and outplant rare native plants. Removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid-

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation. Controlling non- native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species. Outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. Implementation of Alternative 2 should increase the abundance of this habitat element. Approximately 8,100 acres would be applied under Alternative 2 through the creation of canopy gaps (see Vegetation Report). Treatments would target mesic deciduous stands with closed- canopies and lack vertical structural diversity important to wildlife species that utilize these sites. Variable sized canopy gaps would be created with a combination of commercial and noncommercial treatments. Additional structural diversity would be obtained through intermediate thinning between gaps. Canopy Gap treatments would create structural diversity in mid/late- successional mesic deciduous forest types. Abundance and distribution of the habitat element is improved through purposeful restoration using active management or through natural disturbances that would interrupt successional progression. Opportunity for decreasing risk to associated species is primarily through increasing rates of habitat restoration, where possible. Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands Restoration efforts in Alternative 2 would use silvicultural treatments and prescribe fire to create Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands, other activities would, remove woody competition, control non-native exotic species, and outplant rare native plants. This habitat element is a Rare Community; wherever rare communities occur on the forest, they would be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes such as removing woody vegetation from the canopy and mid-story allowing sunlight to reach the ground promoting herbaceous vegetation; controlling non-native exotic species would increase the available habitat for rare species; and outplanting rare native plants would increase species viability and the diversity of Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. Proposed treatments under this action would restore open woodland stand structure on 7,400 acres (5,262 in pine dominated forest types). Tree density would be reduced to an average residual basal area of 20-40 feet square feet per acre through a combination of commercial and/or noncommercial treatments. An open canopy structure with variable densities, including large openings would result. Fire-intolerant species, including Virginia pine, would be reduced resulting in improved species composition consisting of fire adapted oaks and shortleaf pine. The combination of prescribed fire and thinning would improve oak and shortleaf pine regeneration, ensuring their dominance upon these sites in the future. The use of herbicide would expedite the restoration of this habitat type by controlling sprouting of fire-intolerant mesophytic species and by deadening larger trees more resistant to fire because of their increased sized. Prescribed fire would be applied during growing season periods and would reduce fire-intolerant mid-story layers, reducing woody understory and stimulating diverse understory vegetation consisting of grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Burns should be conducted both during the growing season and dormant season over the life of the treatment. Prescribed burning would be used to further reduce competition and to maintain the desired understory environment for seedling development.

63 Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Across the Foothills, pine and pine-oak woodlands are largely missing from the landscape. With the lack of fire on the landscape, these habitats have become overgrown with vegetation and have largely displaced the fire adapted yellow pine species that would have been found dominating the sites. This treatment would interrupt mesophication by creating forest diversity, restore this habitat and promote the fire adapted communities missing across the FLP. Implementation of Alternative 2 should increase the abundance of this habitat element. The habitat element is maintained at approximately current distribution and abundance, though the location of elements may shift over time as a result of management action or inaction. Opportunity to reduce risk to viability of associated species is primarily through adopting and implementing objectives to increase abundance and distribution of the habitat element. Table 8 outlines the management effects of Alternative 2 to the abundance and distribution of habitat elements and links the likelihood of limiting viability of botanical resources.

Table 8 Alternative 2 Effects on Analysis Indicators

Habitat Likelihood of Abundance Distribution Management Effects Element Limitation

Poor – Abundance and distribution Rare – The habitat element High- General of the habitat element is The habitat is poorly distributed likelihood that improved through purposeful element is rare, within the project the habitat restoration, either through with generally area and intermixed element would Bogs, Fens, active management or less than 100 lands relative to be limiting to Seeps, and passively by providing for occurrences, or conditions present viability of Seasonal successional progression. patches of the prior to European associated Ponds Opportunity for decreasing element generally settlement. Number species based risk to associated species is covering less than and size of high- on its primarily through increasing 1% of the project quality habitat abundance and rates of restoration, where area patches is greatly distribution. possible. reduced. Good – The habitat element Abundance and distribution Low- is well distributed of the habitat element is General Common - The within the project maintained or improved by likelihood that habitat element is area and intermixed providing optimal protection, the habitat abundant and lands relative to maintenance, and element would frequently conditions present restoration to all occurrences be limiting to River Channels encountered, and prior to European (with limited exceptions in viability of generally found settlement. Number some cases). Little associated on more than and size of high- additional opportunity exists species based 10% of the project quality habitat to decrease risk to viability of on its area. patches is similar to associated species because abundance and or only slightly management is at or near distribution. reduced relative to optimal. reference conditions.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Likelihood of Abundance Distribution Management Effects Element Limitation Good – The habitat element Abundance and distribution Low- is well distributed of the habitat element is General Common - The within the project maintained or improved by likelihood that habitat element is area and intermixed providing optimal protection, the habitat abundant and lands relative to maintenance, and element would Late- frequently conditions present restoration to all occurrences be limiting to Successional encountered, and prior to European (with limited exceptions in viability of Riparian generally found settlement. Number some cases). Little associated on more than and size of high- additional opportunity exists species based 10% of the project quality habitat to decrease risk to viability of on its area. patches is similar to associated species because abundance and or only slightly management is at or near distribution. reduced relative to optimal. reference conditions. Fair – Abundance and distribution The habitat element Rare – High- General of the habitat element is is fairly well The habitat likelihood that maintained or improved by distributed within the element is rare, the habitat providing optimal protection, project area and with generally element would maintenance, and intermixed lands less than 100 be limiting to restoration to all occurrences Basic Mesic relative to conditions occurrences, or viability of (with limited exceptions in Forest present prior to patches of the associated some cases). Little European element generally species based additional opportunity exists settlement. Number covering less than on its to decrease risk to viability of and size of high- 1% of the project abundance and associated species because quality habitat area. distribution. management is at or near patches is somewhat optimal. reduced. Fair – The habitat element Abundance and distribution Low- General is fairly well of the habitat element is Common - The likelihood that distributed within the improved through purposeful habitat element is the habitat project area and restoration, either through abundant and element would intermixed lands active management or Mature Mesic frequently be limiting to relative to conditions passively by providing for Hardwood encountered, and viability of present prior to successional progression. Forests generally found associated European Opportunity for decreasing on more than species based settlement. Number risk to associated species is 10% of the project on its and size of high- primarily through increasing area. abundance and quality habitat rates of restoration, where distribution. patches is somewhat possible. reduced.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Likelihood of Abundance Distribution Management Effects Element Limitation Regardless of management Poor – efforts, the habitat element is Rare – The habitat element High- General expected to decrease in The habitat is poorly distributed likelihood that distribution and abundance element is rare, within the project the habitat as a result of factors with generally area and intermixed element would substantially outside of Mature less than 100 lands relative to be limiting to USFS control (e.g., invasive Hemlock occurrences, or conditions present viability of pests, acid deposition). Forests patches of the prior to European associated Opportunity to reduce risk to element generally settlement. Number species based viability of associated covering less than and size of high- on its species is primarily through 1% of the project quality habitat abundance and cooperative ventures with area. patches is greatly distribution. other agencies and reduced. organizations. Fair – The habitat element Abundance and distribution Low- General is fairly well of the habitat element is Common - The likelihood that distributed within the improved through purposeful habitat element is the habitat project area and restoration, either through abundant and element would intermixed lands active management or frequently be limiting to Mature Oak relative to conditions passively by providing for encountered, and viability of Forest present prior to successional progression. generally found associated European Opportunity for decreasing on more than species based settlement. Number risk to associated species is 10% of the project on its and size of high- primarily through increasing area. abundance and quality habitat rates of restoration, where distribution. patches is somewhat possible. reduced. Fair – The habitat element Moderate- Abundance and distribution Rare – is fairly well General of the habitat element is The habitat distributed within the likelihood that improved through purposeful element is rare, project area and the habitat restoration, either through with generally intermixed lands element would active management or Early less than 100 relative to conditions be limiting to passively by providing for successional occurrences, or present prior to viability of successional progression. Forest patches of the European associated Opportunity for decreasing element generally settlement. Number species based risk to associated species is covering less than and size of high- on its primarily through increasing 1% of the project quality habitat abundance and rates of restoration, where area. patches is somewhat distribution. possible. reduced.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Habitat Likelihood of Abundance Distribution Management Effects Element Limitation Fair - The habitat Moderate- Abundance and distribution element is fairly well General of the habitat element is Common - The distributed within the likelihood that improved through purposeful habitat element is project area and the habitat restoration, either through abundant and intermixed lands element would active management or frequently relative to conditions be limiting to passively by providing for Canopy Gaps encountered, and present prior to viability of successional progression. generally found European associated Opportunity for decreasing on more than settlement. Number species based risk to associated species is 10% of the project and size of high- on its primarily through increasing area. quality habitat abundance and rates of restoration, where patches is somewhat distribution. possible. reduced. Fair – The habitat element Abundance and distribution Rare – High- General is fairly well of the habitat element is The habitat likelihood that distributed within the improved through purposeful element is rare, the habitat project area and restoration, either through with generally element would intermixed lands active management or Woodlands, less than 100 be limiting to relative to conditions passively by providing for Savannas, and occurrences, or viability of present prior to successional progression. Grasslands patches of the associated European Opportunity for decreasing element generally species based settlement. Number risk to associated species is covering less than on its and size of high- primarily through increasing 1% of the project abundance and quality habitat rates of restoration, where area. distribution. patches is somewhat possible. reduced. Implementation of this alternative considered together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities is expected to have a minimal cumulative effect on botanical resources. Design criteria and mitigation measures from past projects that were used to reduce negative effects were a primary factor leading to this determination.

Determination of Effects Determination of Effect: Swamp Pink (Federally Threatened) The viability of swamp pink is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Swamp pink is restricted to bogs, fens, seeps and wetlands and does not occur anywhere else on the landscape. This rare community must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. Project activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by swamp pink. Alternative 2 would increase the scale and pace of work being done to benefit swamp pink resulting in direct and indirect effects that would benefit this species. Direct effects to swamp pink would include outplanting of this species as part of this project. This work would be completed in coordination with the GPCA, including informal consultation with the USFWS. Consultation with FWS to outplant swamp pink was

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

completed in 2005 (USFWS, 2005). Existing plants would be protected from any additional direct effects. Indirect effects would include increasing the total amount of the available habitat for swamp pink. Heavy equipment would only be used when hydrologic restoration is needed and would result in completing project activities (e.g. filling of manmade drainage structures) in areas not currently occupied by swamp pink. Restoration of the hydrology would increase the area where soils would be inundated and would increase the total acreage of this community. Vegetation management would be limited to hand tools, herbicides directed to control encroaching species and prescribed fire. The canopy would be thinned and much of the mid-story would be removed to restore the structure of this habitat element and rare community. With sunlight to the ground sphagnum and a well-developed herbaceous layer would become the dominate vegetation, benefiting swamp pink. The only active projects that have occurred effecting this species over the last 10 years have been efforts by the GPCA to conduct management of bogs by thinning the overstory and mid-story. The work done by GPCA has significantly increased the sunlight to the ground, increasing the quantity and diversity of ground cover and sphagnum. Swamp pink has been grown by GPCA and outplanted. The FLP would greatly increase the scale and pace of work that can be done to benefit this habitat and associated species like swamp pink. Because of the protective measures for wetland rare communities through the riparian and rare community prescriptions, protection for individuals and sites of federally listed species, control of exotic species threatening federally listed species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” swamp pink, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: White Fringeless Orchid (Federally Threatened) The viability of white fringeless orchid is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). White fringeless orchid is restricted to bogs, fens, seeps and wetlands and does not occur on anywhere else on the landscape. Rare communities must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by white fringeless orchid. Alternative 2 would increase the scale and pace of work being done to benefit white fringeless orchids resulting in direct and indirect effects that would benefit this species. Direct effects to white fringeless orchids would include outplanting of this species as part of this project. This work would be completed in coordination with the GPCA, including informal consultation with the USFWS. Existing plants would be protected from any additional direct effects. Indirect effects would include increasing the total amount of the available habitat for white fringeless orchids. Heavy equipment would only be used when hydrologic restoration is needed and would result in completing project activities (e.g. filling of manmade drainage structures) in areas not currently occupied by white fringeless orchid. Restoration of the hydrology would increase the area where soils would be inundated and would increase the total acreage of this community. Vegetation management would be limited to hand tools, herbicides directed to

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

control encroaching species and prescribed fire. The canopy would be thinned and much of the mid-story would be removed to restore the structure of this habitat element and Rare Community. With sunlight to the ground, sphagnum and a well-developed herbaceous layer would become the dominate vegetation, benefiting white fringeless orchid. The only active projects that have occurred effecting this species over the last 10 years have been efforts by the GPCA to conduct management of bogs by thinning the overstory and mid-story. The work done by GPCA has significantly increased the sunlight to the ground, increasing the quantity and diversity of ground cover and sphagnum. If the appropriate site is located, it is possible that GPCA could grow and outplant white fringeless orchid. The FLP would greatly increase the scale and pace of work that can be done to benefit this habitat. Because of the protective measures for wetland rare communities through the riparian and rare community prescriptions, protection for individuals and sites of federally listed species, control of exotic species threatening federally listed species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” white fringeless orchid. Determination of Effect: Cuthbert’s Turtlehead (RFSS) The viability of Cuthbert’s turtlehead is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Cuthbert’s turtlehead is restricted to bogs, fens, seeps and wetlands and does not occur on anywhere else on the landscape. Rare communities must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by Cuthbert’s turtlehead. Alternative 2 would increase the scale and pace of work being done to benefit Cuthbert’s turtlehead resulting in direct and indirect effects that would benefit this species. Direct effects to Cuthbert’s turtlehead would include outplanting of this species as part of this project. This work would be completed in coordination with the GPCA, including informal consultation with the USFWS. Existing plants would be protected from any additional direct effects. Indirect effects would include increasing the total amount of the available habitat for Cuthbert’s turtlehead. Heavy equipment would only be used when hydrologic restoration is needed and would result in filling of manmade drainage structures in areas not occupied Cuthbert’s turtlehead. Restoration of the hydrology would increase the area where soils would be inundated and would increase the total acreage of this community. Vegetation management would be limited to hand tools, herbicides directed to control encroaching species and prescribed fire. The canopy would be thinned and much of the mid-story would be removed to restore the structure of this habitat element and Rare Community. With sunlight to the ground sphagnum and a well- developed herbaceous layer would become the dominate vegetation, benefiting Cuthbert’s turtlehead. The only active projects that have occurred effecting this species over the last 10 years have been efforts by the GPCA to conduct management of bogs by thinning the overstory and mid-story. The work done by GPCA has significantly increased the sunlight to the ground, increasing the quantity and diversity of ground cover and sphagnum. Cuthbert’s turtlehead has been grown by

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

GPCA and outplanted. The FLP would greatly increase the scale and pace of work that can be done to benefit this habitat. Because of the protective measures for wetland rare communities through the riparian and rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Cuthbert’s turtlehead, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Largeleaf Grass-Of Parnassus (RFSS) The viability of largeleaf grass-of parnassus is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Ponds). Largeleaf grass-of parnassus is restricted to bogs, fens, seeps and wetlands and does not occur on anywhere else on the landscape. This rare community must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by largeleaf grass- of parnassus. Alternative 2 would increase the scale and pace of work being done to benefit largeleaf grass-of parnassus resulting in direct and indirect effects that would benefit this species. Direct effects to largeleaf grass-of parnassus would include outplanting of this species as part of this project. This work would be completed in coordination with the GPCA, including informal consultation with the USFWS. Existing plants would be protected from any additional direct effects. Indirect effects would include increasing the total amount of the available habitat for largeleaf grass-of parnassus. Heavy equipment would only be used when hydrologic restoration is needed and would result in filling of manmade drainage structures in areas not occupied by largeleaf grass-of parnassus. Restoration of the hydrology would increase the area where soils would be inundated and would increase the total acreage of this community. Vegetation management would be limited to hand tools, herbicides directed to control encroaching species and prescribed fire. The canopy would be thinned and much of the mid-story would be removed to restore the structure of this habitat element and rare community. With sunlight to the ground, sphagnum and a well-developed herbaceous layer would become the dominate vegetation benefiting species from the T&E, RFSS, and the locally rare list. The only active projects that have occurred effecting this species over the last 10 years have been efforts by the GPCA to conduct management of bogs by thinning the overstory and mid-story. The work done by GPCA has significantly increased the sunlight to the ground, increasing the quantity and diversity of ground cover and sphagnum. The FLP would greatly increase the scale and pace of work that can be done to benefit this habitat. Because of the protective measures for wetland rare communities through the riparian and rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for largeleaf grass-of parnassus.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Determination of Effect: Fraser’s Loosestrife (RFSS) The viability of Fraser’s loosestrife is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (River Channels and Late-Successional Riparian). Fraser’s loosestrife is largely a disturbance plant. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire or flood, creates and maintains favorable habitat (NatureServe, 2018) and would benefit from the management proposed that would affect Late-Successional Riparian. Management that mimics natural processes, such as cutting and mowing, has been demonstrated to be beneficial to populations of this species. Because of the protective measures for riparian prescriptions, protection for individuals and control of exotic species, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Fraser’s loosestrife, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Whorled Stoneroot (RFSS) The viability of whorled stoneroot is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (Mature Oak; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands and Late-Successional Riparian). Whorled stoneroot is largely a disturbance plant. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime, such as periodic fire or flood, creates and maintains favorable habitat (NatureServe, 2018), and would benefit from the management proposed that would affect Late-Successional Riparian. Distribution and abundance of Late-Successional Riparian habitat is expected to remain stable while Mature Oak and Woodlands should increase with the implementation of Alternative 2. This should likewise increase habitat conditions for this plant species. Habitat conditions for this plant are probably not as favorable on private lands, making habitat protection and management on the forest important to moderate cumulative effects to the population. Because of the protective measures for riparian prescriptions, protection for individuals and control of exotic species, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for whorled stoneroot and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Large Witchalder (RFSS) The viability of large witchalder is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat elements (Mature Hemlock Forest; Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands and Late-Successional Riparian). While the distribution and abundance of Mature Hemlock Forest and Late- Successional Riparian is expected to decline, the distribution and abundance of Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands is expected to increase. Large witchalder is largely a disturbance plant. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire or flood, creates and maintains favorable habitat. Management that mimics natural processes, such as cutting and mowing, has been demonstrated to be beneficial to populations of this species. Because of the protective measures through the riparian prescription, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for large witchalder, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species.

71 Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Determination of Effect: A Liverwort (RFSS) The viability of a liverwort is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Late-Successional Riparian). Design criteria provide optimal protection of riparian and gorge habitat where this species occurs. While the distribution and abundance of Late-Successional Riparian is expected to decline slightly, habitat conditions for this plant are expected to remain stable for this plant. Cumulatively, many of these habitats on private lands may not be protected, making their presence on the forest increasingly important to the species. Because of the protective measures through the riparian prescription where this species grows and control of exotic species, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects would have no impact for A liverwort. Determination of Effect: Butternut (RFSS) The viability of butternut is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Basic Mesic Forest and Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest). Occasionally found in Basic Mesic Forest, a rare community, which must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by butternut. Although butternut canker is the primary global threat to this species, butternut is also threatened to some extent by plant succession in areas where the pre-settlement disturbance regime no longer exists preventing the creation of open conditions necessary for the successful reproduction of this shade-intolerant species (NatureServe, 2018). While the distribution and abundance of Basic Mesic Forest and Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to remain stable or increase slightly, individuals of this species would benefit from selective removal of the mid-story. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance- dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for butternut, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Small Whorled Pogonia (Federally Endangered) The viability of small whorled pogonia is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest and Mature Hemlock Forest). Small whorled pogonia needs some limited disturbance. While the distribution and abundance of Mature Hemlock Forest is expected to remain in decline and Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest is expected to increase slightly, individuals of this species may benefit from selective removal of the mid- story. It often occurs in areas where disturbance regimes such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats. The recovery plan for small whorled pogonia (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992) lists several implementation tasks for recovery of the species. In Georgia, there is a concern that understory and mid-story vegetation may be shading plants and possibly causing a decline in individual colonies. Because the orchid is protected under the ESA, no activities with potential to affect the plants either adversely or beneficially can take place in the sites without concurrence from, or consultation with, USFWS. Forest-wide standards in the Forest Plan that provide additional protection to the small whorled pogonia are those standards that protect individuals and sites of federally listed species, those that control exotic species where they are adversely affecting federally listed species, and other standards listed in the introduction. According to the recovery plan, monitoring results of protected populations followed for years have shown declines, and many extant populations may not be self-sustaining. Causes for the declines are not known, but the loss of habitat functionality may be a factor. Meanwhile, populations of small whorled pogonia would be protected through enforcement of the ESA and efforts made to strengthen protective regulations at the state and local levels (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). Because of the protective measures for individuals and sites of federally listed species and control of exotic species threatening federally listed species, in addition to the other standards discussed in the introduction, implementation of the Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” small whorled pogonia, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Sweet Pinesap (RFSS) The viability of sweet pinesap is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest, mature oak forest and Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). Sweet pinesap needs some limited disturbance. Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where this species may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for sweet pinesap, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Blue Ridge Catchfly (RFSS) The viability of Blue Ridge catchfly is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Early Successional Forest and Mature Mesic Hardwoods). Blue Ridge catchfly needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Blue Ridge catchfly, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Jeweled Trillium (RFSS) The viability of jeweled trillium is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest). Jeweled trillium needs protection from disturbance. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for jeweled trillium. Determination of Effect: Piedmont Barren Strawberry (RFSS) The viability of Piedmont barren strawberry is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest). Piedmont barren strawberry needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Piedmont barren strawberry, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Ash-Leaf Bush Pea (RFSS) The viability of ash-leaf bush pea is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Mature Oak Forest). Ash-leaf bush pea needs some limited disturbance. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 2 is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance- dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for ash-leaf bush pea, and would be likely beneficial to the viability of this species.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Determination of Effect: Hairy False Lupine (RFSS) The viability of hairy false lupine is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Canopy Gaps). Hairy false lupine needs some limited disturbance. Under Alternative 1, limited restoration activities would be implemented. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for hairy false lupine, and would be likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Smooth Coneflower (Federally Endangered and MIS) The viability of smooth coneflower is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). This species is restricted to a rare community that must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All project activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by smooth coneflower. Project activities often occur in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for the smooth coneflower on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where this species may not receive protection to conserve the viability of smooth coneflower. Management tools needed to achieve this condition would primarily be prescribed fire, mid-story or overstory removal, and mowing between November and early March (USFWS, 1995). Site- specific, project-level planning of these activities would be used to ensure there would be no adverse effects to individuals. Concurrence from USFWS would occur prior to implementation of any management in the coneflower locations. Forest-wide standards in LRMP would provide protection to the smooth coneflower. Those standards protect individuals and sites of federally listed species and those standards discourage exotic species where they are adversely affecting federally listed species. Additional objectives included in the Foothills would increase abundance of optimal habitat for this species and create opportunity for establishment of new populations. Objectives call for restoration and maintenance of 7,400 acres of open woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of provisions for protecting and maintaining existing sites of smooth coneflower populations, activities that would maintain and restore quality habitats, and the standards

Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

discussed in the introduction, Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” smooth coneflower, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Smith’s Sunflower (RFSS) The viability of Smith’s sunflower is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). This species is restricted to a rare community that must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by Smith’s sunflower. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Foothills implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Smith’s sunflower, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. Determination of Effect: Georgia Aster (RFSS and Candidate) Georgia aster is listed on the RFSS list and the Forest Service has signed a Candidate Conservation Agreement with the USFWS. The Candidate Conservation Agreement establishes site management guidelines and BMPs for ROW management that would be implemented when this species is encountered (USFWS, 2014). This species benefits from Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands habitat element and occupies woodlands or piedmont prairies, edges and openings in rocky, upland oak-hickory-pine forests, and ROWs through these habitats, usually with circumneutral soils on sites dominated by native plant species. The primary limiting factor appears to be the availability of light. The species is a good competitor with other early successional species but tends to decline when shaded by woody species. Populations can persist for an undetermined length of time in the shade, but these rarely flower and reproduce only by rhizomes. This species is not currently known in any part of the project area, however, there is potential habitat. Furthermore, this species should be considered for outplanting. Woodlands, savannas, and grasslands would contribute to the viability of Georgia aster. Preserving or increasing the viability of this species consists primarily of continuing to survey for populations, protecting, and managing populations if they are found, and protecting and managing the transplanted populations by avoidance of herbicide use in roadside ROW maintenance and timing of mowing to avoid flowering and fruiting periods. Restoration may include protection of plants; the use of fire, hand-clearing, and limited herbicides to reduce woody competition to maintain sunny openings and edges; preventing woody species invasion and eradication of exotic pest plants and feral hogs. (GaDNR, 2018; NatureServe, 2018) Any sites with Georgia aster, would be protected in the Foothills under the revised Forest Plan. Woodland habitats necessary for the Georgia aster would be protected through the Rare 76 Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

Community (9F). The LRMP includes forest-wide standards that would protect the viability of species on the RFSS list, and standards that would control exotic species where they are adversely affecting viability of species. Furthermore, project design features have been developed to support the LRMP requiring buffers around rare plants, required surveys of suitable habitats, limiting herbicide use, and requiring consultation with GaDNR and USFWS as appropriate. The viability of Georgia aster is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). This species is restricted to a rare community that must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by Georgia aster. Georgia aster often occurs in areas where disturbance regimes such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 2 is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Georgia aster, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species. The Georgia aster is a “candidate” species under the ESA and if the USFWS determines this species needs further protection and elevate the species status (proposed, threatened, or endangered), the Forest would consult with USFWS as required by the ESA. Determination of Effect: Small Spreading Pogonia (RFSS) The viability of small spreading pogonia is affected by the abundance and distribution of its habitat element (Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands). This species is restricted to a rare community that must be managed under the Rare Community (9F) prescription to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community, diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All human activities in rare communities are limited to maintenance and restoration of natural processes. Therefore, the only projects that might occur in this habitat would be designed to benefit the habitat occupied by small spreading pogonia. It often occurs in areas where a disturbance regime such as periodic fire creates and maintains favorable habitat. Protective efforts for this species on the national forest are likely to be important to moderate cumulative effects to populations on private lands where they may not receive protection. Alternative 2 implementation is expected to have a beneficial effect on this species because some disturbance-dependent habitats that create canopy gaps are planned for restoration, thus helping to limit plant succession and provide additional habitat. Because of the protective measures through the rare community prescriptions, control of exotic species, and active habitat management, implementation of Alternative 2 plus cumulative effects may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for small spreading pogonia, and is likely beneficial to the viability of this species.

Botanical and Rare Communities Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Literature Cited Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Brumback W.E., S. Cairns, M. Sperduto, C Fyler. 2011. Response of a Isotria medeoloides Population to Canopy Thinning. Northeastern Naturalist 18(2):185-196. Chafin, L.G. 2011. Georgia’s Natural Communities and Associated Rare Plant and Animal Species: Thumbnail Accounts. Georgia Nongame Conservation Section Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Edwards, L., J. Ambrose, L.K. Kirkman. 2013. The Natural Communities of Georgia. The University of Georgia Press. Athens and London. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2019. Online data hosted by the Wildlife Resources Division, Rare Plant Species Profiles. Accessible at: http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2627 Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan. Social Circle, GA: Georgia Department of Natural Resources. https://georgiawildlife.com/WildlifeActionPlan Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Safeguarding Swamp Pink, Helonias bullata, at Keener Creek Bog. NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.(Accessed:2017). Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Rankin, W.T., N. Herbert. 2014. Restoration in the southern Appalachians: A Dialogue among Scientists, Planners and Land Managers. USDA Forest Service Research and Development Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-189. Richards, M., J. Cruse Sanders. 2012. Habitat assessment and management recommendations for Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia) in the Chattahoochee-Oconee Nation Forest. USDA Forest Service. Runkle, J.R., 1982 Patterns of Disturbance in some Old-Growth Mesic Forests of Eastern North America. Ecology, 63(5) 1533-1546 pp. Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB).1996e. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan Revision. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Management Bulletin R8-MB 113 B. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

78 Botanical and Rare Communities Resource Report Foothills Landscape Project

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. R8-MB 113 A. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. IPac; Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant; Threatened Species Status for Plantanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid). Federal Register 81(177):62826-62833. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid), A Proposed Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 09/15/2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.< https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/09/15/2015-22973/endangered-and- threatened-wildlife-and-plants-threatened-species-status-for-platanthera-integrilabia> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant; 12- Month Finding on Petition to List Symphyotrichum georgianum as an Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register 79(181):56041-56047. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Candidate Conservation Agreement . Georgia Aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form. Plantanthera integrilabia, White fringeless orchid. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3778.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Small whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Safeguarding of Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) in the Tallulah Ranger District, Chattahoochee National Forest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions: and Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 64(205):57534-57547. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 56 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 56 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75 pp. Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Botanical and Rare Communities Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Appendix A – Evaluation of Actions and Activities from Alternative 2

AP1 Foothills Landscape Project - Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Overview

BIOLOGIC INTEGRITY

WHAT HOW SIZE WHERE Affected Indicator (Habitat Element) - Botanical Activities RX Fire Commercial (max. extent) (conditions or known locations) Forest Composition and Structure (Forest Plan Goals: 1,2,3,7, 8,10) Southern Yellow Pine Maintenance Ground-based thinning, herbicides, Yes - Required Yes 12,400 acres Condition: mid to late successional shortleaf pine stands and/or stands that contain pitch or table Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, mastication; possible scarification, hand- immediately post- mountain pine, where midstory conditions are prohibiting natural regeneration Savannas and Grasslands planting treatment and intermittently thereafter; or preferred for site-preparation if expanding gap treatments used

Southern Yellow Pine Restoration Ground-based harvest, herbicides, mastication, Yes - Required site-prep Yes 5,800 acres** Condition: dry sites dominated by mid to late successional Virginia or white pine Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, scarification, hand-planting and after 10+ years Savannas and Grasslands

Yes - Required initially Yes 1,700 acres** Condition: off-site pine plantations of pole-sized white pine or loblolly where regeneration to Early Successional Forest; Canopy Gap Creation and for site-prep, suitable southern yellow pine is desired preferre d over-time

Oak and Oak-Pine Maintenance Mid-story reduction; herbicide, mastication Maybe - Preferred No 14,800 acres Condition: where mid to late successional oak exists on moderate to high productivity sites Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands

Intermediate thinning and mid-story reduction; Yes - Required Yes 9,200 acres Condition: where mid to late successional oak exist on low to moderate productivity sites Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication Savannas and Grasslands

Expanding gap treatments (ground-based No Yes 14,600 acres Condition: where mid to late successional oak exist but where Rx fire cannot be used regularly to Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, harvest, herbicide, mastication, scarification, achieve desired outcomes Savannas and Grasslands hand-planting)

Crown-touching release (slashed down w/ Maybe - Preferred over No 3,200 acres Condition: where immature oak exists in competition with itself or less-desired species Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, chainsaws, mastication, herbicide) time (long-term as Savannas and Grasslands; Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic needed) Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest

Shelterwood regeneration harvests (ground- Yes - Required pre and Yes 2,000 acres** Condition: low to moderate productivity sites where adequate population of oak seedlings (~greater Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, based harvest, herbicide, mastication; potential post harvest, then than 4 feet height) exist in understory to naturally replace current overstory Savannas and Grasslands; Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic scarification/hand-planting ) potentially after 10 Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest years

43,800 total acres of Oak/ Oak-Pine Maint Oak and Oak-Pine Restoration Ground-based harvest, herbicides, mastication, Yes - Required initially Yes 1,700 acres (same as Condition: off-site pole-sized pine plantations with low pine stocking where adequate oak exists in Early Successional Forest; Canopy Gap Creation scarification, hand-planting and for site-prep, above in SYP either the understory or overstory preferre d over-time restoration) Create Canopy Gaps Overstory and midstory reduction w/ variable No Yes 8,100 acres Condition: mid to late successional mesic deciduous stands of yellow poplar dominated stands and Canopy Gap Creation tree density retention; gaps implemented at more mesic oak forests, not suitable for grouse habitat <25% of stands up to 3/4 acre size; mechanical ground based harvest, mastication

Unique and Threatened & Endangered (Rare) Habitat (Forest Plan Goals: 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 39, 40, 43) Restore Woodland Habitat Ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication Yes - Required, on going Yes 7,400 acres Condition = where woodland species persist (long-lived canopy trees serve as indicators for relic Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, (Pine and Oak) woodland) and combine w/ desired aspect, elevation and ability to use Rx fire Savannas and Grasslands

Restore Wetlands/ Bogs Raise stream profiles by filling or plugging Maybe Maybe 1 known bog footprint: Condition = where mountain bog habitat exists and natural processes no longer function, Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal Ponds ditches and removing encroaching vegetation; 35 acres/ contributing to threatened/ endangered species decline herbicides, planting rare species Surrounding restoration area: 103 acres

Restore Canebrakes Potential ground-based harvest, herbicide, Yes - Required in areas Maybe 50 acres Condition = where small scattered patches exist, i.e. north of Hwy 28 bridge Canebrakes; Late-Successional Riparian mastication, scarification, hand-planting, with variable intensity possibly transplant existing cane

Expand Hemlock Conservation Areas Soil injections of insecticides No No 600 additional acres Known locations: where areas of hemlock associated forest types are adjacent to existing HCAs and Early Succssional Forest; Mature Hemlock Forest; Late-Successional (HCA)* viable trees are present Riparian

Ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication, No Maybe where feasible/ Adaptive Management/ Research: where additional areas with existing hemlock trees, may or may scarification, hand-planting, pesticides, applicable not be adjacent to existing HCA insectaries

Designate Chestnut Orchards Plant chestnuts; install deer fencing, tree tubes No No Estimate 6 acres Adaptive Management/Research: where trees can be cultivated, grown, inoculated and regularly None (rodent control), irrigation systems, fertilizer, evaluated for their performance when challenged by chestnut blight and/or Phytophthora cinnamon herbicides and pesticides, and ground Rands cloth/plastic mulch

Conserve Small Whorled Pagonia Possible thinning w/ chainsaws, mid-story Yes No Where feasible/ Adaptive Management/ Research: where SWP are extant or historic and management could Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature Hemlock Forest control, herbicides, invasive species control applicable generate a positive response

Aquatic Habitat Improvement for Biologic Integrity (Forest Plan Goal 26) Improve Stream Habitats Add large woody debris to stream channels No No Variable locations Condition: perennial and intermittent streams with multiple stream crossings & decreased River Channels; Late-Successional Riparian through cut and leave operations, maintain and along 1,162 miles of connectivity where lack of wood is impairing hydrologic and biologic processes; structure is lacking; enhance existing in-stream structures; stabilize project area streams severe erosion occurring streambanks Improve Lake Habitats Install structures in lakes/ ponds to improve No No 120 acres Known locations: where lakes are lacking sufficient structure for vernal pool creation; lower than None fisheries (i.e. Christmas trees); create vernal desired fish abundance (Jones Creek, Murrays, Peeples and Tails Lake) pools; fertilize and lime lakes at desired time

Non-Native Invasive Species (Forest Plan Goals 1, 12, 39, 40) Non-native invasive species (NNIS) of plants and pests threaten the biologic integrity of ecosystems by degrading natural habitats and decreasing biodiversity. Addressing the existing risks and mitigating for potential spread of NNIS is a connected purpose of the project, but already authorized under existing NEPA decisions. The ongoing NNIS treatments (manual, mechanical, and herbicide) would continue to occur under both alternatives of the FLP.

RESILIENCY Protect Communities from Wildfire (Forest Plan Goals 57, 58) Reduce Hazardous Fuels in Wildland RX fire; Mechanical treatments including Yes Maybe 2,000 acres (overlap Condition: in areas of highest risk where NFS lands are downslope of private land and with high Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Urban Interface (WUI) mastication, mechanical ground bases harvest, with areas above) probability of successful mitigation, where vegetation condition most "departed" and fuels are highly Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood construction of fire lines flammable and/or non-fire tolerant species Forest; Basic Mesic Forest; Mature Hemlock Forest; Early Successional Forest; Late-Successional Riparian

Expand Ecological Role of Fire (Forest Plan Goals 8, 61) Prescribe (Rx) Burning Establish new and/or re-align existing Rx burn Yes Yes and No 50,000 acres (overlap Condition: where Rx burning is required or preferred to meet silvicultural objectives. (i.e., advanced Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, blocks to achieve controlled burn and w/ areas above) regen recruitment) and can be accomplished safely Savannas and Grasslands; Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic silvicultural objectives Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal Ponds; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes; Mature Hemlock Forest

Reduce Risks to Forest Health (Forest Plan Goals 12, 39, 40, 41, 43) Pine Plantation Treatments 13,800 acres of thinning <80 BA using ground- Yes - Required as needed13,800 acres - 17,300 total Condition: young, overstocked, even-aged pine stands susceptible to forest pest (i.e. ips, bark beetle, Canopy Gap based harvest and RX fire; 3,500 acres of YES gypsy moth) outbreaks thinning to <80 BA of smaller trees using 3,500 acres - ground-based harvest, herbicide, mastication, NO handtools, and Rx fire

Insect & Disease Outbreak Response Site and pest-specific (i.e. bark beetle = cut and Maybe - for site prep Maybe - Treatments will occur Condition: when and where infestations are significant, rapidly forming and spreading (Est. 24,725 Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, leave operations or salvage/ reforestation if following salvage salvage when needed acres currently at risk for ips or bark beetle infestation and 20,185 acres at risk to Gypsy moth). Savannas and Grasslands; Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic access allows); herbicides, Rx fire, planting if Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic appropriate; rapid response required for Mesic Forest; Mature Hemlock Forest; Late-Successional Riparian effectiveness

Maintain Resilience to Climate Change (Forest Plan Amendment #5) Addressing climate change is incorporated into the purpose of this project as an overarching risk to the forests of Georgia. Forestlands across the region are experiencing increased threats from fire, insect and plant invasions, disease, extreme weather, and drought. The need to increase the forests' resiliency to these forthcoming threats is woven through the many integrated efforts aimed at improving overall forest health across the foothills landscape.

CONNECTIVITY Forest Successional Diversity (Forest Plan Goal 1,2,3,4, 10,20) Create Young Forest (ESH) Ground-based harvest, herbicides, mastication, Maybe - as needed Yes 10,500 total acres Conditions: 500 acres in mesic hardwoods suitable for grouse habitat; 500 acres of daylighting roads, Early Succssional Forest; Canopy Gap Creation scarification, Rx fire (site-prep), hand-planting and where restoration needs overlap from above treatments: 5,800 acres in SYP, 1,700 acres in pine plantations, 2,000 acres in oak/oak-pine Designate Old-Growth Allocate small blocks of old-growth, arranged in Maybe - if possible No 5,050 acres Known locations: 3,578 acres in 14 applicable watersheds not meeting the 5% minimum; 720 None mosaic connected by other habitat types acres additional in watersheds already meeting standard; see old-growth stands proposed in Appendix D in EA

Maintain, Expand or Construct Mowing, disking, Rx fire, planting, herbicides in Maybe - as needed Maybe 1,400 acres (275 acres Condition: where opportunities exist to maintain, expand or create new openings. Approx. 1-3 Early Successional Forest; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic hardwood Permanent Wildlife Openings existing open areas to maintain as wildlife existing) acres/ ea. primarily connected to harvest activities Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic Forest openings (food plots, native grasses, shrubs, or pollinator habitat)

Aquatic Habitat Improvement for Connectivity (Forest Plan Goal 26) Replace Barriers to Aquatic Organism Remove structures (mainly culverts), install No No Up to 208 stream Condition: where existing culverts are limiting aquatic organism passage and/ or in need of repair None Passage new (bottomless culverts, bridges, or low-water crossings (225 crossings on FS lands total in FLP area) fords), reconstruct road if necessary

Enhance Recreation Opportunities (Human Connectivity) (Forest Plan Goals 31, 32, 47) Trail Construction and Re-routes Manual and/or mechanical veg removal and No No 50 miles (12 acres) of Known locations: Hiking, horse, bike, and OHV use trails (i.e. sections of Willis Knob, Bear Creek, Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, tread construction, installation of drainage new construction; 111 Jake and Bull systems, Pinhoti, Rocky Flats, Tatum Lead, Murrays Lake, Peeples Lake, Sumac Creek, Savannas and Grasslands; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood structures (i.e. culverts, waterbars, bridges, miles (27 acres) of re- Oakey Mountain, Tibbs and Milma trails); and Chattooga W&SR Corridor Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic etc.), signs/ markers, and structure routes Forest; Canebrakes;Mature Hemlock Forest; Late-Successional Riparian construction (turnpikes, causeways, retaining walls, etc.)

Convert Roads to Trails Narrow road surface mechanically (excavate No No ≈ 6 miles Known locations: areas of Bear Creek, Pinhoti trails Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, road embankment/ landing fill, stabilize to trail Savannas and Grasslands; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood standard) Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes;Mature Hemlock Forest; Late-Successional Riparian

Improve Parking Areas Comply w/ FHA specs; possible veg removal, No No 3 acres Known locations: Holly Creek Day Use Area and Pinhoti, Bear Creek, Jake and Bull, Willis Knob, Dicks Table Mountain Pine Forest; Early Successional Forest; Woodlands, grading, barrier installation Creek, Stonewall/White Twister Trailheads Savannas and Grasslands; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes;Mature Hemlock Forest; Late-Successional Riparian Improve Trail System andEnhance Developed Rec Sites System Trail Improve

Install Accessible Fishing Piers Clear area for expansion and grade using No No ≈ 1 acre Known location: Holly Creek Day Use Area River Channels; Late-Successional Riparian mechanical equipment Convert Roads and Motorized trails to Administratively change/ update MVUM; install No No ≈ 57 miles total: 54.3 Known locations: see Table 13 in EA Table Mountain Pine Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; ML 1 or ML 2 - Admin Use Only barriers such as berms, rocks, or gates to miles of ML2/ ML1 Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature restrict access road; 2.9 miles of High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal Tibbs ATV Trail Ponds; River Channels; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes; Mature Hemlock Forest; Early Successional Forest; Late-Successional Riparian

Implement Seasonal Closure on roads Administratively change to ML 2 - Seasonal No No ≈ 20 miles total Known locations: see Table 13 in EA Table Mountain Pine Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; and motorized trails Restriction/ update MVUM; Install gates Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal Ponds; River Channels; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes; Mature Hemlock Motorized Access Changes Access Motorized Forest; Early Successional Forest; Late-Successional Riparian

IMPROVE SOIL AND WATER QUALITY Reduction of Sediment Delivered to Streams (Forest Plan Goals 22, 24, 25, 34, 47, 48, 49) Improve Existing Roads System (above Curve widening, upgrade culverts, stream No No Where applicable Condition: Where system roads are in need of repair to address soil and water quality and/or in and beyond normal maintenance) crossings, upgrade or reconstruct drainage across ≈ 260 miles watersheds with 303 (d) or 305 (b) listed streams or streams with Threatened and Endangered features, spot reconstruction if needed, species habitat; upgrade surface material and configuration using Georgia BMPs

Decommission Forest Roads and Close road/ trail to public; may include full No No ≈ 20 miles total: Known locations: See Table 14 in EA Table Mountain Pine Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; Motorized Trails obliteration of roadbed, removal of stream Roads: 8.3 miles of Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature crossing fills/ culverts, crushing and burying ML2; 6.5 miles of ML1; High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal inlets, restoring stream channels, seeding, Trails: 5.3 miles total Ponds; River Channels; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes; Mature Hemlock fertilizing, mulching, scarifying, waterbar (1.8 miles of OHV Forest; Early Successional Forest; Late-Successional Riparian installation, scattering slash, etc. (Tatum); 3.5 miles of ATV (Milma))

Improve Sustainability of Recreational Decommission low use trails and user=created No No ≈ 15 miles (4 acres) of Known locations (some): low use trails in areas such as Murray's Lake Trail, Peeples Lake Trail, Sumac Table Mountain Pine Forest; Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands; Experience trails, decom dispersed camping areas and low-use trails; 300 Creek Trail; Boggs Creek (280 acres) and Oakey Mountain Campgrounds (20 acres) and various Canopy Gap; Mature Oak Forest; Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest; Mature developed (2) campgrounds; develop official acres of developed unwanted dispersed sites throughout the project area; user-created trails or areas contributing to High-Elevation Mesic Hardwood Forest; Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal trail system and improve recreation adjacent to campgrounds; 653 resource damage in the Chatooga River Corridor Ponds; River Channels; Basic Mesic Forest; Canebrakes; Mature Hemlock Chatooga River; improve sites where feasible acres of undesired Forest; Early Successional Forest; Late-Successional Riparian dispersed campsites across FLP (including WSR Corridor); unknown amount of user-created trails

= colors identify multiple purpose *Treatments may occur in Inventoried Roadless ** Treatments create "young forest" aka early successional and needs met Areas habitat (ESH) Botanical and Rare Communities Resources Report Foothills Landscape Project

Appendix B - Botanical Species List Considered for Evaluation

AP7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. This list was generated fro Ipac

Plant Smooth Echinacea Federally Endangered Yes, Habersham, Yes, 1 population known from Moderate with project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Woodlands, savannas, and Surveys of May Affect, but The project design features are designed Coneflower laevigata Stephens the project design features that will Service Records grasslands: Glades and Barrens. appropriate not likely to to minimize the potential direct effect of protect existing EO's. (Parries and limestone glades.) habitats are adversely affect the proposed action, expanding woodland Active management should required prior to habitat in the vicinity of known plants greatly increase the any ground should benefit this species. Work done in New location found near toca falls outside of the project area by amount of available habitat disturbing activity this habitat will be designed to be beniffical Brian Hudson (flowering mid- to this habitat and this plant. May-July & fruiting July-October)

Plant Swamp pink Helonias bullata Federally Endangered Yes, Rabun, White and Yes, 2 populations known from Moderate with project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Adequate survey May Affect, but The project design features are designed Union the project area design features that will Service Records ponds. information exsit. not likely to to minimize the potential direct effect of protect existing EO's. (Open swamps.) (flowering early adversely affect the proposed action, expanding Bogs Active management should April and fruiting habitat in the vicinity of known plants DNR-Hail Ridge and Tom Swamp in the project area. Radcliffe- greatly increase the late may-early should benefit this species. Work done in email 8/25/18-They are at Keener, Cooper Creek, and Hale Ridge. amount of available habitat June) this habitat will be designed to be beniffical We want to put them at Hedden and Rick Creek. to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Small Whorled Isotria Federally Threatened Yes, Fannin, Gilmer, Yes, multiple occurrences known Moderate with project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest: Surveys of May Affect, but The project design features are designed Pogonia medeoloides Union, Habersham, for the project design features that will Service Records Mature hemlock forest. appropriate not likely to to minimize the potential direct and Lumpkin, Rabun, Towns protect existing EO's. (Mixed hardwood-pine forests with habitats are adversely affect indirect effects. This species may benefit Active management should an open understory.) required prior to from minor disturbances that reduce greatly increase the any ground midstory and/or create canopy gaps. May 10 is the emergance date. Stop burning by April 15. amount of available habitat disturbing activity Work done in this habitat will be designed (flowering May to be beniffical to this plant. and fruiting June- August) Plant White Fringeless Pantanthera Federally Threatened Yes, Rabun, Habersham, Yes, one known occurrence in Moderate with project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Surveys of May Affect, but The project design features are designed Orchid integrilabia Stephens, Chattooga the project area design features that will Service Records ponds. appropriate not likely to to minimize the potential direct effect of protect existing EO's. (swamps; peaty seeps and habitats are adversely affect the proposed action, expanding Bogs Active management should streambanks with Parnassia asarifolia required prior to habitat in the vicinity of known plants greatly increase the and Oxypolis rigidior.) any ground should benefit this species. Work done in Have habitat and possibities for introduction amount of available habitat disturbing activity this habitat will be designed to be beniffical (flowering August- to this habitat and this plant. September)

Plant Ruth's Golden Pityopsis ruthii Federally Endangered No No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest River channels None are required no effect Aster Service Records This species is not considered further in this analysis because it is not expected to occur within the area Not in GA, endimic to the Ocoee River affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Plant Green Pitcher- Sarracenia Federally Endangered No, Gilmer, Towns No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mountain bogs, Fens, Seeps and None are required no effect plant oreophila Service Records Seasonal ponds (flowers May- This species is not considered further (Wet meadows and upland bogs) June) in this analysis because it is not Not known from the project area but DNR would like to try expected to occur within the area Safguarding potentianlly in the project area. Does not like peat, sallow soils, fens and seeps affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Plant Large-flowered Scutellaria Federally Endangered Yes, Murray, Catosa, No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops; and Woodlands, None are required no effect Skull cap montana Walker, Gordon, Service Records Savannas and Grasslands. (mid-may-early This species is not considered further Chattooga, Floyd (Mesic hardwood-shortleaf forest, June) in this analysis because it is not generally open understory.) expected to occur within the area Not expected from the project area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Plant Persistent Trillium persistens Federally Endangered Yes, Habersham County No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest; and None are required no effect trillium Service Records mature hemlock forest (flowering Mid This species is not considered further (Mesic hardwood forest and upland March-Mid April) in this analysis because it is not forest) expected to occur within the area this project is outside of its natural range, very definable. affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. Plant Rock Gnome Gymnoderma Federally Endangered Yes, Rabun No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs; and spray None are required no effect Lichen lineare Service Records cliffs (survey all year) This species is not considered further (wet cliffs) On the cliff of rabun bald outside of the range. Not a habitat that in this analysis because it is not we would be working in. Shawn beecem did a very expected to occur within the area comprohensive survey in North GA, needs northfacing bald with a affected by the project. Therefore, this seep. Habitat is not avalible. project will not affect this species.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 1 of 1 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2018 RFSS from Georgia

Plant Small mountain Cardamine RFSS No, Towns No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mountain Bogs, Fens, Seeps and None are required No effect This species is not considered further Not expected in the project area bittercress clematitis Service Records Seasonal ponds; spruce-fir forest; in this analysis because it is not Mature high-elevation mesic hardwood forest (elevation Greater expected to occur within the area than 1000ft) affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Radford's sedge Carex radfordii RFSS No, Stephens No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest None are required No effect This species is not considered further marble mafic ravines around Yohona Dam. Maybe State Threatened Service Records (fruiting late April- in this analysis because it is not Long swamp, Not expected in the project area. June) expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Cuthbert's Chelone cuthbertii RFSS Yes, Rabun and White Yes Moderate beneficial effects GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mountain Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Adequate survey May effect The project design features are designed DNR-continue safeguarding at Hail Ridge, look at new turtlehead State Threatened as habitat improves Service Records Seasonal ponds information exsit. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of locations. Radcliffe-email 8/29/18-The turtle head (late July- not likely to result the proposed action, expanding Bogs occurs wild at Hedden Bog only but is planted at September, fruit in a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants Keener & Hale Ridge. September- federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in October) this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Small spreading Cleistesiopsis RFSS, G4 Yes, Rabun, Stephens No Moderate beneficial effects GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Oak Forest (Moist to Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Known from Tom's Swamp, Lake russel area, would pogonia bifaria as habitat improves Service Records fairly dry meadows, openings appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of benefit form woodland and canopy gap creation (synonym Cleistes habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding woodland including Fire. Loves winter burns. Avoid heavy in oak or pine woodlands, dry bifaria) required prior to in a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants equipment disturbance. ridge tops under pines (where any ground federal listing should benefit this species. seasonally moist)) disturbing activity (May-July) Plant Whorled Collinsonia RFSS, G3G4 Yes No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Oak forest and None are required No effect This species is not considered further Loccaly aboundant, common species that is not stoneroot verticillata Service Records Woodlands, savannas, and (Late April-early in this analysis because it is not tracked. Common in rich coves in the mnts, not June, fruit June- ristricted around hemlock and mnt luarel in the open. expected to occur within the area grasslands; Late successional July) riparian. (Basic mesic forests affected by the project. Therefore, this and Mature mesic hardwood project will not affect this species. forests. Rich forests, ranging from moist (cove) forests to rather dry oak forests over mafic or calcareous rocks.) Plant Large Fothergilla major RFSS, State Yes, Lumpkin, Stephens, No low beneficial effects as GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Hemlock Forest; Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Lumpkin and Stevens counties. Good pooulation from witchalder Threatened Walker habitat improves Service Records woodlands, Savannas, and appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Camp Merril on the road up to Cooper Gap. Lookout habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding woodland Mnt. Should respond well to fire. Grasslands; Late Successional required prior to in a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants Riparian (Dry ridgetop forests any ground federal listing should benefit this species. of middle elevation ridges in disturbing activity the mountains, north-facing (flower April-May fruit July-October) bluffs in the lower Piedmont, and rocky woodlands and along streams.)

Plant Smith's Helianthus smithii RFSS, G2 Yes, Stephens, No low beneficial effects as GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature longleaf pine forest Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Upland mixed oak hickory, scarlet oak woodlands sunflower Habersham, Rabun, habitat improves Service Records (Sunny gaps in dry, upland oak- appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of would benefit from fire. Taxonomic problem that may Walker hickory -pine woodlands) habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding woodland be concufsed with a come species.Microsephil required prior to in a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants any ground federal listing should benefit this species. Work done disturbing activity in this habitat will be designed to be (August-October) beniffical to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Taylor's filmy Hymenophyllum RFSS, G1G2 No (2 occurrences on No none GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (small caves, and moist ledges near None are required No effect This species is not considered further Not a habitat that we will be working in. North east fern tayloriae the forest outside of the Service Records waterfall. Grows in schist, sandstone (year round, may in this analysis because it is not Rabun county. More of a blue ridge species. or other porous, non-calcareous rock.) shrivel during dry project area North expected to occur within the area Raburn) periods) affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 1 of 4 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2018 RFSS from Georgia

Plant Fraser's Lysimachia fraseri RFSS, State rare Yes, Walker, Stephens, yes, 13 known populations from "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest River channels, Late successional Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed seeps all across north GA, in Heden bog and Curahee loosestrife Rabun, Floyd the project area limited work done in this Service Records riparian (open gravel bars and stream appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of mnt. Benefit from canopy gap but not mechanical. habiatat. banks, edges of granite and sandstone habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding canopy Would be a species for safe guarding. outcrops: sunny, rocky slopes, rocky, required prior to in a trend towards gaps in the vicinity of known plants should wet open roadsides.) any ground federal listing benefit this species. disturbing activity (flower mid June- July, fruit September- October) Plant Sweet pinesap Monotropsis RFSS, State Yes, Rabun, Habersham, No low beneficial effects as GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest; Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Likely found in Virgina pine thickets, hemiparasites on odorata Threatened Lumpkin and Gilmer habitat improves Service Records Mature Oak forests; woodlands, appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of pine roots, could be found with other pines. Late Counties Savannas, and Grasslands. habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding woodland March or early april surveys. Would survey thinning but (Mixed pine-hardwood or chestnut required prior to in a trend towards habitat and canopy gaps in the vicinity of not clearcutting. oak-dominated forests with dry, any ground federal listing known plants should benefit this species. acidic soil, often with mountain disturbing activity laurel, rhododendron, and blueberry.) (flowering February -April, fruit May-June) Plant Piedmont (Blue Packera millefolia RFSS yes, Rabun No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (High elevation granite outcrops, None are required No effect This species is not considered further Southern Bue Ridge endemic, not in the project area, Ridge Golden) be working in habitat for Service Records domes, and cliffs) (flowering late in this analysis because it is not Found in Table mnt pine Barrens. this species. May-June) ragwort expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Largeleaf grass- Parnassia RFSS, G3 Yes, Rabun, Habersham, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal Ponds Adequate survey No effect DNR-known from Hickory Mnt in Talluha gorge and of-Parnassus grandifolia Walker Service Records (Seepage wetlands with neutral or information exsit. Brasstown Valley. Ristricted to Fens, Not in the project alkaline water developed over (year round, best area. Radcliffe-email-That Parnassia only bedrock high in magnesium or September- occurs on state land at Brasstown Seeps. calcium.) October) Plant Stone Mountain Pycnanthemum RFSS, G3 No, Towns, Union No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Rocky, Oak Hickory forest.) None are required No effect This species is not considered further type locality Stone Mnt, also Fort Mnt, mostly from the mint curvipes Service Records () in this analysis because it is not Tennessee drainage, Not known from the project area. expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Oglethorpe Oak Quercus RFSS, State No, Jasper, Putnam, No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Wet clay soils of Piedmont seepage None are required No effect This species is not considered further piedmnt species, not known from the project area oglethorpensis Threatened Green be working in habitat for Service Records swamps, stream terraces, and moist (Year round) in this analysis because it is not this species. hardwood forests.) expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Bay starvine Schisandra glabra RFSS, State Yes, Stephens, Dawson No "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Late successional Riparian. (Moist, Surveys of No effect Only known from panther creek south to middle Threatened limited work done in this Service Records deciduous hardwood forests, often appropriate Chattahoochee water shed, not known from the project habiatat. with beech, usually on slopes, stream habitats are area terraces, and floodplains.) required prior to any ground disturbing activity (flowering May- June, fruit July- August) Plant Southern Shortia galacifolia RFSS, State Yes, Rabun No "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Hemlock Forests. Surveys of No effect only known from Headen Creek Falls, very disjuct from Oconee bells var. galacifolia Endangered limited work done in this Service Records (Moist, forested slopes along appropriate the SC populations, may not even be native. Needs habiatat. mountain streams bordered by habitats are genetic test. Not known from the project area. rhododendron and Mountain laurel. required prior to Plants flourish in small sunny gaps.) any ground disturbing activity (Flower mid-March- Mid-April)

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 2 of 4 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2018 RFSS from Georgia

Plant Georgia aster Symphyotrichum RFSS, State Yes, Murray, Gordon, No "moderate" increased GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Edges and openings in rocky, upland Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Not in the Western side of cohuttas. Not known from georgianum Threatened Lumpkin, Habersham, woodland habitat will Service Records oak-hickory-pine forests and rights-of- appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of any part of the project area but it is possible habitat. White, Pickens, Dawson, benefit this species way through these habitats. habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding woodland And would like to be considered for safe guarding. Stephens, Walker Circumneutral soils.) required prior to in a trend towards habitat and canopy gaps in the vicinity of Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon any ground federal listing known plants should benefit this species. disturbing activity (year round, may shrivel during dry periods) Plant Eastern Talinum RFSS, G4 No No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Glades and Barrens None are required No effect This species is not considered further Not a rare plant in the state, found on Grainte Domes Fameflower teretifolium be working in habitat for Service Records (Rock outcrops) (Flower June- in this analysis because it is not or rockout crop exposures, not a habitat that we will be this species. September) working in. expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Ash-leaf bush Thermopsis RFSS, G3 Yes, Rabun, White, No "moderate GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature oak forest Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed One EO at Fort Mnt State park, needs a late spring pea fraxinifolium Union, Lumpkin, Fannin, Service Records (Ridges and Clearings) appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of survey in Glimer Fannin Murray and Gordon counties. Gilmer, Murray habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding canopy Restricted to more of the Blue Ridge and appilation required prior to in a trend towards gaps in the vicinity of known plants should any ground federal listing benefit this species. disturbing activity (flower May-June, fruit July-October)

Plant Hairy false Thermopsis villosa RFSS, G3 Yes, Gilmer, Fannin, No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Canopy gaps Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Sub mesic oak-hickory woodland species. Would lupine Union, Rabun be working in habitat for Service Records (Forest openings and clearings) appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of benefit from thinning and fire. this species. habitats are not likely to result the proposed action, expanding canopy required prior to in a trend towards gaps in the vicinity of known plants should any ground federal listing benefit this species. disturbing activity (flower May-June, fruit July-October)

Plant Mottled trillium Trillium discolor RFSS, G4 Yes, Stephens No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature messic hardwood forests. None are required Panther Creek area and south in the Savanna River be working in habitat for Service Records (coves with mafic soil) (flower late March- drainage. Also known from Keener Bog in the this species. early May) Tennessee drainage.

Plant Lance-leaved Trillium RFSS, G3 Yes, Walker, Murray, No "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Late successional Rriparian Surveys of May effect Ridge and Valley species west of the cohutas in the trillium lancifolium Floyd, Gordon limited work done in this Service Records (Floodplain forest and rocky slopes appropriate individuals, but is conasuaga drainage, could be in the Alucualy valley. habiatat. over basic forest.) habitats are not likely to result Not in the project area. required prior to in a trend towards any ground federal listing disturbing activity Plant Jeweled trillium Trillium simile RFSS, G3 Yes, Murray, Fannin, No?? Moderate GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed New EO's in the western Cohuttas along west cowpen Gilmer, Lumpkin, Union, Service Records (mesic hardwood forest on very rich appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of road, and along FS road 64 and southeast of Fort White, Towns soils over mafic or calcareous rocks, habitats are not likely to result the proposed action. mountain State park, also known from Grassy often near seepage.) required prior to in a trend towards Mountain. Needs control exotics, avoid disturbance, any ground federal listing also found with a lot of other species. disturbing activity Plant Piedmont Waldsteinia RFSS Yes, Habersham, No "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Only along Cedar Creek and Panther Creek around barren lobata Morgan, Stephens limited work done in this Service Records (stream terraces, floodplain forests, appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Camp Micheal. Also known from Dawson county. strawberry habiatat. and rocky, lower slopes with oak- habitats are not likely to result the proposed action. Generally along streams. hickory-pine forest.) required prior to in a trend towards any ground federal listing disturbing activity (Flower March- May fruit June- July)

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 3 of 4 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX Project DATE: This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat. Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2018 RFSS from Georgia

Plant A liverwort Frullania RFSS, G1 No, high elevation allong No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Spruce-fir forests: Mature hemlock None are required No effect This species is not considered further High elevation along the AT not know from the project appalachiana the Appaliation trail be working in habitat for Service Records forest in this analysis because it is not area 4 known locations this species. expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant A liverwort Lejeunea RFSS, G1 Yes, Habersham, Yes "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Late successional riparian Surveys of May effect The project design features are designed Needs surveys blomquistii Stephens limited work done in this Service Records (Grows on rocks and boulders, tress appropriate individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of habiatat. and logs, relatively dry, sometimes habitats are not likely to result the proposed action. moist, always in or along a water required prior to in a trend towards way.) any ground federal listing disturbing activity Plant A liverwort Nardia lescurii RFSS, G3 No No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock Outcrops and cliffs: Spray None are required No effect This species is not considered further unknown be working in habitat for Service Records cliffs: Late successional riparian in this analysis because it is not this species. (At low elevations, on peaty soil over rocks, usually in shade and associated expected to occur within the area with water.) affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant A liverwort Plagiochila RFSS, G3 Yes, Rabun No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs: Mature None are required No effect This species is not considered further Not known from the project area caduciloba be working in habitat for Service Records mesic hardwood forests (wet in this analysis because it is not this species. cliffs) expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Plant Pohlia RFSS, G1 No, known from Rabun No "low" This project will not GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Oak forest on Rabun Bald) None are required No effect This species is not considered further known only from Rabun Blad on rocks along trails. rabunbaldensis Bald be working in habitat for Service Records in this analysis because it is not High elevation rock outcrops. this species. expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 4 of 4 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Plant Purple giant- Agastache Locally Rare, State Yes, Stephens, Rabun, No "low" This project will have GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forest: Mature high- None are required, May impact hyssop scrophulariifolia special conern Towns, Union, Fannin limited work done in this Service Records elevation mesic hardwood forests. but suggested when individuals, but is Cooper Creek mountain Bog. Not likely in the (Over magnesium rich soils, sunny other plants are not likely to result in habiatat. project area gaps in forested floodplains and river surveyed for a trend towards terraces ) federal listing Plant Shining indigo Amorpha nitens Locally Rare, G3 No, Gordon, Whitfield, No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest River channels None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further bush Floyd, Chattooga, Walker, Service Records (Rocky, wooded slopes and alluvial analysis required Not known from the project area Putnam woods.) Plant Carolina Anemone Locally Rare, G5 No, Jasper, Putnam No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Glades and barrens: Rock outcrops None are required No impacts No further analysis required anemone caroliniana Service Records and cliffs: Woodlands, savannas and grsslands. only from the piedmont (Upland seepage swampopening over Iredell soils and wet meadows.)

Plant Porter"s reed calamagrostis Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Rabun, towns, No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rocky outcrops and cliffs (Base None are required, May impact No work will be done in this habitat, no further grass porteri Union, Lumpkin Service Records of north-facing granitic cliffs.) but suggested when individuals, but is analysis required Rocky woodlands and openings in mid to high other plants are not likely to result in elevations. Would respond well to thinning or surveyed for a trend towards burning federal listing Plant Blue Ridge Calystegia Locally Rare, G3 Yes, Rabun, Towns, Yes, 4known populations in the "low" with the use of project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature Oak Forests; Canopy Gaps. None are required, May impact The project design features are designed (silky) bindweed catesbiana spp. Lumpkin, White, Union, project area design features Service Records (Sandy montane openings) but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of sericata Murray, Gilmer, other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding canopy likely to benfit from fire surveyed for a trend towards gaps in the vicinity of known plants should federal listing benefit this species.

Plant Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii Locally Rare, G3G4 Yes, Rabun, Towns, No "low" with the use of project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forests. None are required, May impact The project design features are designed Union, Lumpkin, White, design features Service Records (Cove hardwood forests and mesic but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Likely to occur in the project, in the core of the Dawson, Gilmer deciduous forests.) other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action. Blue Ridge. surveyed for a trend towards federal listing Plant Broadleaf sedge Carex platyphylla Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Walker Murray, No "low" with the use of project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forests. ( None are required, May impact The project design features are designed Fannin, Union, Lumpkin, design features Service Records Mesic hardwood forests with basic but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Dawson soil.) other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action. Likely to occur in the project area surveyed for a trend towards federal listing Plant Purple sedge Carex purpurifera Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Towns, Union, No "low" with the use of project GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forests: Mature mesis None are required, May impact The project design features are designed Lumpkin, Fannin, design features Service Records hardwood forests. but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Murray,Walker, (Mesic hardwood forest over other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action. Likely to occur in the project area on mafic soils Chattooga, Floyd, Gilmer limestone.) surveyed for a trend towards federal listing Plant Rough sedge Carex scabrata Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Murray, Gilmer, Yes, 7 known populations in the Moderate beneficial effects GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, fens, seeps, seasonal ponds. None are required May impact The project design features are designed Union, Towns, Lumpkin, project area as habitat improves Service Records (High elevation boulderfields, individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of White, Habersham, mountain Bogs and seeps.) not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs Rabun a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant. A wetland species Plant American Castanea dentata Locally Rare Yes Yes GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forests. None are required May impact The project design features are designed chestnut Service Records individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of not likely to result in the proposed action. Need to protect mature trees. a trend towards federal listing Plant Indina Castilleja coccinea Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Rabun, Towns, Yes, 1 populations know from the Moderate beneficial effects GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Glades and barrens: Grassy Balds: None are required, May impact The project design features are designed paintbrush Union, Lumpkin, Gilmer, project area as habitat improves Service Records Woodlands, savannas, and grasslands. but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Walker, Floyd, Fannin (Moist rock ledges and fens.) other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding woodland Moist Rocky ledges and fens, woodlands, Glades surveyed for a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants and Barrens, openings federal listing should benefit this species.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 1 of 7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Plant Yellowwood Cladrastis Locally Rare yes No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forest: Mature high- None are required, May impact kentuckea Service Records elevation mesic hardwood forests. but suggested when individuals, but is other plants are not likely to result in surveyed for a trend towards federal listing really rich coves Plant Curlyheads Clematis Locally Rare, G4 yes, Stephens No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature oak forests: Woodlands, None are required, May impact ochroleuca Service Records savannas and grasslands. (Dry but suggested when individuals, but is circumneutral soil.) other plants are not likely to result in Woodland species in the project area, Mafic soils surveyed for a trend towards federal listing Plant Sweet fern Comptonia Locally Rare, G1 No, Raburn, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Table mountain pine forests: Mature None are required No impacts peregrina Union, White Service Records oak forests: Woodlands, savannas, only one site near Keener creek, the southern and grasslands. (Disturbed most occurance. areas and open upland forests.)

Plant American lily-of - Convallaria Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Rabun, White, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Rocky, montane oak forests) None are required, May impact The project design features are designed the valley majuscula Lumpkin, Union, Murray, Service Records but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Fannin other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding woodland surveyed for a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants federal listing should benefit this species. new huge population found near lake conasuga, conctration near Grassy mountain Plant Pale corydalis Capanoides Locally Rare, G5 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs. None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further Synonym: Service Records analysis required Rockout crops and cliff edges, not seen that far Corydalis south, brasstown bald, ravin cliffs sempervirens Plant Fraser sedge Cymophyllus Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Rabun, Fannin No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature high-elevation mesic None are required No impacts known from the east side of cohutas near cashes fraserianus Service Records hardwood forests: Mature hiemlock valley and near Kenner, extrem southern edge of forests: Late successional riparian. the range, very rare not likely in the project, (Mixed hardwood-hemlock forest.) conspicuos plant, habitat present but not likely Plant Yellow lady's Cypripedium Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Raburn, Towns, Yes, 3 populations known from the GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, fens, seeps, seasonal ponds: None are required, May impact The project design features are designed slipper parvifolorum Union, White, project area Service Records Mature mesic hardwood forest. but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Habersham, Lumpkin, (Montane cove forests and rich other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs Mature mesic hardwood forest, canopy opening Fannin, Dawson, Gilmer, deciduous forests.) surveyed for a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants should be done during the dormant season, a Murray, Floyd, Stephens federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in plant that would benefit from woodland or canopy this habitat will be designed to be beniffical gap to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Squirrel corn Dicentra Locally Rare No, Towns, Union No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest. None are required No impacts no further analysis required Rich cove species outside the project area canadensis Service Records (Mesic hardwood forest.) Plant Bleeding heart Dicentra eximia Locally Rare, G4 No, Fannin No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forests: Mature mesic None are required No impacts no further analysis required no extant sites, but would be on seepy cliffs, Service Records hardwood forests. maybe Raven cliffs or along the conasuga, in the (Montane ledges and rocky slopes.) project area but not a habitat that we would impact Plant Ground cedar Diphasiastrum Locally Rare, G5 No, Rabun No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature high-elvation mesic hardwood None are required No impacts no further analysis required Only known from Paterson Gap area near tristachyum Service Records forests. (Rocky ledges.) Keener, outside of the project area Plant Leatherwood Dirca palustris Locally Rare, G4 Yes stephens No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forests: Mature mesic None are required No impacts Service Records hardwood forests: Late successional (flower March-April, common in the state, rare on CONF, from Riparian. fruit June-July) leatherwood creek

Plant Shooting star Dodecatheon Locally Rare, G5 no No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, fens, seeps, seasonal ponds: None are required May impact The project design features are designed meadia Service Records Basic mesic forests. (Late March-May, individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of fruit late May-June) not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants Ridge and Valley outside of the project area over federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in limestone or maphic soils this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 2 of 7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Plant Boldie"s wood Dryopteris Locally Rare, G4G5 yes? No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds None are required, May impact The project design features are designed fern goldiana Service Records but suggested when individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of other plants are not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs Rich hardwood cove species locally rare should surveyed for a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants be common, definitely in the project area no federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in longer tracked and could be removed from this this habitat will be designed to be beniffical list. to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Fringed gentian Gentianopsis Locally Rare, G5 No, Union No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds None are required No impacts no further analysis required crinita Service Records Plant Cow parsnip Heracleum Locally Rare G5 No? No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest None are required lanatum Service Records very high elevation only known in a beech gap on Synonym: hightower bald Heracleum maximum Plant Appalachian fir Huperzia Locally Rare, G5 Yes Rabun No None GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs. None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further High elevation pure mountain cliff, 3500ft north clubmoss appalachiana Service Records analysis required facing cliffs from rabun bald, Heden creek below synonym appressa glades falls. Plant Rock clubmoss Huperzia Locally Rare, G4 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs. None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further three forks area ellicots rock wilderness area. porophila Service Records analysis required Also from cliffs at Tallulaha Plant Golden seal Hydrastis Locally Rare G3G4 Yes Rabun, Stephens, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forests: Mature mesic None are required May impact The project design features are designed canadensis Towns, Union, Fannin, Service Records hardwood forests. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of along the chattoga in Stephens county, and Gilmer, Dawson, Murray, (Rich woods on circumneutral soil.) not likely to result in the proposed action. allaculsy valley.\ Walker a trend towards federal listing Plant Largeleaf Hydrophyllum Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Muarry, Walker No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forests: Mature mesic None are required May impact The project design features are designed waterleaf macrophyllum Service Records hardwood forests. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of rich coves in conasuga drainage, known (Rich woods on circumneutral soil.) not likely to result in the proposed action. occuance in project area a trend towards federal listing Plant Blue Ridge St. Hypericum Locally Rare, G3 No, Rabun, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (High elevation rocky crevices.) None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further known from boulders along the AP trail above Jon's wort buckleyi Union, Lumpkin Service Records analysis required 3500ft Plant Naked-fruit rush Juncus Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Habersham, Rabun Yes, 6 known for the project area, GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens, Seeps, seasonal ponds. None are required May impact The project design features are designed gymnocarpus Habersham and Rabun Counties Service Records individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants Found in seeps. Likely in the project area federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Ground Juniper Juniperus Locally Rare, G5 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs. None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further communis Service Records analysis required Not known from the project area, possiblely ssp.depressa Rabun bald and peidmont Broad River watershed Plant Sheep laurel Kalmia carolina Locally Rare G4 Yes, Rabun, Union Yes, 4 known for m the project area, GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds. None are required May impact The project design features are designed Habersham County Service Records (Open swampsand wet meadows and individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of mountain Bogs.) not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants Added to Tom's Swamp, Copper Cr and Kenner federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in and Flat creek. this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Sand Myrtle Leiophyllum Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Union, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Table mountain pine forests. None are required May impact The project design features are designed buxifolium synonm Rabun Service Records (high altitude rocky ledges.) individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Kalmia buxifolia not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding woodland a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants federal listing should benefit this species. only known from Cedar Cliff, not from the project area

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 3 of 7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Plant Ground pine Lycopodium Locally Rare, G4 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds: None are required No impacts no further analysis required clavatum Service Records Grassy balds: Mature high-elevation Flat Creek area, Black Mnt state park, coppers mesic hardwood forests: High creek. Union and fannin counties. elevation early succession. Plant Climbing fern Lygodium Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Rabun, Habersham, Yes, 3 populations known form the GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds: None are required May impact The project design features are designed palmatum White, Union, Fannin, project area, Habersham County Service Records Late successional riparian. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Gilmer, Walker (Acid soils of thickets and open upland not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs forests.) a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants allong roads in rabun co. federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Broadleaf Melanthium Locally Rare, G5 Yes? No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest: None are required May impact The project design features are designed bunchflower latifolium synonm Service Records Canopy gaps. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Veratrium not likely to result in the proposed action. wide spread, with many occurances hybridum a trend towards federal listing Plant Virginia bluebell Mertensia Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Marray, Walker, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest: Late None are required May impact The project design features are designed virginica Chattooga Service Records successional riparian. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Alullculsy valley, more from floodplain than (Floodplan forests in limestone not likely to result in the proposed action. mature hardwood forest. valleys.) a trend towards federal listing Plant Indian olive Nestronia Locally Rare, G4 No, Stephens No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature oak forests: Woodlands, None are required No impacts no further analysis required umbellula Service Records savannas, and grasslands. Lake Russel and Tuluhlal Gorge (Shrubby heaths in oak-hickory-pine woods.) Plant Dwarf ginseng Panax trifolius Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Union, Dawson, Yes, 2 populations known from the GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest. None are required May impact The project design features are designed White, Rabun project area, Rabun County Service Records (Mesic hardwood coniferous forest.) individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of not likely to result in the proposed action. Bailly Creek area a trend towards federal listing Plant Silverling Paronychia Locally Rare, G4 Yes, Walker, Chattoosa, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs. None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further argyrocoma Union, Lumpkin Service Records (Sandstone and gainite outcrops.) analysis required Only known from the top of Brasstown blad

Plant Swamp Pedicularis Locally Rare, G5 No, Towns, Union No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds. None are required May impact lousewort lanceolata Service Records (Bogs and wet woods.) individuals, but is trac rock gap area, in Ga found in forested seeps not likely to result in and ROW's a trend towards federal listing Plant Broadleaf plox Phlox amplifolia Locally Rare, G3G5 Yes Walker, Chattooga, No ?? GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature high-elevation mesic None are required May impact The project design features are designed Murray, Gilmer Service Records hardwood forests. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of mostly in Aurmurchee, low elevation basic soils (Mesic hardwood forest over basic not likely to result in the proposed action. on the west cohuttas soil.) a trend towards federal listing Plant Large purple- Platanthera Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Gilmer, Fannin, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds: None are required May impact The project design features are designed fringed orchid grandiflora Union Service Records Mature high elevation mesic individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of hardwood forest (Wet thickets and not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs known from the Blue Ridge, along highelevation open northern hardwood forests.) a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants mountain streams. Known from Copper Gap rd federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in and southeast of Cohuttas but not from the this habitat will be designed to be beniffical project area. to this habitat and this plant.

Plant Spotted Prosartes Locally Rare No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature high elevation mesic forest. None are required May impact mandarin maculatum Service Records individuals, but is Likes basic soils, rich cove hardwoods and could not likely to result in be in Alucllsy valley or Lake Windfield Scott Plant Fire cherry Prunus Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Rabun, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Early-successional forest: Mature None are required May impact The project design features are designed pensylvanica Union Service Records Mountain longleaf fine forests. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of (Rocky summits, fire community) not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding woodland High elevation 3500ft summits and boulderfields a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants federal listing should benefit this species.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 4 of 7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Plant Bottomland Scutellaria Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Murray, Chattoga, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Forested Floodplains.) None are required No impacts known from Resca and Murder Cr on ORD. Not skullcap nervosa Floyd, Putnum Service Records known from the project area Plant Showy Skullcap Scutellaria serrata Locally Rare, G4G5 Yes, Gilmer No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest None are required No impacts The project design features are designed Service Records to minimize the potential direct effect of Only found from Rich Mnt. Not in the project the proposed action. area Plant Tree-toothed Sibbaldiopsis Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Towns, Lumpkin, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Glades and barrens: Rockoutcrops and None are required No impacts The project design features are designed cinquefoil tridentata synonm Union Service Records Cliffs: Grassy Balds. (Rocky to minimize the potential direct effect of Sibbaldia retusa summits.) the proposed action, expanding woodland synonm Potentila habitat in the vicinity of known plants tridentata should benefit this species. High elevation rocky summit above 3500ft only known for brasstown and blood mnt Plant Biltmore Smilax Locally Rare, G3G4 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest None are required May impact no further analysis required carrionflower biltmoreana Service Records individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing likely in the project area, status is uncertain Plant White goldenrod Solidago Locally Rare G5 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Glades and barrens: Woodlands, None are required No impacts no further analysis required ptarmicoides Service Records savvanns, and grasslands. synonm Oligoneuron album synonm Aster tarmacoidies outplanted at curahee mnt, not a tracted species b/c it is too common Plant American sorbus americana Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Rabun, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest High elevation early succession: None are required No impacts The project design features are designed moutain ash Union, Lumpkin Service Records Canopy gaps. to minimize the potential direct effect of (Grassy blads and Northern hardwood the proposed action, expanding woodland forest.) habitat in the vicinity of known plants should benefit this species. High elevation aove 3500ft Plant Hardhack Spireae tomentosa Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Rabun, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Open wetlands: Early successional None are required No impacts Union, Lumpkin Service Records forest. Historic in Ga not relocated about 8 miles west of (wet meadows.) Blairsville

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 5 of 7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

Probability of Magnitude of Effects Occurrence per Proposed Action Taxa Group Species Scientific Name Species Status Project w/in known Known sites exist in Magnitude of Effects Source of Survey Information Habitat association and/or Are additional Determination, Comments Common or suspected range proposed project/ (high, moderate, low) (cite source including range components, informed by the surveys see Botanical Name and there is suitable treatment area (Yes/No) map) Final Environmental Impact necessary to report for DNR meeting Jully 26, 2018 with Tom Patrick, habitat w/in project Statement (Appendix E, Table further inform analysis Mincy Moffit, Lisa Kruse, Nate Thomas (follow up area ("Yes" only if JJ) the Decision meeting Aug 21, 2018) both are true) maker regarding risks to species? Plant Oval ladies' Spiranthies ovalis Locally Rare, G5 No, Green, Walker, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest: Late None are required May impact tresses (var erostoalta) Gordon, Towns, Service Records successional riparian. (Seepy individuals, but is Stephens, Floyd, Union stream margins, floodplain forest.) not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing low elevation forested wetlands Plant Hedge nettle Stachys nuttallii Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Walker, Murray, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest. None are required May impact The project design features are designed Floyd, Chattooga, Service Records (Mesic hardwood forest on basic soils, individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of Gordon Alluvial floodplains.) not likely to result in the proposed action. a trend towards federal listing openings in hardwood forest over basic soil Plant Mountain Stewartia ovata Locally Rare, G5 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature hemlock forest: Late None are required May impact no further analysis required camellia Service Records successional riparian. individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend towards not tracted, mid elevation slopes along streams federal listing in cumberlands and lower elevation Blue Ridge Plant Rosy twisted Streptopus Locally Rare, G5 No, Towns, Union No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (high elevation boulderfields.) None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further stalk lanceolatus (var Service Records analysis required high elevation boulderfields, tray, brasstown, lanceolatus) cossa Blad Plant Dwarf filmy fern Trichomanes Locally Rare, G5 No No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Rock outcrops and cliffs. None are required No impacts No work will be done in this habitat, no further petersii synonm Service Records analysis required cedar creek near toccoa, cumberland, and Didymoglosum peidmont but not known from the project area. petersii Acidic rocks Plant Tufted club rush Trichophorum Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Rabun No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (seepy edges) None are required No impacts The project design features are designed caespitosum Service Records to minimize the potential direct effect of the proposed action, expanding Bogs habitat in the vicinity of known plants should benefit this species. Work done in this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant. only known from the cliffs of rabun bald Plant Starflower Trientalis borealis Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Murray, Gilmer, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature high-elevation mesic hardwod None are required No impacts Union, Towns, Lumpkin Service Records forest. (northern Grassy Mountain, high elevation above 3000ft hardwood forest, rocky.) mesic boulder slopes Plant Pale yellow Trillium discolor Locally Rare, G4 No, Stephens No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest. None are required No impacts no further analysis required known from lake Yohna and Paterson gap rd, trillium Service Records (Mesic hardwood forest.) narrow endemic Plant Barksdale Trillium sulcatum Locally Rare, G4 No, Walker. No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest: None are required No impacts no further analysis required trillium Service Records Matuer hemlock forest. (Mesic hardwood forest.) only in the Cumberlands Plant Horse gentian Triosteum Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Union, Fannin, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Basic mesic forests: Woodlands, None are required May impact The project design features are designed aurantiacum Lumpkin, Gilmer, Towns, Service Records savannas and grasslands. individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of White (Woodlands over circum nuetral soil.) not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding woodland a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants federal listing should benefit this species. Coopper gap Rd, Jake and Bull and Wiesinhunt, north of Dalonehga Plant Three-birds Triphora Locally Rare, G3 No, Towns, Walker, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest. None are required May impact no further analysis required orchid trianthophora lumpkin, Union Service Records (Loamy soils with harwoods and individuals, but is rhododendron.) not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing wide spread, with many occurances Plant Bearberry Vaccinium Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Rabun, Towns, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Table mountain pine forests, Rock None are required No impacts The project design features are designed erythrocarpum Union White Service Records outcrops and cliffs: Shrub blads: to minimize the potential direct effect of Mature high-elevation mesic the proposed action, expanding woodland hardwood forest. habitat in the vicinity of known plants (Mixed oak-heath forest.) should benefit this species. Boulderfields and cliffs at High elevations, Rabun bald, Tray gap, northwest side of Blood mnt Plant American flase Veratrum viride Locally Rare, G5 Yes, Towns, White, No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Mature mesic hardwood forest. None are required No impacts The project design features are designed hellebore Union, Fannin, Gilmer, Service Records (Seepy northern hardwood forest.) to minimize the potential direct effect of Seeps in high elevation northern hardwoods. Habersham the proposed action. Well north of this project. Plant Ozark Veratrum woodii Locally Rare, G5 No, Stephens, Walker No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest (Mesic forest over basic soils.) None are required No impacts no further analysis required Mesic basic forest, possibly aluculsy, not known bunchflower Service Records from the project area Plant American dog viola conspersa Locally Rare, G5 Yes No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds: None are required May impact The project design features are designed violet (synonm viola Service Records Mature high-elevation mesic individuals, but is to minimize the potential direct effect of labradorica) hardwood forests. not likely to result in the proposed action, expanding Bogs a trend towards habitat in the vicinity of known plants federal listing should benefit this species. Work done in this habitat will be designed to be beniffical to this habitat and this plant. Locally common along the banks of the Etowah River. North west ga and Stephens county.

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 6 of 7 NEPA TRACKING SHEET - FOR Botany PROJECT: XXXXXX DATE: Project This form serves to track special management species for projects on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests. Species considered in this document are those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; species included on the Region 8 Sensitive Species list; Survey, and species listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Forest Plan. With sufficient documentation on this form, this form may serve as a Biological Assessment and/or Biological Evaluation for actions that have no effect on these special management species and their habitat.

Completion of this form certifies that species have been considered and identifies the potential level of survey effort needed. 2015 locally rare list

NEPA Species Checklist - Page 7 of 7 Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description Threats Survey Notes Chattahoochee/ Oconee References National Forest Range counties Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Woodlands, savannas, and grasslands: Glades Smooth coneflower is threatened by fire suppression Flowering (mid-May–July) and Habersham, Stephens Alley, H. 2002. Experimental reintroduction of the endangered Echinacea laevigata: comparison of planting methods and effects of light intensity on biomass and photosynthesis. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. and Barrens. (Parries and limestone glades.). and habitat destruction resulting from highway fruiting (July–October). Alley, H. and J.M. Affolter. 2004. Experimental comparison of reintroduction methods for the endangered Echinacea laevigata (Boynton and Beadle) Blake. Natural Areas Journal 24(4): 345-350. Grassy openings and rocky glades with shallow construction, residential and commercial development Apsit, V.J. and P.M. Dixon. 2001. Genetic diversity and population structure in Echinacea laevigata (Boynton and Beadle) Blake, an endangered plant species. Natural Areas Journal 21(1): 71-77. soil over mafic bedrock; sunny roadsides and as well as maintenance activities in roadside and Binns, S.E., B.R. Baum, and J.T. Arnason. 2002. Taxonomic revision of Echinacea (Asteraceae: Heliantheae). Systematic Botany 27(3): 610-632. rights-of-way through these habitats. utility rights of way. Collection from the wild for Center for Plant Conservation. 2007. National Collection Plant Profile. http://www.centerforplantconservation.org Historically, smooth coneflower probably horticultural and medicinal uses could also threaten Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. occurred in prairies and savannas maintained Smooth coneflower. Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. by Native American burning, large animal FNA. 2006. Flora of North America. Vol. 21, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 8: Asteraceae, Part 3. Oxford University Press, New York. grazing, and lightning-set fires. Gadd, L.E. 2006. Pollination biology of the federally endangered Echinacea laevigata (Boynton and Beadle) Blake, smooth coneflower, in small, isolated populations. M.S. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/1884/1/etd.pdf Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. McGregor, R.L. 1968. Taxonomy of the genus Echinacea (Compositae). University of Kansas Science Bulletin 48(4): 113-142. McKeown, K.A. 1999. Review of the taxonomy of the genus Echinacea. In, J. Janick, Perspectives on new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, Virginia. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer NCNHP. 2001. Guide to federally listed endangered and threatened species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.enr.state.nc.us/NaturalHeritage/Images/113.pdf Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. USFWS. 1993c. Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) – species accounts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. http://endangered.fws.gov USFWS. 1995b. Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta. http://endangered.fws.gov Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htmNatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: September 12, 2018 ). Sutter, R. 1982. The distribution and reproductive biology of Helonias bullata L. in North Carolina. North Carolina Dept. Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Raleigh. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) Recovery Plan.

Swamp pink Helonias bullata bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal ponds. Degradation of its wetland habitat due to encroaching Flowering (early April) and Rabun, White and Union Center for Plant Conservation. 2007. National Collection Plant Profile. (Open swamps.)Bog/fen. development, sedimentation, pollution, succession, fruiting (late May–early June). http://www.centerforplantconservation.org Restricted to forested wetlands that are and wetland drainage. Feral hogs. Conversion of Clumps of wide, flat leaves may Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia groundwater influenced and are perennially habitat to farmland and pasture. Pollution runoff and be identified all year although in and University of Georgia Press, Athens. water-saturated with a low frequency of sedimentation into winter the leaves turn reddish- FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. inundation. Water table is at or very near the wetlands. Ditching and draining of wetlands. brown and may be hidden by Oxford University Press, New York. surface and is stable, fluctuating only slightly Poaching. Encroachment by shrubs and trees. litter. Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United during spring and summer. In Georgia, the States, Vol. 1, monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. species is found in coldwater Blue Ridge Godt, M.J.W., J.L. Hamrick, and S. Bratton. 1995. Genetic diversity in a threatened wetland seepage swamps (mountain bogs) with purple species, Helonias bullata (Liliaceae). Conservation Biology 9(3): 596-604. pitcherplant (Sarracenia purpurea), red maple, NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), Carolina http://www.natureserve.org/explorer sheep laurel (K. caroliniana), rosebay Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), and Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. thickets of tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and peat Sutter, R.D. 1984. The status of Helonias bullata L. (Liliaceae) in the southern Appalachians. moss (Sphagnum). The species appears to be Castanea 49(1): 9-16. somewhat shade tolerant and to need enough USFWS. 1990. Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) species account. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, canopy to minimize competition with other more Washington, D.C. http://endangered.fws.gov aggressive species and herbivory by deer. It is USFWS. 1991. Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, often found at stream sources. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htmNatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: September 12, 2018 ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias. bullata) Recovery Plan. Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides Mature hemlock forest (Mixed hardwood-pine Habitat alteration, primarily urban expansion and Fannin, Gilmer, Union, Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp. forests with an open understory.)Forest - trampling. Habersham, Lumpkin, NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: September 12, 2018). Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Forest/Woodland Rabun, TownsSixteen U.S. Fish and Willdife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan Habitat Comments: Acidic soils of dry to populations of small whorled mesic second-growth, deciduous or deciduous- pogonia are known from the coniferous forests with an open herb layer, Chattahoochee National although occasionally dense ferns, moderate to Forest (USFS, 2004a). light shrub layer, and a relatively open canopy. Soils typically covered with light to moderate leaf litter. Frequently occurs on flats or slope bases near canopy breaks (Flora of North America 2002).

White Fringeless Platanthera integrilabia wet, flat, boggy areas in acidic muck or sand, Habitat degradation (alteration, fragmentation, flowers from late July through Rabun, Habersham, Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.I7. Shea, M. 1992. Status Survey Report on Platanthera integrilabia Technical Report to the United States Fish Orchid.Monkey Face Orchid and in partially, but not fully shaded areas at the succession and forest management practices) and early September. Fruits usually Stephens, Chattooga. Eight and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina head of streams or seepage slopes. Common direct damage to individual plants. Observations of mature in October (Gleason & extant populations are Sheviak, C.J. 1990. Biological considerations in the management of temperate terrestrial orchid habitats. New York State Museum Bulletin 471: 194-196. associates include Sphagnum spp., Osmunda herbivory by deer are common: deer favour the Cronquist, 1991; Shea, 1992). known, but most are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid); Final rule. cinnamonea, Woodwardia areolata and flowering stalks which decreases seed set. In decreasing in size and vigor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form for Platanthera integrilabia. Region 4 (Southeast Region) Fish and Wildlife Office. Thelyptris novaboracensis (USFWS 2012). The addition, many orchids cannot replace loss of tissue and all but one are on Zettler, L.W. and Farley III, J.E. 1990. The status of Platanthera integrilabia, an endangered terrestrial orchid. Lindleyana 5(4): 212-217. species is associated with sandstones of the until the next growing season. The loss of tissue from private land. Appalachian Plateaus of Kentucky, Tennessee foraging animals could result in death for the plant and Alabama, the Coastal Plain of Alabama and (Sheviak, 1990). In addition to lowering fruit set, Mississippi, the Blue Ridge Province of herbivory can have a long-term negative impacts Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee; the upon the site viability for the species (Zettler & Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province in Fairley, 1990). Many sites occur in right-of-ways and Alabama, and the Piedmont of Georgia and these sites are subjected to herbicides to control South Carolina (USFWS 2012). It occurs at vegetative growth. The manual or mechanical clearing elevations between 100 and 700 m asl. of vegetation from the right-of-ways seems to benefit the species (Shea, 1992).

Ruth's Golden Aster. Ruths Pityopsis ruthii Soil-filled cracks in phyllite boulders along river Water quality degredation, water flow alterations and Known only to occur along U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1985. Determination of End. Status for Pityopsis ruthii (Ruth's Golden Aster); 50 FR 29341-29345 Silk Grass banks and in rivers. Shade intolerant but trampling.Continue efforts to prevent vegetation short reaches of the Ocoee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Draft five-year review for Ruth's golden aster (Pityopsis ruthii), sections provided to peer reviewers. Cookeville Field Office, Cookeville, TN. 29 pp. adapted to annual high water flows; requires encroachment into this species' habitat and restore and Hiwassee River, Polk periodic flooding and scouring to remove already degraded areas using techniques such as County, Tennessee. competing vegetation.. mechanical removal of competing vegetation, herbicides, and water flow management (USFWS 2007). Continue to protect plants from trampling due to whitewater recreation (USFWS 2007).

Green Pitcher-plant Sarracenia oreophila Mountain bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal This species is subject to a variety of threats Reproduces both sexually and Gilmer, Towns Schnell, D., Catling, P., Folkerts, G., Frost, C., Gardner, R. & et al.. 2000. Sarracenia oreophila. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2000: e.T39718A10260069. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2000.RLTS.T39718A10260069.en. Downloaded on 19 September 2018. ponds (Wet meadows and upland bogs) including the loss or degradation of wetland habitat, asexually, though in some U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Determination that Sarracenia oreophila is an Endangered Species. 44 FR 54922 54923 often through conversion for cultivation, housing, and situations, reproduction may be the development of recreational areas; direct use of limited to asexual means, and drift from herbicides (particularly on roadside resulting in large spreading areas); invasive exotic species such as kudzu clones (Troup and McDaniel Pueraria lobata, Chinese privet, and Japanese 1980). Humphrey (1987) Honeysuckle Microstigium; suppression and estimates that green pitcher elimination of the natural processes essential for the plants do not become sexually maintenance of bog habitat (for example, through fire, mature until they are 6-7 years or the activities of beavers); and direct collection of old.The flowers of the green the species (more recently, seed collection has pitcher plant mature in late April threatened smaller subpopulations). at lower elevations, and mature in May at higher elevations (Troup 1982). Cross pollination is needed for seed to set (Troup and McDaniel 1980). Insects associated with S. oreophila flowers which may act as pollinators include flies (Sarcophaga spp.), honeybees (Apis spp.) and bumblebees (Bombus spp.) (Troup and McDaniel 1980). Fruits mature in early autumn, but seed may not be released right away (Troup and McDaniel 1980). Seeds are apparently water dispersed (Troup and McDaniel 1980). Large-flowered Skull cap Scutellaria montana Moist hardwood and hardwood-pine forests. Quarrying, logging, cattle grazing and trampling and with few reproduces sexually. Murray, Catosa, Walker, Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Rock outcrops; and Woodlands, Savannas and clearing. It is not a vigorous competitor and is not Plants do not flower until they are Gordon, Chattooga, Floyd. Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Grasslands (Mesic hardwood-shortleaf forest, found in areas with a dense herbaceous layer. It is several years old and often fail to Ridge and Valley Kemp, A.C. 1987. Showy but not very sexy: Scutellaria montana in the Marshall Forest. generally open understory.) quickly produce viable fruit. Pollinators physiographic province of Tipularia 1(2): 28-30. overcome by NNIS such as Japanese honeysuckle. are moths or long-tongued bees. northwest Georgia and Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of Avoid logging, trampling, and mechanical clearing. Also hummingbirds, butterflies, southeast the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. Control deer browsing and wasps. Flowers (mid- Tennessee. Populations are NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. May–early concentrated on Lookout http://www.natureserve.org/explorer June). Flower size is important to and Signal Mountains in Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia identification. Tennessee and in Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Floyd County, Georgia. USFWS 1991. Large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana) species account. U.S. Fish and Fifty-three populations are Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://endangered.fws.gov known in Georgia 12 on USFWS. 1996. Large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and conservation land. Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Persistent trillium. Ednas Trillium persistens Mature mesic hardwood forest; and mature Commercial development, overbrowsing by deer, and Leaves, and flowers in early Habersham County. Four Duncan, W.H., J.F. Garst, and G.A. Neese. 1971. Trillium persistens (Liliaceae), a new trillium hemlock forest (Mesic hardwood forest and competition by non-native plant species. Logging, spring, after temperatures have square miles of the Tallulah - pedicellate-flowered species from northeastern Georgia and adjacent North Carolina. Rhodora upland forest) clearing, trail construction, trampling, poaching, risen but before the forest Tugaloo River system in 73: 244-248. competition from invasive canopy has leafed out. After Georgia and South Carolina Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia pest plants. flowering (only one population is Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. and fruiting, the aboveground known in South Carolina). USFWS. 1984. Persistent trillium (Trillium persistens) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife plant disappears. Seeds shed in Service, Atlanta, Georgia. the summer germinate the USFWS. 1991. Persistent trillium (Trillium persistens) – species account. U.S. Fish and Wildlife following spring and, within a Service, Washington, D.C. http://endangered.fws.gov year or two, send up a single, spatula-shaped cotyledon for one year’s growing season. The next year, a true leaf is produced and, in subsequent years, three-leaved plants appear. After 5 - 7 years the plant produces a flowering stalk. Trillium seeds have small, fat-rich appendages called elaiosomes that attract ants, yellow jackets, and other wasps, which inadvertently disperse seeds. Other animals such as deer and woodchucks may also disperse seed. Trillium plants are very long lived,perhaps living hundreds of years, since the rhizome continues to lengthen and produce shoots on one end, while the other end decays. Surveys are best conducted during flowering (mid-March–mid- April).

Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare It grows on shady rock or shady moss-covered Habitat change especially due to loss of Fraser-fir The fruiting bodies are born on Rabun Dey, J.P. 1978. Fruticose and foliose lichens of the high-mountain areas of the Southern Appalachians. The Bryologist 81(1): 1-93. rock (Dey, 1978) and it is "found in areas of forests and by heavy recreational use of its habitat. the tips of lobes, are black, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Whether Designation of Critical Habitat is Prudent for the Rock Gnome Lichen. Federal Register 66: 18062-18068 high humidity, either on high-elevation cliffs, have been found from July where it is frequently bathed in fog, or in deep through September. river gorges at lower elevations. It is primarily limited to vertical rock faces, where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times, and large stream side boulders, where it receives a moderate amount of light but not high-intensity solar radiation" (USFWS, 2000).

American barberry Berberis canadensis Woodlands, Savannas and Grasslands. Government eradication programs, invasion by Surveys are best conducted Towns. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. FNA. 1997. Flora of North America. Vol. 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. (Barrens, rocky woods, forest openings, exotic pest plants, lack of fire in dry during flowering (April–May) and Conservation Status: Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. glades, usually over mafic or calcareous woodlands. fruiting (September–October). One population has been Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York. rocks.) Sunny patches in dry, open woods, observed in the last 60 Hill, S.R. 2003. Conservation assessment for American barberry (Berberis canadensis). often over lime years; it occurs U.S.Forest Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/caoverview/docs/plant_Berberis_canadensis-AmericanBarberry.pdf stone, shale, or mafic rock. on private land in Bartow NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. County http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill.

Small mountain bittercress ; Cardamine clematitis Mountain Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Land-use conversion, habitat fragmentation, and Produces small white flowers in Towns • Boetsch, J.R. February 1998. Letter summarizing the status of Cardamine clematitis. Twin Creeks Natural Resources Center, Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Mountain Bittercress ponds; spruce-fir forest; Mature high-elevation forest management practices (Southern Appalachian May and fruits from May through • Boetsch, J.R. and J.R. Rock. 1999. Habitat modeling and conservation of four vascular plants endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior-National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, 63pp. mesic hardwood forest (elevation Greater than Species Viability Project 2002). Boetsch and Rock July. • Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 1000ft). High elevation seepy rock cliffs (1999) add that a shifting landscape of suitable • Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp. habitat, non-native infestations, atmospheric pollutant • 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. 325pp. deposition, and forest succession or some • Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. Two volumes. Hafner Publishing Company, New York. combination these could influence the long-term • Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database viability of this species. Numerous occurrences are (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. along the Appalachian, or other trails (TN & NC), and • Strausbaugh, P.D., and E.L. Core. 1978. Flora of West Virginia. Seneca Books, Inc., Grantsville, WV. 1079 pp. could be impacted by trampling by hikers, trail management activities, and bikers. Damage by rock climbers are a potential threat. Additional threats include grazing, storm related site damage, and windblown trees.

Radford's Sedge Carex radfordii Mature mesic hardwood forest; Moist, rich Clearing, logging, and development of habitat; hor Surveys are best conducted Stephens. One population is FNA. 2003. Flora of North America. Vol. 23, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part), Cyperaceae (part 1). Oxford University Press, New York. hardwood forests with soils high in ca se and off-road-vehicle traffic; during fruiting (late April–mid- known in Georgia, it occurs Gaddy, L.L. 1995. Carex radfordii(Section Laxiflorae: Cyperaceae), a new species from the southern Appalachians. Novon 5: 59-261. lcium and magnesium, along the exotic pests such as wild hogs and invasive plant s June). in the Chattahoochee NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. Brevard Belt of metasedimentary rock that pecies National Forest. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer follows the Blue Ridge escarpment at the Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill transition between the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii Mountain Bogs, Fens, Seeps and Seasonal Draining of and sedimentation into mountain bogs. Surveys are best conducted Rabun and White, Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. ponds Conversion of mountain bogs and during flowering (late July– Conservation Status: Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States, Vol. 2, dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. wetlands to agriculture. Fire suppression. Invasion September). Two populations have been Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 68(2): 370-378. by exotic pest plants. Feral hogs observed, both in the NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. Chattahoochee National http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Forest; one has not been Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. seen since 1948. Recent Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. Propagation has been successful at Hale Ridge and Heddon Bog Small spreading pogonia, Cleistesiopsis bifaria Woodlands, Savannas, and grasslands. (Moist Somewhat threatened by land-use conversion, habitat Blooms May - June - July Rabun, Stephens Barger, T.W., D.D. Spaulding, and B.D. Holt. 2013. The vascular flora of the Perdido River Forever Wild tract, Baldwin County, Alabama. Castanea 78: 119-133. Small Rosebud Orchid (synonym Cleistes bifaria) to fairly dry meadows, openings in oak or pine fragmentation, forest management practices, and Campbell, J., and M. Medley. 2012. The atlas of vascular plants in Kentucky. woodlands, dry ridge tops under pines (where succession; may benefit from prescribed burns Chester, E.W., B.E. Wofford, R. Kral, H.R. DeSelm, and A.M. Evans. 1993. Atlas of Tennessee vascular plants. 2 vols. Center for Field Biology Miscellaneous Publication No. 9/13. Austin Peay State University, Clarksville. seasonally moist). (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project Jones, S.D., J.K. Wipff, and P.M. Montgomery. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas: a comprehensive checklist including synonymy, bibliography, and index. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2002). Thomas, R.D., and C.M. Allen. 1997. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana, vols. 1-3 (Plus updates). Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge. Wieland, R.G. 2004. County observation records of Mississippi Vegetation Survey Project (Samples taken 9-1989 to 11-2003, inclusive of collection records and of field surveys by other authors). Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Jackson. Wunderlin, R.P., B.F. Hansen,and E.L. Bridges. 1996. Atlas of Florida vascular plants: CD-ROM. University of South Florida, Tampa.

Whorled Horsebalm, stone Collinsonia verticillata Mature Oak forest and Woodlands, savannas, Mining industry threatens habitat. Forest management Blooms April-May Jones, S. B., Jr., and N. C. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. Department of Botany, University of Georgia, Athens. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. root and grasslands; Late successional riparian. practices (clearcutting or site prep) could impact Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access (Basic mesic forests and Mature mesic species; land-use conversion and habitat 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. hardwood forests. Rich forests, ranging from fragmentation are also threats (Southern Appalachian Weakley, Alan S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Unpublished mss. available as .pdf from the Herbarium, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1320 pp moist (cove) forests to rather dry oak forests Species Viability Project 2002). over mafic or calcareous rocks.) Moist, rich woods, often on slopes or terraces in coves.

Large witchalder, Mountain Fothergilla major Mature Hemlock Forest; woodlands, Savannas, Logging and other clearing, development, exotic i Surveys are best conducted Lumpkin, Stephens, Walker. Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. witchhazel and Grasslands; Late Successional Riparian nvasive species. during flowering (February–May) Georgia Conservation CPC. 2006. Center for Plant Conservation National Collection Plant Profile. (Dry ridgetop forests of middle elevation ridges and fruiting (spring –early Status: Three populations http://www.centerforplantconservation.org in the mountains, north-facing bluffs in the summer). have been seen in the last Dirr, M.A. 1990. Manual of woody landscape plants. Fourth edition. Stipes Publishing lower Piedmont, and rocky woodlands and 30 years, two on Company, Champaign, Illinois. along streams.) Mixed hardwood-pine forests conservation lands: Zahnd FNA. 1997. Flora of North America. Vol. 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. on dry, rocky (sandstone or granite) slopes and Natural Area in Walker Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. bluffs, often with Virginia pine, scarlet oak, and County and Chattahoochee Fordham, A.J. 1971. Notes from the Arnold Arboretum: propagation of Fothergilla black oak; occasionally, moist forests with tulip River National Recreation Arnoldia 31(4): 256-259. poplar, Area in Fulton County. Lance, R. 2004. Woody plants of the southeastern United States: a winter guide. University of Georgia Press, Athens. silverbell, and cucumber tree along rocky NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. stream banks. Prefers acidic soils. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://ww w.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm Weaver, R.E. 1971. The Fothergillas. Arnoldia 31(3): 89-97.

Smith's sunflower Helianthus smithii Mature longleaf pine forest . Sunny gaps in dry, Conversion of habitat to development and pine Surveys are best conducted Stephens, Habersham, Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. upland oak-hickory -pine woodlands. plantations; fire suppression. during flowering Rabun, Walker. Georgia FNA. 2006. Flora of North America, Vol. 21, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 8: Asteraceae, Part 3. Oxford University Press, New York. (August–October). Conservation Status: Three Heiser, C. B., D. M. Smith, S. Clevenger, and W. C.Martin. 1969. The North American sunflowers (Helianthus). Memoranda of Torrey Botanical Club 22(3). populations have been Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. observed, one on national NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. forest http://www.natureserve.org/explorer land. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Taylor's filmy fern Hymenophyllum tayloriae Grottoes, small caves (rockhouses), and moist Logging and other clearing near waterfalls, alter Plants are evergreen and visible Georgia Conservation Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. (not wet) ledges near waterfalls. Grows ation of streams by damming, all year, although they may Status: Farrar, D.R. 1998. Tropical flora of rockhouse cliff formations in the eastern United States. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125(2): 91-108. in schist, sandstone, or other porous, non- disturbance by climbers and hikers. shrivel Two populations are Farrar, D.R. and J.T. Mickel. 1991. Vittaria appalachiana: a name for the A Appalachian gametophyte.@American Fern Journal 81(3): 69-75. calcareous rock that can supply a constant during dry periods. known, both in the FNA. 1993. Flora of North America. Vol. 2, Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford source of moisture. Chattahoochee National University Press, New York. Forest, North Rabun Raine, C.A., D.R. Farrar, E. Sheffield. 1991. A new Hymenophyllum species in the Appalachians represented by independent gametophyte colonies. American Fern Journal 81(4): 109-118. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Butternut, White walnut, Juglans cinerea Basic mesic forest; Mature mesic hardwood Infection by butternut canker, logging and clearing of Surveys are best conducted Fannin, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. oilnut forest. Cove forests with rich, moist soils; drier habitat. during growing season when White, Union, Towns, FNA. 1997. Flora of North America, Vol. 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. hardwood forests over soils high in calcium or leaves are visible although bark, Rabun.Georgia Conservation Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native trees of the southeast. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. magnesium; forests along mountain streams. twigs, and nuts are distinctive Status: Lance, R. 2004. Woody plants of the southeastern United States: a winter guide. University of Georgia Press, Athens. during the fall and winter Twelve sites are known, 4 NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. on conservation lands. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Ostry, M.E., M.E. Mielke, and R.L. Anderson.1996. How to identify butternut canker and manage butternut trees. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Region 8, St. Paul, Minnesota. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/howtos/ht_but/ht_but.htm Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Heller"s bird's-foot treefoil / Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri Openings in post oak and blackjack oak Conversion of habitat to pine plantations, pastur Surveys are best conducted Georgia Conservation Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Carolina birdfoot trefoil sinanim Acmispon woodlands with clay soils, over bedrock high in es, farmland, and development. during flowering (late Status: Isely, D. 1978. New varieties and combinations in Lotus, Baptisia Thermopsis, and Sophora (Leguminosae). Brittonia 30(4): 466-472. unifoliolatus iron and magnesium, such as ultramafic rock, Encroachment by woody species in the absence of August–September) and fruiting Three populations have Isely, D. 1990. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 3, Part 2, Leguminosae (Fabaceae). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. clearings, roadsides, and rights-of-way in the fire. (August–October). been observed. Only one (in Masson, R. and J. M. Stucky. 2007. Lotus unifolioliatus var. helleri phenology and response to simulated mowing. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 124: 6-10. Piedmont. Elbert County) has survived; NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. it is on private land. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Proctor, M., P. Yeo, and A. Lack. 1996. Natural history of pollination. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri River channels, Late successional riparia. Open Destruction of habitat by clearing, logging, mining, Surveys are best conducted Walker, Stephens, Rabun, Bates, M.C. 1998. Status survey of Frasers loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri), 1997 - 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. gravel bars and stream banks, edges of granite and development. Plants require low level disturbance during flowering (mid-June–July) Floyd. Georgia Conservation Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. and sandstone outcrops: sunny, rocky slopes, – such as fire, stream scouring, or other natural and Status: Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States, Vol. 1, monocotyledons. University of Georg rocky, wet open roadsides. process – to maintain sunny conditions and eliminate fruiting (September–October). Eighteen populations are ia Press, Athens. weedy competitors. known, 14 on National NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. Forest and state http://www.natureserve.org/explorer conservation lands. Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995.Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle.

Weakley A S 2007 Flora of the Carolinas Virginia Georgia and surrounding areas University of North Carolina Herbarium Chapel Hill Sweet pinesap, Carolina Monotropsis odorata Mature mesic hardwood forest; Mature Oak Conversion of habitat to pine plantations and dev Surveys are best conducted Rabun, Habersham, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. beechdrops forests; woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands. elopments. Fire suppression. Foot during flowering (Febr Lumpkin and Gilmer Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Mixed pine-hardwood or chestnut oak- traffic through populations uary–April) and Counties. Georgia NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington,Virginia. dominated forests with dry, acidic soil, often fruiting (May–June). Plants are Conservation Status: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer with mountain laurel, rhododendron, and often hidden under Once known from 11 sites, Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. blueberry. leaf litter or fallen pine needles; only 3 populations have Wallace, G.D. 1975. Studies of the Monotropoideae (Ericaceae): taxonomy and distribution. Wasmann Journal of Biology 33(1): 1-89. the sweet, been recently seen, all 3 on Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm cinnamon-like fragrance of the state park or National Forest flowers can be smell land. ed from some distance and used to locate the hidden flowers.

Piedmont (Blue Ridge Packera millefolia High elevation granite outcrops, domes, and Development of ridgelines and other high-elevation Surveys are best conducted Rabun. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Golden) ragwort cliffs. sites for second homes. Trampling during flowering (late May–July). Conservation Status: Three Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae. by hikers and climbers and subsequent erosion. populations are known, 2 on University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Disturbance invites invasion by the common and private land, one on National FNA. 2006. Flora of North America, Vol. 20, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 7: Asteraceae, Part weedy golden ragwort which has the potential to Forest land. 2. Oxford University Press, New York. genetically “swamp” the Blue ridge golden Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of ragwort. the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. Atlas and illustrated guide to the threatened and endangered vascular plants of the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia, Technical Report SE-20. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Schmitt, J. 1980. Pollinator foraging behavior and gene dispersal in Senecio (Compositae). Evolution 34(5): 934-943. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm Largeleaf grass-of- Parnassia grandifolia Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Seasonal Ponds. Seepage Destruction of habitat by clearing or development. Although grass-of-parnassus Rabun, Habersham, Walker. Chafin, L.G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Parnassus wetlands with neutral or alkaline water Changes in hydrology which divert leaves are distinctive throughout Two populations of large-leaf Tallahassee. developed over bedrock high in magnesium or or stop seepage flow. Trampling and grazing by the grass-of-parnassus were Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United calcium. cattle. Overbrowsing by deer. Invasion by exotic growing season, surveys are best discovered in the 1800s in States, Vol. 2, dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. pest plants. conducted during flowering Catoosa and Rabun (or NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. (September–October) when possibly Habersham) http://www.natureserve.org/explorer plants Counties; neither of Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. are most obvious. these sites has been re- University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. located. One population was Sandvik, S.M. and Ø. Totland. 2003. Quantitative importance of staminodes for female recently discovered in reproductive success in Parnassia palustris under contrasting environmental conditions. Towns County on Canadian Journal of Botany 81(1): 49-56. state-owned land. Swales, D.E. 1979. Nectaries of certain Arctic and sub-Arctic plants with notes on pollination. Rhodora 81: 363-407. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. htt // h b i d /fl ht Stone Mountain mint Pycnanthemum curvipes Rocky, Oak Hickory forest. Dry, rocky Non-native plant species dense flower clusters open in mid- Towns, Union. Also Cobb, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. woodlands and outcropsCliff, Woodland - summer. Produces fruit that DeKalb Weakley, A. 2011. Flora of the southern and mid-atlantic states: working draft of 15 May 2011. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), Chapel Hill. 1072 pp. Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed contain dark seeds in fall. Occurs in dry rocky woodlands and granite or mafic rock outcrops. integrates well into meadows Oglethorpe Oak Quercus oglethorpensis Wet clay soils of Piedmont seepage swamps, Conversion of habitat to pine plantations, pastures, Surveys are best conducted Jasper, Putnam, Green. Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia stream terraces, and moist hardwood and development. Damming and during summer when leaves are Georgia Conservation and University of Georgia Press, Athens. forests.Wet clay soils of Piedmont seepage flooding streams and floodplains. Invasion by exotic mature. Status: More than 50 Duncan, W.H. 1940. A new species of oak from Georgia. American Midland Naturalist 24: 755- swamps, stream terraces, and moist hardwood pest plants, such as Japanese honeysuckle, populations have been 756. forests upslope from these habitats; roadsides autumn olive, and Chinese privet, that compete with discovered but several have Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1988. Trees of the southeastern United States. University of and pasture edges near these habitats. Often seedlings. been destroyed by damming Georgia Press, Athens. withcherrybark oak or chalk maple. of streams and clearcutting. Haehnle, G.G. and S.M. Jones. 1985. Geographical distribution of Quercus oglethorpensis. Three populations occur on Castanea 50(1): 25-31. NF and Army Corps of Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native trees of the southeast. Timber Press, Engineers land, the rest on Portland, Oregon. private land. Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle.

Bay starvine Schisandra glabra Late successional Riparian. Moist, deciduous Logging and clearing of habitat; conversion of habitat Surveys are best conducted Stephens, Dawson. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. hardwood forests, often with beech, usually on to pine plantations and developments. Invasion by during flowering (May–June) and Conservation Status: FNA. 1997. Flora of North America, Vol. 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. slopes, stream terraces, and floodplains. exotic pest plants such as Japanese honeysuckle and fruiting (July–August). Approximately 50 Godfrey, R.K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia and Alabama. University of Georgia Press, Athens. English ivy. populations are known, 14 Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. on conservation land. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Panero, J.L. and P.D. Aranda. 1998. The family Schisandraceae: a new record for the flora of Mexico. Brittonia 50:87–90. Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Taylor, D. 2005. Bay starvine. The Lady-Slipper (Kentucky Native Plant Society newsletter) 20(3): 4-6. http://www.knps.org/newsletters/Fall%202005.pdf Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Southern Oconee bells Shortia galacifolia var. Mature Hemlock Forests. Moist, forested slopes Logging, clearing, road building, and second-home Surveys are best conducted Rabun. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia galacifolia along mountain streams bordered by development. Invasion by exotic during flowering (mid-March–mid- Conservation Status: Only and University of Georgia Press, Athens. rhododendron and Mountain laurel. Plants pest plants. Plant poaching. April); leaves are distinctive year- one population is known, on Jones, S.M. 1987. Shortia: solving one mystery. Tipularia 1(2): 23-25. flourish in small sunny gaps. round (turning bronzy-red in National Forest land; some Jones, S.M. and M.K. Augspurger. 1988. Seed germination and phenology of Shortia galacifolia winter) but may be buried in leaf have speculated that this T. & G. (Diapensiaceae). Castanea 53: 140-148. litter. population was transplanted Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of from a nearby South the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. Carolina site. Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. Atlas and illustrated guide to the threatened and endangered vascular plants of the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia, Technical Report SE-20. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Vivian, V.E. 1967. Shortia galacifolia: life history and microclimatic requirements. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 94: 369-387. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. htt // h b i d /fl ht Blue Ridge Catchfly Silene ovata Mature mesic Hardwood forests; Early- Logging and clearing in hardwood forests. Surveys are best conducted Lumpkin, Union, Fannin. Brown, L. 2003. Silene stellata (L.) Aiton f. (starry campion) conservation and research plan. successional Forest; Mixed landscape. Overbrowsing by deer. Digging by feral hogs. during flowering, late Georgia Conservation New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts. High-elevation, rocky, oak forests, usually over August–early Status: Twelve populations http://www.newfs.org/docs/pdf/Silenestellata.PDF mafic rocks.Rich, deciduous forests over November, with peak flowering in are known, 9 of which have Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia limestone or amphibolite in the Coastal Plain September. been seen in the last 20 and University of Georgia Press, Athens. and in FallLine ravines. In the mountains, high- years; 5 of these 9 are on FNA. 2005. Flora of North America, Vol. 5, Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae, part 2: elevation, rocky, oak forests, usually over mafic public lands. Caryophyllaceae, Plumbaginaceae, and Polygonaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. rocks. Hill, S.R. 2003. Conservation assessment for ovate catchfly (Silene ovata). U.S. Forest Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/plant_Silene_ovata-Ovate_Catchfly.pdf NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm Fall goldenrod Solidago simulans Rock outcrops and cliffs; Woodlands, Construction of homes and roads near summits and Surveys are best conducted Rabun. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia savannas, and grasslands. ridgelines. Trampling by hikers during flowering Conservation Status: Two and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Granite domes and rocky mountain summits, and climbers. Severe rainstorms that dislodge plants. (August–September). populations are known; both Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae. ledges of seepy, high-elevation cliffs. occur in the Chattahoochee University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. National Forest. Fernald, M.L. 1936. Contributions from the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University CXIII (VI) – studies in Solidago. Rhodora 38: 201-229. FNA. 2006. Flora of North America, Vol. 20, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 7: Asteraceae, Part 2. Oxford University Press, New York. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http // herbari m nc ed /flora htm Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum Edges and openings in rocky, upland oak- Conversion of habitat to developments, pastures, Surveys are best conducted Murray, Gordon, Lumpkin, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. hickory-pine forests and rights-of-way through highways, and pine plantations. Use of herbicides in during flowering (late Habersham, White, Pickens, Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. these habitats. Circumneutral soils. roadside and utility rights-of-way. Invasion of habitat September–mid-November). Dawson, Stephens, Walker FNA. 2006. Flora of North America, Vol. 20, Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, Part 7: Asteraceae, Part 2. Oxford University Press, New York. by exotic pest plants. Canopy closure and Chattooga, Floyd, Gordon. Jones, R.L. 1992. Additional studies of Aster georgianus, A. patens, and A. phlogifolius (Asteraceae). Sida 15 (2): 305-315. encroachment by woody plants Georgia Conservation Lamboy, W.F. 1988. The status of Aster commixtus and a new species of Aster (A. jonesiae) from the southeastern United States. Systematic Botany 13: 187-195. Status: About 30 populations NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer have been observed but only Nesom, G.L. 1994. Review of taxonomy of Aster sensu lato (Asteraceae: Astereae), emphasizing the New World species. Phytologia 77(3):141-297. 15 small populations have USFWS. 2001. Aster georgianus Alexander: candidate and listing priority assignment form. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. http://www.fws.gov/ survived; 8 of these occur in Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. state parks or on national http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm forest lands.

Eastern Fameflower. Round Talinum teretifolium Glades and Barrens. Rock outcrops Habitat is often threatened by quarrying or by Found only reference in TN Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed., Corr. Printing, 1970. Van Nostrand, New York. LXIV+1632 pp. leaf fame flower. Quil fame recreational vehicles and dumping.Threatened by and AL Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. flower land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation. Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996. Kartesz, J.T. 2002. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Second edition (including county distribution). In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Draft of Version 2.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C. Kiger, R.W. 2001. New combinations in Phemeranthus Rafinesque (Portulacaceae). Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature from the Missouri Botanical Garden 11(3):319-321. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp. Rafinesque, C. S. 1814. Specchio delle Scienze o Giornale Enciclopedico di Sicilia. ... 2 vols. Tipografia di Francesco Abate Qm. Domenico, Palermo. Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Tatnall, R.R. 1946. Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore: an annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of the peninsula of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Soc. Nat. Hist. Del. 313 pp.

Ash-leaf bush pea Thermopsis fraxinifolium Mature oak forest. Ridges and Clearcutting of forests; conversion of habitat to pine Surveys are best conducted Rabun, White, Union, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia Clearings.Openings in floodplains, woodland plantations, pastures, and developments; use of during flowering (mid-May–mid- Lumpkin, Fannin, Gilmer, and University of Georgia Press, Athens. edges, and road banks, often in sandy soil. herbicides in right-of-way maintenance. June). Murray. Georgia Chen, C.J., M.G. Mendenhall, and B.L. Turner. 1994. Taxonomy of Thermopsis (Fabaceae) in Conservation Status: North America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81(4): 714-742. Approximately 10 Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1999. Wildflowers of the eastern United States. University of populations have been Georgia Press, Athens. documented in the last Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio century, most in the Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Chattahoochee National Isely, D. 1990. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 3, Part 2, Leguminosae Forest; only a few plants (Fabaceae). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. have been seen in recent NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. years, mostly along http://www.natureserve.org/explorer roadsides. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. htt // h b i d /fl ht Hairy false lupine Thermopsis villosa Canopy gaps. Forest openings and Clearcutting of forests; conversion of habitat to pine Surveys are best conducted Gilmer, Fannin, Union, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia clearings.Openings in floodplains, woodland plantations, pastures, and developments; use of during flowering (mid-May–mid- Rabun. Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. edges, and road banks, often in sandy soil. herbicides in right-of-way maintenance. June). Conservation Status: Chen, C.J., M.G. Mendenhall, and B.L. Turner. 1994. Taxonomy of Thermopsis (Fabaceae) in Approximately 10 North America. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81(4): 714-742. populations have been Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1999. Wildflowers of the eastern United States. University of documented in the last Georgia Press, Athens. century, most in the Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Chattahoochee National Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Forest; only a few plants Isely, D. 1990. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 3, Part 2, Leguminosae have been seen in recent (Fabaceae). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. years, mostly along NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. roadsides. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. htt // h b i d /fl ht Mottled trillium. Pale yellow Trillium discolor Mature messic hardwood forests. Coves with Logging and clearing of hardwood slopes, damming Surveys are best conducted Stephens. Georgia Bale, M.T., J.A. Zettler, B.A. Robinson, T.P. Spira, and C.R. Allen. 2003. Yellow jackets may be trillium. small yellow mafic soil. streams and flooding ravines, during flowering (late Conservation Status: About an underestimated component of an ant-seed mutualism [in T. discolor]. Southeastern Naturalist toadshade, pale trillium, overbrowsing by deer, and invasion by exotic pest March–early 10 populations are known, 2(4): 609-614. faded trillium plants, especially Japanese honeysuckle and kudzu. May. most on the Chattahoochee Crowell, W.L., Jr. 1996. Element stewardship abstract for Trillium discolor, faded trillium. The National Forest and U.S. Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Army Corps of Engineers Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1999. Wildflowers of the eastern United States. University of land. Georgia Press, Athens. Farmer, S.B. 2006. Trillium and the Trillium family (Trilliaceae). http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium Farmer, S.B. and E.E. Schilling. 2002. Phylogenetic analyses of Trilliaceae based on morphological and molecular data. Systematic Botany 27: 674-692. FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York. Freeman, John D. 1975. Revision of Trillium subgenus Phyllantherum (Liliaceae). Brittonia 27:1-26. Harbison, T.G. 1901. New or little known species of Trillium. Biltmore Botanical Studies 1(1): 19-24. Marinelli, J. 2005. Perfume for pollinators. Brooklyn Botanic Garden Plants & Gardens News 20(2). http://www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/wildlife/2005su_makingstink.html Patrick, T.S. 2007. Trilliums of Georgia. Tipularia, Journal of the Georgia Botanical Society 22: 3 - 22. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Lance-leaved trillium. Trillium lancifolium Late successional Rriparian. Floodplain forest Logging and feral hogs. Soil distubance and open Walker, Murray, Floyd, Also Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp. Lanceleaf Wakerobin and rocky slopes over basic forest.Rich, moist, canopy. in GA : Gordon. Bartow , Kartesz, J. T. 1991. Synonym names from 1991 checklist, as extracted by Larry Morse, TNC, June 1991. wooded slopes of bluffs and ravines. Cherokee,, Cobb, Decatur, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Elbert, Gordon, Haralson, Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access Houston, Whitfield 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Jeweled trillium. Sweet Trillium simile Mature Mesic Hardwood Forests. Mesic Trillium simile has a narrow range in the vicinity of the Dark, nearly black ovaries .Sweet Murray, Fannin, Gilmer, Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed., Corr. Printing, 1970. Van Nostrand, New York. LXIV+1632 pp. White Trillium, Jeweled hardwood forest on very rich soils over mafic or Smoky Mountains and the southern edge of the Blue fragrance similar to green apples Lumpkin, Union, White, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Wakerobin, Confusing calcareous rocks, often nnnnear seepage. Ridge Mountains, making is especially vulnerable to Towns Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996. Trillium Moist humus-rich soils in mature forests at the land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation, such Kartesz, J.T. 2002. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Second edition (including county distribution). In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Draft of Version 2.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, edges of Rhododendron thickets and at edges as second home developments. Forest management N.C. of the forest practices are a low-level threat to this species Kiger, R.W. 2001. New combinations in Phemeranthus Rafinesque (Portulacaceae). Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature from the Missouri Botanical Garden 11(3):319-321. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp. Rafinesque, C. S. 1814. Specchio delle Scienze o Giornale Enciclopedico di Sicilia. ... 2 vols. Tipografia di Francesco Abate Qm. Domenico, Palermo. Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Piedmont barren strawberry Waldsteinia lobata Mature Mesic Hardwood Forest. Stream Logging and clearing on slopes and in floodplains. Surveys are best conducted Habersham, Morgan, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia terraces, floodplain forests, and rocky, lower Conversion of habitat to pine during flowering (March–May) Stephens. Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. slopes with oak-hickory-pine forest. plantations and developments. Competition from and Conservation Status: More Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of exotic pest plants such as Japanese fruiting (June–July). Leaves are than 30 populations are the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. honeysuckle. evergreen, turning reddish in the known, 11 on state NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. winter, and are distinctive all conservation lands. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer year. Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www herbarium unc edu/flora htm Evan's Cheilolejeunea Cheilolejeunea evansii Bark of trees in moist escarpment gorge or Prevent tree removal in the vicinity of Cheilolejeunea AL, NC, SC Boyer, M. 1996. CHEILOLEJEUNEA EVANSII (M. Taylor) Schust. A liverwort. Report for the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program. 3 pp. gorge-like habitats, with best development in evansii. Ensure sites are managed for conservation. Davison, P.G., M.L. Hicks and J.L. Amoroso. 1996. Broyphyte status survey: CHEILOLEJEUNEA EVASNII (M.A. Taylor) R.M. Schuster North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. Revised 1997. 16 pp. and 3 appendices. relatively open microsites within shaded gorges. Further document the species' range, status, and Davison, Paul G. & Marie L. Hicks. 1996. Cheilolejeunea evansii, status survey report. Revised 1997 by J.L. Amoroso. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation for Endangered Species Field Office, USFWS, Asheville.. Found at lower elevations. Known to occur on trends. Hicks, M.L. 1992. Guide to the liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press, Durham and London. 239 pp. standing trees from just above ground level to 3 Hicks, M.L., and P.G. Davison. 1989. Some rare, endemic, and disjunct liverworts in North Carolina. Castanea 54(4): 255-261. m up the trunk, most commonly at 1.2-2 m Schuster, R. M. 1980. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America east of the hundredth meridian, volume IV. Columbia University Press, New York. 1334 pp. aboveground, on a variety of mesic to dry- Stein, S.M., M.D. Robles, E.M. White, and S.J. Comas. 2007. Forest development across the United States and implications for Wildlife. Transactions of the 72'' North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. March 20 to 24 in Portland, Oregon. mesic hardwoods, such as Quercus spp., [http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/pubs/stein%20et%20al%202009%2072ndNA.pdf] Liriodendron tulipifera, Nyssa sylvatica, Carya Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North America. The Bryologist. 76:405-428. sp., Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus sp., Ilex opaca.

A liverwort Frullania appalachiana Spruce-fir forests: Mature hemlock forest. On Trampling. Canopy gaps, drying Known chiefly from the Fraser Fir- High elevation allong the Hicks, M.L. 1992. Guide to the liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press, Durham and London. 239 pp. tree trunks and decaying wood above 1050 ft. Red Spruce zone. Here the Appaliation trail Schuster, R. M. 1992b. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America east of the hundredth meridian, volume VI. Field Museum of Natural History. Chicago. 937 pp. liverworts occurred on the bark of Acer spicatum, Betula lutea and on Sorbus americana A liverwort Lejeunea blomquistii Late successional riparian. Grows on rocks and There are not any documented threats, perhaps due Occasionally grows on tree Habersham, Hicks, M.L. and J.L. Amoroso. 1996. Broyphyte status survey: LEJEUNEA BLOMQUISTII Schuster: Brief report recommending 3C status. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. Revised 1997. 3 pp. and addenda. boulders, tress and logs, relatively dry, to its remote habitat of gorges with high humidity on trunks, tree bases, and dead Stephens.Known from Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North America. The Bryologist. 76:405-428. sometimes moist, always in or along a water rock or bark. logs. Substrates are almost thirteen extant occurrences way. Waterfall spray zones always in, along, or near creeks in eastern Kentucky and and streams, or in the spray zone Tennessee, western North of waterfalls. Carolina, and northwestern South Carolina. It is also historically known from northeastern Georgia.

A liverwort Nardia lescurii Rock Outcrops and cliffs: Spray cliffs: Late Distribution data for U.S. Hicks, M.L. 1992. Guide to the liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press, Durham and London. 239 pp. successional riparian. At low elevations, on states is known to be McKnight, B.N. 1981. Nardia lescurii, new to Illinois. The Bryologist 84(3):358. peaty soil over rocks, usually in shade and incomplete or has not been Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access associated with water. reviewed for this taxon. 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North America. The Bryologist. 76:405-428.

A liverwort Plagiochila caduciloba Rock outcrops and cliffs: Mature mesic Soils are rocky and acidic, and Rabun. Known from twenty- Frye, T. C. & L. Clark. 1945. Hepaticae of North America. Part III. Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 6: [i]–iii, 337–564. hardwood forests. Wet cliffs. Shaded, damp the forest canopy is generally one extant occurrences; one Hicks, M. L. 1992. Guide Liverw. North Carolina vii + 239 pp. Duke University, Durham & London. rocks (vertical rock walls or the undersurface of dense with a fairly limited number in Georgia, one in Kentucky, Stotler, R. & B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of the liverworts and hornworts of North America. Bryologist 80: 405–428. projecting ledges),areas with very high of mesophytic tree species thirteen in North Carolina, The Bryologist 42: 114. f. 1–19. 1939. (Bryologist) humidity, at or near the edges of cascading four in South Carolina, and streams or near waterfall, with no direct two in Tennessee. sunlight. Often occurs near the spray zone, but never directly in it. Rock substrate is not calcareous. Elevation 300 to 1500 m

Pohlia rabunbaldensis Oak forest on Rabun Bald Rabun Bald. Described in Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2014a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 28. Bryophyta, Part 2. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. vii + 702 pp. 2005 from the Rabun Bald, Shevock, J. R. and A. J. Shaw. 2005. Pohlia robertsonii and P. rabundaldensis (Bryopsida, Mniaceae), two new species from the western and eastern United States. The Bryologist 108(2):177-182. and less than 25km south of the North Carolina state border. This species occurs toward the top of the bald in a Quercus rubra dominated hardwood forest. At the site

2015 locally rare list Probability of Occurrence 0 Magnitude of Effects per Proposed Action Species Common Name Scientific Name Species Status / Habitat Threats Location References Mountain Maple Acer spicatum Locally Rare, G5, Spruce-fir forests: Mature Towns, Union, Lumpkin, Rook, Earl J.S. (2002). "Moose Maple, Acer spicatum". Shrubs of the Northwoods. Archived from the original on November 27, 2005. High-Elevation mesic hardwood forests. High Fannin, Habersham Little, Elbert L. (1980). National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees: Eastern Region. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-50760-6.. elvvation boulder fields. Deep rich moist soils in cool habitats such as the edges of mountain streams, ravines or woodlands

Yellow giant-hyssop Agastache nepetoides Locally Rare, G5. Rich woodland borders, .Logging and other clearing in hardwood forests and Surveys are best conducted Murray, Walker, Chattooga. Ayers, G. S. and M. P. Widrlechner. 1994. The genus Agastache as bee forage: A historical perspective. American Bee Journal 134: 341-348. sunny gaps in forested floodplains and on bottomlands. Invasion by exotic pest plants. during flowering Georgia Conservation Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. river terraces, especially over magnesium- (August–October) and fruiting Status: Four populations are Corrigan, E.E. 2002. Agastache scrophulariifolia (Willd.) Kuntze – purple giant hyssop, conservation and research plan for New England. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts. http://www.newenglandwild.org/docs/pdf/Agastachescrophulariifolia.pdf rich soils. Late successional riparian, (September–October). known although only 2 have Dole, C.H. 2002. Butterfly buffet – late-flowering plants that lure pollinators to the fall garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden Plants & Gardens News 17(3). http://www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/wildlife/2002fa_butterfly.html openings in rich hardwoods. been seen in the last 20 Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of north-eastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York. years; one population Lint, H. and C. Epling. 1945. A revision of Agastache. American Midland Naturalist 33: 207-230. occurs on National Forest Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. land, 3 others on private NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer land. Vogelmann, J. E. and G. J. Gastony. 1987. Electrophoretic enzyme analysis of North American and Eastern Asian populations of Agastache sect. Agastache (Labiatae). American Journal Botany 74: 385-393. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas: working draft of January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. Purple giant-hyssop Agastache scrophulariifolia Locally Rare, State special conern. Rich Logging and other clearing in hardwood forests and Surveys are best conducted Stephens, Rabun, Towns, Ayers, G. S. and M. P. Widrlechner. 1994. The genus Agastache as bee forage: A historical perspective. American Bee Journal 134: 341-348. woodland borders, sunny gaps in forested bottomlands. Invasion by exotic pest plants. during flowering Union, Fannin. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. floodplains and on river terraces, especially (August–October) and fruiting Conservation Status: Four Corrigan, E.E. 2002. Agastache scrophulariifolia (Willd.) Kuntze – purple giant hyssop, conservation and research plan for New England. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts. http://www.newenglandwild.org/docs/pdf/Agastachescrophulariifolia.pdf over magnesium-rich soils. Basic mesic (September–October). populations are known Dole, C.H. 2002. Butterfly buffet – late-flowering plants that lure pollinators to the fall garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden Plants & Gardens News 17(3). http://www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/wildlife/2002fa_butterfly.html forest: Mature high-elevation mesic hardwood although only 2 have been Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of north-eastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York. forests. (Over magnesium rich soils, sunny seen in the last 20 years; Lint, H. and C. Epling. 1945. A revision of Agastache. American Midland Naturalist 33: 207-230. gaps in forested floodplains and river one population occurs on Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. terraces.) National Forest land, 3 NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer others on private land. Vogelmann, J. E. and G. J. Gastony. 1987. Electrophoretic enzyme analysis of North American and Eastern Asian populations of Agastache sect. Agastache (Labiatae). American Journal Botany 74: 385-393. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas: working draft of January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill.

Shining indigo bush Amorpha nitens Locally Rare, G3. Longleaf pine woodlands Fire suppression, clearing, and conversion of habitat Surveys are best conducted Gordon, Whitfield, Floyd, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and savannas, sunny openings around to pine plantations, agricultural during flowering (mid-April–early Chattooga, Walker, Putnam. and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Altamaha Grit and flint kaolin outcrops, and fields, and development. May) although fruits, which may Georgia Conservation Miller, V.M. 2004. Habitat characterization of Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana groups at Fort stream terraces. Although classified as a persist until early April of the Status: Four populations Bragg, North Carolina. M.S. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. “facultative wetland” (FACW) species, following year, are helpful in have been observed; only http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/2506 Georgia indigo-bush has not been seen in identification. Plants flower and the Columbia County plants, NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. wetlands in Georgia.River channels. Rocky, fruit the first and second years on private land, have been http://www.natureserve.org/explorer wooded slopes and alluvial woods. after a fire. seen recently. Nelson, G. 2006. Atlantic Coastal Plain wildflowers. Globe Pequot Press, Guilford, Connecticut. Norden, H. and K. Kirkman. 2006. Field guide to common legume species of the longleaf pine ecosystem. Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia. Sorrie, B.A. 1993. Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana element stewardship abstract. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia. Sorrie, B.A. 1995. Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana status survey. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh. Straub, S.C.K. and J.J. Doyle. 2007. Conservation genetics of Amorpha georgiana Wilbur (Fabaceae). Presentation Abstract, Botany and Plant Biology Joint Congress, Chicago, Illinois. http://www.2007.botanyconference.org/engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=1287 Wilbur, R.L. 1954. An undescribed dwarf species of Amorpha from Georgia. Rhodora 56(672): 261-265. Wilbur, R.L. 1964. A revision of the dwarf species of Amorpha (Leguminosae). Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 80(2): 52-65. Wilbur, R.L. 1963. The leguminous plants of North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas: working Carolina anemone Anemone caroliniana Locally Rare, G5 ,Glades and barrens: Rock Blooms March, April Jasper, Putnam. Scattered Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. outcrops and cliffs: Woodlands, savannas and populations in the Southeast Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. grsslands. from Tennessee and Upland seepage swampopening over Iredell Mississippi to the Carolinas soils and wet meadows.

Porter"s reed grass calamagrostis porteri Locally Rare, G4. Rocky outcrops and cliffs Ridgeline and mountaintop developments and other Surveys are best conducted Rabun, T owns, Union, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia Base of north-facing granitic cliffs.Dry, rocky, clearing and soil disturbance; fire during flowering (July–August) Lumpkin. Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. high elevation ridges and mountaintops with suppression. and Conservation Status: Five CPC. 2006. Center for Plant Conservation National Collection Plant Profile. white oak, chestnut oak, and fruiting (July–December). small populations are known, http://www.centerforplantconservation.org hickory. all on the Chattahoochee FNA. 2006d. Flora of North America. Vol. 24, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part), National Forest. Because Poaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. http://herbarium.usu.edu/webmanual/default.htm grasses are often Hitchcock, A.S. and A. Chase. 1971. Manual of the grasses of the United States. Dover overlooked, this species may Publications, New York. be somewhat more Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. Atlas and illustrated guide common than current to the threatened and endangered vascular plants of the mountains of North Carolina and surveys indicate. Virginia, Technical Report SE-20. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University f N th C li H b i Ch l Hill Blue Ridge (silky) bindweed, Calystegia catesbiana spp. Locally Rare, G3. Mature Oak Forests; Fire suppression, logging, clearing, and conversion Surveys are best conducted Rabun, Towns, Lumpkin, Austin, D.F. 2004. Convolvulaceae (morning glory family). In, N. Smith, S.A. Mori, A. Catesby's bindweed sericata Canopy Gaps. Sandy montane openings. of habitat to pine plantations and during flowering, April–June White, Union, Murray, Henderson, D.W. Stevenson, S.V. Heald, Flowering Plants of the Neotropics. Princeton Frequently burned longleaf pine-wiregrass development. (possibly later, depending on Gilmer. Four known University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. woodlands. timing of recent fire). populations in the foothills Austin, D. F. 1997. Convolvulaceae (morning glory family). Conservation and Science area. Georgia Conservation Department, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona. Status: Only one population Austin, D.F. 1992. Studies of the Florida Convolvulaceae - V - Calystegia. Florida Scientist is known; it occurs on 55(1): 58-60. private land. Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Nelson, G. 2005. East Gulf Coastal Plain wildflowers. Globe Pequot Press, Guilford, Connecticut. Ushimaru, A. and K. Kikuzawa. 1999. Variation of breeding system, floral rewards, and reproductive success in clonal Calystegia species (Convolvulaceae). American Journal of Botany 86(3): 436-446. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. Wunderlin, R.P and B.F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida, 2nd edition. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii Locally Rare, G3G4. Mature mesic hardwood habitat loss and fragmentation and by intensive forest later, depending on timing of Rabun, (5-15 specimens) Bryson, C.T. 1985. A new species of Carex (Cyperaceae: sect. Laxiflorae) from the southern Appalachians. Castanea 50(1): 15-18. forests. Cove hardwood forests and mesic management practices. Severe alteration of forest or recent fire). Plants appear largely Towns, Union, Lumpkin, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. deciduous forests. Moist sites that are not soil structure is detrimental to the species (Southern associated with a trailside habitat. White, Dawson, Gilmer (1-5 Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp. associated with limestone and is often found Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). Carex specimens). Large and Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access on steep slopes and along streambanks at manhartii benefits from forestry practices that open vigorous occurrences occur 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. elevations between 600 and 1200 m. It is the canopy a little, but declines with complete removal along the East Fork associated with typical species of of the canopy Chattooga River. In Georgia Appalachian mesic hardwoods; mostly in there are 44 extant occurrences in 7 counties association with showy orchid (Orchis spectabilis).

Broadleaf sedge Carex platyphylla Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood Vulnerable to the removal of forest canopy. Best identified in early spring Walker, Murray, Fannin, Cochrane, T.S. 1998. The distribution of Carex platyphylla (Cyperaceae: Sect. Careyanae) with emphasis on the Western Great Lakes region. Mich. Bot. Vol. 37: 3-11. forests. Mesic hardwood forests with basic when in fruit and perigynia are Union, Lumpkin, Dawson Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Indiana Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis. 1236 pp. soil. Rich, moist deciduous forests, on rocky fully developed. Sometimes Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Volume 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. 608 pp. or gravelly slopes, soils above limestone, overlooked due to its strong NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An Online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: November 11, 2003). shale, or calcareous metamorphic rocks, resemblance to, C. plantaginea Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan Flora. Part I. Gymnosperms and Monocots. Bull. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. 55 and Univ. of Michigan Herbarium. xv + 488 pp. often on clay soils; and C. albursina.

Purple sedge. Mckenzie Carex purpurifera Locally Rare, G4. Basic mesic forests: Occurs on restricted habitat, making it especially Towns, Union, Lumpkin, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Purple sedge Mature mesis hardwood forests. vulnerable to land-use conversion, habitat Fannin, Murray,Walker, Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access Mesic hardwood forest over limestone. fragmentation, and forest management practices. Chattooga, Floyd, Gilmer. 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Disturbance of soil creates problems with competition Also in GA Dade, Gordon from non-native species (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).

Rough sedge Carex scabrata Locally Rare, G5. Bogs, fens, seeps, Drainage of wetlands (Southern Appalachian Species Fruiting Jun (mid May in Murray, Gilmer, Union, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. seasonal ponds. High elevation boulderfields, Viability Project 2002). South)–early Sep Towns, Lumpkin, White, Oldham, M.J., and W.J. Crins. 1998. Atlas of the Vascular Flora of southern Ontario. Draft 2. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 378 pp. mountain Bogs and seeps. Habersham, Rabun. 7 Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access known populations in the 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Foothills. Also in GA, Murray American chestnut Castanea dentata Locally Rare. Mature mesic hardwood Cryphonectria parasitica (Endothia Now known primarily through Coder, Kim. 2013 American Chestnut:A Deposed King. Professor of Tree Biology & Health Care forests.many varied soil types, most of which parasitica) aka Chestnut Blight Fungus stump sprouts in oak Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia American are dominated by oaks and hickories. It grows / hickory forests. All on the rocky / stoney, well-drained, rich northern GA was habitat. slopes of the Appalachians and rolling hills of the Piedmont at less than 4,000 feet in altitude. It survives on dry ridges but thrives in moist, well-drained sites. Chestnut is a prolific sprouter and will continue to send up stump sprouts for decades.

Indina paintbrush, Castilleja coccinea Locally Rare, G5. Glades and barrens: Land-use conversion, habitat fragmentation, forest Flowers May-August Rabun, Towns, Union, Clemants, Steven and Carol Gracie. 2006. Wildflowers in the Field and Forest. A Field Guide to the Northeastern United States. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 445 pp. Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nosebleed, Prairie fire. Grassy Balds: Woodlands, savannas, and management practices, succession, and interspecific Lumpkin, Gilmer, Walker, Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp. grasslands. Moist rock factors (competition, predation...); apparently has Floyd, Fannin. 1 population ledges and fens. Moist meadows, prairies and problem reproducing in absence of fire or other know from the Foothills area. Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp. barrens appropriate disturbance (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Herbarium, Museum of Man and Nature, 190 Rupert Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. •New York Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Biotics database. New York Natural Heritage Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. Newcomb, Lawrence. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide: An Ingenious New Key System for Quick, Positive Field Identification of the Wildflowers, Flowering Shrubs, and Vines of Northeastern and North-Central North America. Little, Brown and Company. Boston. Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. 96 pp. plus xi.

Rhoads, Ann F. and Timothy A. Block. 2000. The Plants of Pennsylvania, an Illustrated Manual. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Scoggan, H.J. 1978. The Flora of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Publ. in Botany 7(4). Soper, J. H., Garton, C. E., and D. R. Given. 1989. Flora of the north shore of Lake Superior (Vascular plants of the Ontario portion of the Lake Superior drainage basin). Syllogeus 63, National Museums of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 61 pp. Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Thunder Bay Field Naturalists. 2015. Checklist of Vascular Plants of Thunder Bay District. Thunder Bay Field Naturalists, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Voss, Edward G. 1996. Michigan Flora Part III. Dicots Concluded (Pyrolaceae - Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 61 and University of Michigan Herbarium. 622 pp. Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2010. New York flora atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/. University of South Florida http://www.usf.edu/]. New York Flora Association http://wwws.nyflora.org/, Albany, New York Weldy, Troy W. and David Werier. 2005. New York Flora Atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research. University of South Florida]. New York Flora Association, Albany, NY. Available on the web at (http://atlas.nyflora.org/).

Carolina thistle Cirsium carolinianum Locally Rare, G5 .Blades and barrens. The replacement of open woods by dense forests Flowering spring–summer Walker, Floyd, Catoosa, Flora of North Amewrica accessed 2018. Carduus carolinianus Walter, Fl. Carol., 195. 1788; Cirsium flaccidum (Small) Petrak FNA Vol. 19, 20 and 21 Page 98, 118. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242416292 Prairies, open mixed pine-oak woods, brought about by fire suppression has greatly (Apr–Jul). Stephens shortleaf pine-blackjack over serpentine. reduced available habitat. Wooded slopes

Yellowwood. American Cladrastis kentuckea Locally Rare. Basic mesic forest: Mature high- Thrreatened by forest management practices; Flower: Perfect, pea-like, creamy 6 specimens Towns, 2 Hutchinson, Max and John White. 1973. The Yellowwood, A Rare Tree in Illinois; Summary and Recommendations. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. 13 pp.Kartesz, J. T. 1991. Synonym names from 1991 checklist, as extracted by Larry Morse, TNC, June 1991. Yellow wood, Kentuckey elevation mesic hardwood forests. Limestone disease or pests may also be a factor (Southern to white, somewhat fragrant, Union, 1 Fannin, 1 Gilmer, 2 Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. yellow wood cliffs Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). borne in 8 to 14" long hanging Walker. Also in GA 2 in Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp cluster, appearing in late spring Harris Robertson, K.R. 1977. CLADASTRIS: the yellow-woods. Arnoldia 37:137-150. to early summer. Robertson, Philip and William P. Pusateri. 19XX. Structural Analysis of a Stand Containing Yellowwood in Southern Illinois. pp. 119-129. Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Curlyheads Clematis ochroleuca Locally Rare, G4. Mature oak forests: Highly threatened by succession, and to a lesser Blooms April - June Stephens. Also in Ga- Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp. Woodlands, savannas and grasslands. extent by forest management practices (Southern Columbia, Elbert, Franklin Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. Dry circumneutral soil. Dry to moist woods, Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). House, Homer D. 1924. Annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of New York State. New York State Museum Bulletin 254:1-758. thickets, roadsides, and other shady to open, Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. disturbed sites. Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996. Mitchell, R.S. 1982. Recovery plan and status of northern monk's-hood (Aconitum noveboracense) in New York State.

Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp. Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2010. New York flora atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/. University of South Florida http://www.usf.edu/]. New York Flora Association http://wwws.nyflora.org/, Albany, New York

Sweet fern Comptonia peregrina Locally Rare, G1. able mountain pine forests: Fire exclusion may pose a threat to this species Aromatic leaves. It is a non- Raburn, Towns, Union, Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 590 pp. Mature oak forests: Woodlands, savannas, (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project legume nitrogen fixer White. Also in Ga- Madison Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. timber Press, Portland, OR. and grasslands. Disturbed areas and open 2002). Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C. upland forests Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Tehon, L.R. 1942. Fieldbook of native Illinois shrubs. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 3. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv., Urbana, IL. 307pp.

American lily-of -the valley Convallaria majuscula Locally Rare, G4. Rocky, montane forests Logging, overbrowsing by deer, digging by feral Surveys are best conducted Rabun, White, Lumpkin, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia near ridgelines, often under white oak or hogs. Maintain hardwood canopy cover. Avoid during flowering (April–June) and Union, Murray, Fannin. and University of Georgia Press, Athens. northern red oak. clearcutting. Reduce the size of Georgia’s deer herd. fruiting (June–August). Georgia Conservation FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Eradicate feral hogs. Status: At least six Oxford University Press, New York. populations are known, all in Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio the Chattahoochee Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. National Forest. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Pale corydalis, rock Capanoides Synonym: Locally Rare, G5. Rock outcrops and cliffs. Fire suppression Often found on recently disturbed Capanoides Synonym: Corydalis sempervirens. Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). Accessed Oct 3, 2018 https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/corsem/all.html Flora of North Amewrica accessed 2018. Carduus carolinianus Walter, Fl. Carol., harlequin, Corydalis sempervirens rocky sites on dry, well-drained, often acidic sites including harvested forests, 195. 1788; Capanoides Synonym: Corydalis sempervirens Petrak FNA Vol. 19, 20 and 21 Page 98, 118. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242416292 pink corydalis, pale soils and recently disturbed sites, including rights-of-way, roadsides and corydalis burned areas. areas cleared for cultivation. Often found with rock spikemoss- little bluestem-orangegrass- densetuft hairsedge.

Fraser sedge Cymophyllus fraserianus Locally Rare, G4. Mountain coves and Logging, clearing, and other soil disturbances. Surveys are best conducted Rabun, Fannin. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia ravines, usually along streams in hardwood- Overbrowsing by deer. Avoid logging, clearing, trail during flowering (late April–May) Conservation Status: Seven and University of Georgia Press, Athens. hemlock forests with rosebay rhododendron construction, or other mechanical disturbances. and populations are known, most Clarkson, R.B. 1961. Fraser’s sedge, Cymophyllus fraseri (Andrews) Mackenzie. Castanea and mountain laurel. Reduce the size of Georgia’s deer herd. Protect fruiting (May–June), but leaves in the Chattahoochee 26(4): 129-136. plants from trampling and collecting. are distinctive all year. National Forest. Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1999. Wildflowers of the eastern United States. University of Georgia Press, Athens. FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 23, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part), Cyperaceae (part 1). Oxford University Press, New York. Godt, M.J.W., J.L. Hamrick, and A. Meier. 2004. Genetic diversity in Cymophyllus fraserianus (Cyperaceae), a rare monotypic genus. Genetica 122(2): 207-215. Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. Atlas and illustrated guide to the threatened and endangered vascular plants of the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia, Technical Report SE-20. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Reznicek, A.A. 1989. Homology of the leaf in the southern Appalachian endemic Cymophyllus fraseri (Cyperaceae). American Journal of Botany 76(6): 267. Thomas, W. W. 1984. Insect pollination of Cymophyllus fraseri (Andrews) Mackenzie. Castanea 49: 94–95. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surroundingareas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill.

Yellow lady's slipper Cypripedium parvifolorum Locally Rare, G5 .Bogs, fens, seeps, Logging, competition from exotic pest plants, digging Surveys are best conducted Raburn, Towns, Union, Brown, P.M. and S.N. Folsom. 2004. Wild orchids of the southeastern United States, north of seasonal ponds: Mature mesic hardwood by feral hogs, overbrowsing by during flowering (April–June). White, Habersham, peninsular Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. forest. Montane cove forests and rich deer, poaching. Lumpkin, Fannin, Dawson, Case, M.A. 1993. High levels of allozyme variation within Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) deciduous forests. Both varieties of yellow Gilmer, Murray, Floyd, and low levels of divergence among its varieties. Systematic Botany 18(4): 663-677. lady’s-slipper occur in rich, cove hardwood Stephens. 3 populations Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia forests. known in the Foothills area. and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Georgia Conservation FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Status: Yellow lady’s-slipper Oxford University Press, New York. once occurred in nearly all Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Piedmont and Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. mountain counties. Habitat Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada, excluding Florida. New destruction and poaching York Botanical Garden, New York. have greatly reduced the number of NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. populations, perhaps to http://www.natureserve.org/explorer fewer than 100. Most Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia.Georgia remaining sites are in the Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Chattahoochee National Forest. Squirrel corn Dicentra canadensis Locally Rare. Mature mesic hardwood forest. Somewhat threatened by human disturbance Blooms April - May Towns, Union Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.Macior, L. W. 1978. Pollination interactions in sympatric Dicentra species. American Journal of Botany 65(1):57-62. Mesic hardwood forest. (trampling) and feral pigs (Southern Appalachian Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the eastern broadleaf forest province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Species Viability Project 2002). Paul, Minnesota. 394 pp. Ostlie, W. R. 1990. Completion of the algific slope/maderate cliff landsnail survey in Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.. Unpaged. Ostlie, Wayne R. 1990. Completion of the Algific Slope/Maderate Cliff Landsnail Survey in Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program and The Nature Conservancy. Results in unpublished report. Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Stern, K. R. 1961. Revision of Dicentra (Fumariaceae). Brittonia 13:1-57. Stern, K. R. 1997. Dicentra. Pages 341-347 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 3. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Bleeding heart, Turkey Corn Dicentra eximia Locally Rare, G4. Basic mesic forests: Restricted to an uncommon rocky habitat and is Blooms June - July Fannin Wasowski, S. with A. Wasowski. 2009. Gardening with Native Plants of the South (Reprint Edition) Mature mesic hardwood forests. threatened by over-harvest (undoubtedly exploited by Adelman, Charlotte and Schwartz, Bernard L.. 2011. The Midwestern Native Garden: Native Alternatives to Nonnative Flowers and Plants An Illustrated Guide Montane ledges and rocky slopes.. Dry to collectors) (Southern Appalachian Species Viability moist, rocky mountain woods, crevices of Project 2002). rocks at bases of cliffs Ground cedar. Blue Ground Diphasiastrum tristachyum Locally Rare, G5. Mature high-elvation mesic Usually dry, often sandy, often Rabun •Bowles, Marlin. 1988. A Report of Special Floristic Elements at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: New Species Monitoring and Update of Selected Existing Populations. To Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. cedar, Deep-root Ground- hardwood forests. Rocky ledges.Forest - acid soil; coniferous woods, open pine, Three-spiked Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, oak or conifer forests, edges, •Cody, W.J. and D.M. Britton. 1989. Ferns and Fern Allies of Canada. Agriculture Canada, Research Branch. Publication 1829/E. Clubmoss Forest/Woodland, Grassland/herbaceous, Old thickets, clearings, rocky slopes, deeproot clubmoss field, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - dry barrens, abandoned fields. •Cody, W.J. and D.M. Britton. 1989. Ferns and Fern Allies of Canada. Publication 1829/E, Agriculture Canada, Research Branch, Ottawa. 430 pp. Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed •Cody, W.J., and D.M. Britton. 1989. Ferns and fern allies of Canada. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa. 430 pp.

•Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America, North of Mexico. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America. Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York. 475 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993a. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp.

•Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, NY. 810 pp.

•Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

•Herbarium, Museum of Man and Nature, 190 Rupert Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

•Hough, M.Y. 1983. New Jersey wild plants. Harmony Press, Harmony, NJ. 414 pp.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Lellinger, D. B. 1985. A Field Manual of the Ferns and Fern-allies of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

•Lellinger, D.B. 1985. A field manual of the ferns and fern-allies of the U.S. and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 389 pp.

•Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.

•Roland A E and E C Smith 1983 The flora of Nova Scotia: Volumes 1 and 2 Nova Scotia Museum Halifax NS Canada 746 pp Leatherwood Dirca palustris Locally Rare, G4. Basic mesic forests: Blooms in March. Bark and fruits •Hough, M. Y. 1983. New Jersey Wild Plants. Harmony Press, Harmony, New Jersey. 414 pp. Mature mesic hardwood forests: Late can cause skin irritation and successional Riparian. vomiting. may be mixed in with •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. the much more frequent Spicebush •Moye, William S. 2006. Highly Ranked Plants of the South Mountain Region. Unpublished notes sent via email to Misty Franklin in February 2006.

•Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

•Record, S., and C. Mell. 1924. Timbers of Tropical America. New Haven: Yale University Press, U.S.A. 610 págs.

•Tatnall, R.R. 1946. Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore: an annotated list of the ferns and flowering plants of the peninsula of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Soc. Nat. Hist. Del. 313 pp.

Shooting star .Pride-of- Dodecatheon meadia Locally Rare, G5. Bogs, fens, seeps, Bumble Bee decline A spring bloomer, and true prairie •Britton, N. L. and A. Brown. 1913. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. 3 vol. Dover Publications, Inc., N. Y. 2052 pp. Ohio, Rooster Heads seasonal ponds: Basic mesic forest.Open ephemeral, Dodecatheon meadia woods and glades, rocky wooded slopes, dry goes completely dormant in late •Fassett, N.C. 1944. Dodecathion in North America. American Midland Naturalist 31:355-486. to wet meadows and prairies summer. Bumble bees are the chief pollinators •Fassett, Norman C. 1940. A Manual of Aquatic Plants, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. B57FAS01PAUS.

•Fassett, Norman C. 1940. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York, New York. 382 p.

•Fassett, Norman C. 1944. Dodecathion in North America. American Midland Naturalist 31:355-486. A44FAS01PAUS.

•Fernald, M.L. 1949. Gray's Manual of Botany, Eighth edition. American Book Co. New York. B49FER01PAUS

•Fernald, M.L. 1950 Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed. American Book Company, New York. 1632 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2009. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 8. Magnoliophyta: Paeoniaceae to Ericaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. xxiv + 585 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2010. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 08. Magnoliophyta: Paeoniaceae to Ericaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiv + 585 pp.

•Gleason, H.A. & Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Second Edition. The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY 10458. U.S.A. B91GLE01PAUS.

•Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

•Iltis, H. H., and W. M. Shaughnessy. 1960. Preliminary reports on the flora of Wisconsin No. 43 Primulaceae -Primrose Family. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 49:115-135.

•KLEIN, J. 1988. SHOOTING STAR RESPONDS TO BRUSH CLEARING. RESTOR. AND MGMT. NOTES 6(1):34.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. A fascimile of the first edition printed by Adlard & Son, Bartholomew Press, Dorking, Great Britain. 2 vol. B53LIN01PAUS.

•Linnaeus C 1753 Species Plantarum First edition printed by Adlard & Son Bartholomew Press Dorking Great Britain 2 vol Log fern Dryopteris celsa Locally Rare. Bogs, fens, seeps, seasonal Habitat Loss Dryopteris celsa is a fertile Murray, Walker . Historically Flora of North America. Dryopteris celsa http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500592 Retrieved 23, 2018 ponds. Floodplan forests, lower slopes of allotetraploid derived from in all Northern GA counties Knowlton, W. Palmer & Pollard, W. Palmer, & Pollard. Dryopteris celsa Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 13: 202. 1900 rocky woods.medium moisture soils in part hybridization between D . shade to full shade. Prefers moist, rich, goldiana and D . ludoviciana . humusy, acidic soils in bright shade with Dryopteris celsa hybridizes with protection from wind. six species; hybrids can usually be identified by the dark-striped scales Boldie"s wood fern Dryopteris goldiana Locally Rare, G4G5. Rich woods and ravines. Habitat loss 3 to 4 feet high and 28 to 38 Rabun, Towns, Union, Flora of North America. Goldies Fern http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200004431. Retrived 23, 2018 OctoberGoldie's Fern (Dryopteris goldiana)". Requires medium sunlight or shade and high inches wide Murray. www.illinoiswildflowers.info. Retrieved 23, October. 2018. humidity conditions to thrive along with moist soil with an abundance of organic matter. It also requires protection from wind. old-growth deciduous woodlands, where such trees as maple, basswood, or beech are dominant and competition from shrubs is reduced. Fringed gentian Gentianopsis crinita Locally Rare, G5. circumneutral soils in early Invasion of woody shrubs and aggressive herbs. Produces only a small rosette of Union. Five populations are Bouille, M. and J. Bousquet. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships and phylogeography of the Gentianopsis crinita complex (Gentianaceae) based on nrDNA ITS sequences. XVI International Botanical Congress Abstract 4070. successional habitats with few woody or Poorly timed roadside mowing and herbicide leaves, first year. .No other known, all in the vicinity of Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. aggressive competitors. In Georgia, it occurs application. Road widening, development, and other wildflowers in north Georgia have Brasstown Bald. One Costelloe, B.H. 1988. Pollination ecology of Gentiana andrewsii. The Ohio Journal of Science 88(4): 132-138. Abstract at https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/23269 in damp, sunny meadows and roadsides soil and ground cover disturbances. large, deep blue flowers with 4 population occurs on Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States, Vol. 2, dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. underlain by magnesium-rich, ultramafic spreading, fringed petals. Flowers National Forest land, the rest Lerner, J.M. 1997. Mycorrhizal interactions of selected species of endangered New England flora. M.S. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. rocks such as serpentine or soapstone late September–early November. on private land or roadside Letendre, K. and J. C. Hull. Effect of population size on insect visitation of Gentianopsis crinita (Frole.) Ma. (fringed gentian). Mid-Atlantic Ecology Conference: Sustainable Landscapes, 2004, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Abstract at http://www.esa.org/midatlantic/conferences/Abstracts04.pdf Flowers open only on sunny rights-of-way. NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer days. Patrick, T.S. 1987. A...As if that sky let fall.@ Tipularia 2(1):18-19. Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Pringle, J.S. 2004. Notes on the distribution and nomenclature of North American Gentianopsis (Gentianaceae). Sida 21(1): 525-530. Slavik, E.. and J. C. Hull. Effect of pollination distance on viable seed production of Gentianopsis crinita (Frole.) Ma (fringed gentian). Mid-Atlantic Ecology Conference: Sustainable Landscapes, 2004, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Abstract at http://www.esa.org/midatlantic/conferences/Abstracts04.pdf Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Cow parsnip, Masterwort, Heracleum lanatum Locally Rare G5. Occurs in a wide variety of valuable forage, deer, elk, Through out Northern GA USFS. Fire Effects Information System (FEIS). https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/hermax/all.html Retrieved 23, 2018 American Hogweed, Synonym: Heracleum forested habitat types, as well moose, and bear. Flowers May- Wildflowers of Tennessee the Ohio Valley and the Southern Appalachians: The Official Field Guide of the Tennessee Native Plant Society Common Cowparsnip. maximum as grassland, shrubland, meadow, alpine, and Aug Duncan, W.H., and J.T. Kartesz. 1981. Vascular flora of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens. GA Literature riparian zones Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1965. Atlas of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Department of Botany Technical Bulletin No. 165. Chapel Hill. NC Literature Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. NC Literature Tennessee Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Rare plant list (20 October 2002). Department of Environment and Conservation, Tennessee. Literature

Appalachian fir clubmoss Huperzia appalachiana Locally Rare, G5. Rock outcrops and Trampling GEORGIA: Rabun Co.: Rabun Rabun. Rabun Bald •Beitel, J.M. and J.T. Mickel. 1992. The Appalachian Firmoss, a New Species in the Huperzia selago (Lycopodiaceae) Complex in Eastern North America, with a New Combination for the Western Firmoss. American Fern Journal 82: 41-46. cliffs.Alpine meadows on high peaks. Bald, McAlpin 660 (MICH); ne part of Co., s of Glade Mt., Reed •Beitel, J.M., and Mickel, J.T. 1992. The Appalachian Firmoss, a New Species in the Huperzia selago (Lycopodiaceae) Complex in Eastern North America, with a New Combination for the Western Firmoss. American Fern Journal. 82(2): 41-46. rock bluff on sides of ravine, Duncan, Venard & McDowell •Cobb, B., E. Farnsworth, and C. Lowe. 2005. A Field Guide to Ferns and their Related Families of Northeastern and Central North America. Second Edition. Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 417 pp. 9085 (GH, MO). Towns Co.: n side of Rabun alt. 4100', crevices •Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp. of large cliff, Duncan 8235 (GH, MO •Gerdes, Lynden B. 1998-06-02. Collection of Huperzia appalachiana. Specimen #LBG2578, Cook Co, Minnesota. University of Minnesota Herbarium, Accession #332029.

•Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Haines, A. 2003. The Families Huperziaceae and Lycopodiaceae of New England: A Taxonomic and Ecological Reference. V.F. Thomas Co., Bowdoin, Maine. 100 pp.

•Haines, A. 2003. The families Huperizaceae and Lycopodiaceae of New England: a taxonomic and ecological reference. V.F. Thomas Co., Bowdoin, ME.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

•Love, A & D. 1961. Some nomenclatural changes in the European flora. Botaniska Notiser 114:33-47.

•Löve, A., and D. Löve. 1961. Some nomenclatural changes in the European flora. Botaniska Notiser 114: 33-47.

•Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2007. Rare Species Explorer [web application]. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, Michigan.

•Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the Laurentian mixed forest province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 352 pp.

•Mitchell, Richard S. and Gordon C. Tucker. 1997. Revised Checklist of New York State Plants. Contributions to a Flora of New York State. Checklist IV. Bulletin No. 490. New York State Museum. Albany, NY. 400 pp.

•NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

•New York Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Biotics database. New York Natural Heritage Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. Rock clubmoss Huperzia porophila Locally Rare, G4. Moss covered cliffs and Potentially impacted by trampling or rock climbing Grows in association with mosses Habersham ledges of acidic sandstone in shaded activities. Highway construction and commercial and often L. lucidulum on cool, •Moran, R. C. 2016. Lycopodiaceae, the Clubmoss Family. R.F.C. Naczi, J. R. Abbott, and Collaborators, New Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, online edition of 2016. NYBG Press, New York. 13 pp. situations. (Has been recorded from development are low-level threats (Southern damp, shaded ledges. limestone (soil pH 6.3) Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). •Anderson, C.E. 2003-10-16. Collection of Huperzia porophila.

•Bietel J. 1979 Clubmosses (Lycopodium) in North America Fiddlehead Forum 6:1-8. A79BIE01PAUS

•Bietel, J. 1979. Clubmosses (Lycopodium) in North America. Fiddlehead Forum 6:1-8.

•FNA (Flora of North America Editorial Committee). 1993a. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp.

•Fernald, M.L. 1949. Gray's Manual of Botany, Eighth edition. American Book Co. New York. B49FER01PAUS

•Fernald, M.L. 1950 Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed. American Book Company, New York. 1632 pp.

•Gleason, H. A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Second Edition. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Gleason, H.A. 1952. New Britton & Brown. Illustrated Flora. Lancaster Press Inc. Lancaster, Pa. B52GLE01PAUS

•Gleason, H.A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 3 volumes. Hafner Press, New York. 1732 pp.

•Hill, E.J. 1911 Lycopodium porophilum in the Dells of the Wisconsin. The Fern Bulletin 19:1-3. A11HIL01PAUS

•Hill, E.J. 1911. Lycopodium porophilum in the Dells of the Wisconsin. The Fern Bulletin 19:1-3.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Kartesz, J.T. AND R KARTESZ 1980 A SYNONYMIZED CHECKLIST OF THEVASCULAR FLORA OF THE US, CANADA, AND GREENLAND, VOL 2 THE BIOTA OF NORTH AMERICA. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS. CHAPEL HILL

•Kartesz, J.T., and R. Kartesz. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada and Greenland. Vol. 2. The biota of North America. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 500 pp.

•Lellinger, D.B. 1985. A Field Manual of the Ferns and Fern-Allies of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington, D.C. B85LEL01PAUS

•Lellinger, D.B. 1985. A field manual of the ferns and fern-allies of the U.S. and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 389 pp. Golden seal Hydrastis canadensis Locally Rare G3G4. Basic mesic forests: Conversion of habitat to pine plantations and Flowering (late March–late Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Albrecht, M.A. and B.C. McCarthy. 2006. Comparative analysis of goldenseal (Hydrastis Mature mesic hardwood forests. Rich woods developments; logging and other April) and fruiting (May–June). Union, Fannin, Gilmer, canadensis) population re-growth following human harvest: implications for conservation. The on circumneutral soil. mechanical clearing; invasion by exotic pest plants; Dawson, Murray, Walker. American Midland Naturalist 156(2): 229–236. harvesting by medicinal plant diggers. About 10 populations are Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia known, most on national and University of Georgia Press, Athens. forest or Clark, J. 2004. Wildflowers of Pigeon Mountain, Lookout Mountain, Cloudland Canyon State state park lands; all are Park, and Chickamauga National Military Park in northwest Georgia. Waldenhouse Publishers, vulnerable to plant poaching. Walden, Tennessee. Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1999. Wildflowers of the eastern United States. University of Georgia Press, Athens. FNA. 1997. Flora of North America, Vol. 3, Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Robbins, C.S. 2000. Comparative analysis of management regimes and medicinal plant trade monitoring mechanisms for American ginseng and goldenseal. Conservation Biology (14)5: 1422-1434. Sanders, B. 2004. William Bartram=s botanical discoveries in Georgia. Tipularia 19: 8-17. Sanders, S. and J. B. McGraw. 2002. Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) distribution, abundance, and population dynamics in an Indiana Nature Preserve. Natural Areas Journal 22(2):129-134. Sharp, P. C. 2003. Hydrastis canadensis L. (Goldenseal) conservation and research plan for New England. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts. http://www.newenglandwild.org/docs/pdf/Hydrastiscanadensis.PDF Sinclair A., Catling P. M., and Dumouchel, L. 2000. Notes on the pollination and dispersal of Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis L., in southwestern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114: 499-501. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University Largeleaf waterleaf Hydrophyllum macrophyllum Locally Rare, G5. Rich, moist, mixed Somewhat threatened by land-use conversion and Flowers open at dawn Muarry, Walker, Whitfield •BASKIN, J.M. AND C.C. BASKIN. 1983. GERMINATION ECOPHYSIOLOGY OF EASTERN DECIDUOUS FOREST HERBS: HYDROPHYLLUM MACROPHYLLUM. AM. MIDL. NAT. 109(1): 63-71 hardwood forests. habitat fragmentation (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). •Beckmann, R.L. Jr. 1979. Biosystematics of the Genus Hydrophyllum L. (Hydrophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany, 66:1053-1061. A789BEC01PAUS

•Beckmann, R.L., Jr. 1979. Biosystematics of the Genus Hydrophyllum L. (Hydrophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany 66:1053-1061.

•Berg, R.Y. 1969. Adaptation and Evolution in Dicentra ( Fumareaceae) with Special Reference to Seed, Fruit, and Dispersal Mechanism. Nytt Mag. Bot. 16:49-75. A69BER01PAUS

•Berg, R.Y. 1969. Adaptation and evolution in Dicentra (Fumariaceae), with special reference to seed, fruit, and dispersal mechanism. Nytt Magazine Botanical. 16:49.

•Fernald, M.L. 1949. Gray's Manual of Botany, Eighth edition. American Book Co. New York. B49FER01PAUS

•Fernald, M.L. 1950 Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed. American Book Company, New York. 1632 pp.

•Gleason, H.A. 1952. New Britton & Brown. Illustrated Flora. Lancaster Press Inc. Lancaster, Pa. B52GLE01PAUS

•Gleason, H.A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 3 volumes. Hafner Press, New York. 1732 pp.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

•Walk, J.L. and Klotz, L.H. 1990. Pennsylvania Records of Large-leaved Waterleaf (Hydrophyllum macrophyllum: Hydrophyllaceae). Bartonia 56:29-22.

•Walk, J.L. and Klotz, L.H. 1990. Pennsylvania Records of Large-leaved Waterleaf (Hydrophyllum macrophyllum Hydrophyllaceaae). Bartonia 56:29-22. A90WAL01PAUS Blue Ridge St. Jon's wort Hypericum buckleyi Locally Rare, G3. High elevation rock Clearing or logging on or around outcrops; trail Flowering (June–August) but Rabun, Towns, Union, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia outcrops and balds. construction through habitat. the low, matted shrubs with Lumpkin. Six populations are and University of Georgia Press, Athens. opposite leaves, growing in rock known, all on National Forest Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber crevices, are distinctive all year. land, and are Press, Portland, Oregon. somewhat protected by their Lance, R. 2004. Woody plants of the southeastern United States: a winter guide. University of rugged habitat. Georgia Press, Athens. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbari m Chapel Hill Naked-fruit rush Juncus gymnocarpus Locally Rare, G4. Bogs, Fens, Seeps, Somewhat threatened by the development and Yes, 6 known for the project Fannin County, Gilmer •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. seasonal ponds. drainage of wetlands (Southern Appalachian Species area, Habersham and Rabun County, Lumpkin County, Viability Project 2002). Counties Murray County, Rabun •Leonard, Steve. 1997? Revised key to Juncus coriaceus, J. gymnocarpus, and Juncus effusus. Report to the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, Jackson, MS. 1pp. County White County. Habersham? •Leonard, Steve. 1999. State conservation ranking recommendations for species included in the paper:Sorrie, B.A., and S.W. Leonard. 1999. Noteworthy records of Mississippi Mississippi vascular plants. Sida 18(3)889-908.

•Moye, William S. 2006. Highly Ranked Plants of the South Mountain Region. Unpublished notes sent via email to Misty Franklin in February 2006.

•Sorrie, B.A. 1999. Species ranking for noteworthy plants of Mississippi (A99SOR01MSUS). E-mail of Sept. 1, 1999 to MSHP.

•Sorrie, B.A., and S.W. Leonard. 1999. Noteworthy records of Mississippi vascular plants. Sida 18(3)889-908. Address: BRUCE SORRIE, 3076 NIAGARA-CARTHAGE ROAD, WHISPERING PINES, NC 28327

Ground Juniper, Common Juniperus communis Locally Rare, G5. Rock outcrops and cliffs. Habitat Loss Elbert & Madison Counties •Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993a. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp. Juniper ssp.depressa in GA •Kartesz, J.T. 1992. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland. The biota of North America. Corrected page proof.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Soper, J. H., and M. L. Heimburger. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada. 495 pp.

•USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, PLANTS Database [USDA PLANTS]. http://plants.usda.gov/. Accessed 2015.

Sheep laurel , carolina Bog Kalmia carolina Locally Rare G4. Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal Conversion of bog habitat to pasture and farmland; Flowering (April–May). Rabun, Habersham,Union Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia Laurel, Carolina bog myrtle, ponds. Open swampsand wet meadows and invasion of habitat by competing and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Carolina wicky, Carolina mountain Bogs. Mountain bogs; seepage shrubs and trees in the absence of fire; draining and Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber lamb kill, Carolina sheep- slopes and boggy streamsides in Fall Line ditching of wetlands. Press, Portland, Oregon. laurel sandhills, often with Atlantic white cedar and Godfrey, R.K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia sweet pitcherplant. and Alabama. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Lance, R. 2004. Woody plants of the southeastern United States: a winter guide. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Lovell, J. H. and H.B. Lovell. 1934. The pollination of Kalmia angustifolia. Rhodora 36(422): 25-8. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Rathcke, B. 1988. Interactions for pollination among co-flowering shrubs. Ecology 69: 446-57. Rathcke, B. 1988. Flowering phenologies in a shrub community: competition and constraints. Journal of Ecology 76(4): 975-994. Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. 1972 Reprint Edition. Hafner Publishing Company, New York. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Sand Myrtle Leiophyllum buxifolium Locally Rare, G4. Table mountain pine Clearing, off-road-vehicle use, and excessive foot Flowering (April–May) and Union, Towns, Rabun. Center for Plant Conservation. 2007. National Collection Plant Profile. forests. high altitude rocky ledges. traffic. fruiting (September–October), but Known from 2 sites, both in http://www.centerforplantconservation.org High-elevation mountain rock outcrops and the evergreen leaves and growth the Chattahoochee National Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia ledges. form are distinctive all year. Forest; and University of Georgia Press, Athens. one is at great risk of Cullina, W. 2002. Native trees, shrubs, and vines: a guide to using, growing, and propagating destruction. North American woody plants. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. Dirr, M.A. 1990. Manual of woody landscape plants. Fourth edition. Stipes Publishing Company, Champaign, Illinois. Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kron, K.A. and J.M. King. 1996. Cladistic relationships of Kalmia, Leiophyllum, and Loiseleuria (Phyllodoceae, Ericaceae) based on rbcL and nrITS data. Systematic Botany 21(1): 17-29. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Strand, A.E. and R. Wyatt. 1991. Geographical variation and biosystematics of sand myrtle, Leiophyllum buxifolium (Ericaceae). Systematic Botany 16(3): 529-545. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Appalachian twayblade, Listera smallii Locally Rare, G4. Bogs, Fens Seeps, Logging and other clearing, ditching and draining of Flowering (June–July). Union, Towns, Rabun .Six Ackerman, J.D. and M.R. Mesler. 1979. Pollination biology of Listera cordata (Orchidaceae). kidney-leaf twayblade, seasonal ponds. Moist rhododendron wetlands. populations have been American Journal of Botany 66(7): 820-824 Small’s twayblade thickets.Shady rhododendron thickets with observed, all on National Brown, P.M. and S.N. Folsom. 2004. Wild orchids of the southeastern United States, north of moist, acid soils, near streams. Forest land, peninsular Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. although only 3 have been Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia seen in recent years. and University of Georgia Press, Athens. FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York. Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States, Vol. 1, monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada, excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. Atlas and illustrated guide to the threatened and endangered vascular plants of the mountains of North Carolina and Virginia, Technical Report SE-20. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. University

Ground pine, running Lycopodium clavatum Locally Rare, G4. Bogs, Fens Seeps, Fannin, Rabun , Union. •Beitel, J.M. 1979. Clubmosses (Lycopodium) in North America. Fiddlehead Forum 6(5):1-8. clubmoss, running pine seasonal ponds: Grassy balds: Mature high- Tugaloo & Conasauga elevation mesic hardwood forests: High watersheds •Cody, W.J. and D.M. Britton. 1989. Ferns and Fern Allies of Canada. Publication 1829/E, Agriculture Canada, Research Branch, Ottawa. 430 pp. elevation early succession. •Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, eds. 2000. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 5, Dicotyledons (Salicaceae through Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, and B.C. Minist. For., Victoria. 389pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America. Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York. 475 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993a. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Mohlenbrock, R.H. 1983. Additions to the Illustrated Flora of Illinois II. Ferns. Erigenia 2:23-52.

•Peck, J.H. 1982. Ferns and fern allies of the driftless area of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Contrib. in Biology and Geology. Milwaukee Public Mus. No. 53.

•Tryon, R.M., Jr., et al. 1940. The fern and fern allies of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisc. Press, Madison, WI. Climbing fern Lygodium palmatum Locally Rare, G4. Bogs, Fens Seeps, Land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation Yes, 3 populations known form Rabun, Habersham, White, •BROOKS, M. 1949. HABITATS OF CLIMBING FERN IN WEST VIRGINIA. AMERICAN FERN JOURNAL 39: 122-123L seasonal ponds: Late successional riparian. present low-level threats to this species (Southern the project area, Habersham Union, Fannin, Gilmer, Acid soils of thickets and open upland forests. Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). County Walker. Located in the •Crow, Garrett E. 1982. New England's Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants. Prepared for the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. June 1982. Davenport OHV area, near the Bald Eagle Nest •Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America, North of Mexico. Volume 2. Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms. Oxford University Press, New York. 475 pp.

•Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Hough, M. Y. 1983. New Jersey Wild Plants. Harmony Press, Harmony, New Jersey. 414 pp.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Mitchell, Richard S. and Charles J. Sheviak. 1981. Rare Plants of New York State. Bull No. 445. New York State Museum. Univ. of New York. State Ed. Department Albany, NY.

•NORDEN, A.W. 1987. MEMORANDUM OF 5 MARCH TO D.D. BOONE RE: LYGODIUM PALMATUM OBSERVATION AT BENFIELD BOTTOMLAND IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.

•NORDEN, A.W. 1987. MEMORANDUM OF 5 MARCH TO W. KLOCKNER RE: LYGODIUM PALMATUM OBSERVATION AT BENFIELD BOTTOMLAND IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.

•New York Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Biotics database. New York Natural Heritage Program. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

•Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

•Weldy, T. and D. Werier. 2010. New York flora atlas. [S.M. Landry, K.N. Campbell, and L.D. Mabe (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research http://www.fccdr.usf.edu/. University of South Florida http://www.usf.edu/]. New York Flora Association http://wwws.nyflora.org/, Albany, New York

Broadleaf bunchflower, Melanthium latifolium Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood Somewhat threatened by land-use conversion, habitat Fannin, Gilmer, Rabun, •Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp. Slender Bunchflower forest: Canopy gaps. fragmentation, and forest management practices Stephens, Towns, Walker, White (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project •Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp. 2002). •Holmgren, Noel. 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

•Kartesz, J. T. 1991. Synonym names from 1991 checklist, as extracted by Larry Morse, TNC, June 1991.

•Kartesz, J. T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 volumes. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Keener, B. R., A.R. Diamond, L. J. Davenport, P. G. Davison, S. L. Ginzbarg, C. J. Hansen, C. S. Major, D. D. Spaulding, J. K. Triplett, and M. Woods. 2016. Alabama Plant Atlas. [S.M. Landry and K.N. Campbell (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research. University of South Florida]. University of West Alabama, Livingston, Alabama. Online. Available: http://floraofalabama.org/Default.aspx

•Rhoads, A.F. and T.A. Block. 2007. The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual, Second Edition. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1042 pp.

•Ward, D. B. 2010. Thomas Walter's species of Melanthium (Liliaceae). Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 4(1):303-307.

•Zomlefer, W. B. 2012. Validation of the name Veratrum hybridum (Liliales, Melanthiaceae): the correct name for Crisped Bunch-flower. Novon 22(1):125-127.

•Zomlefer, W.B. 2012. Validation of the name Veratrum hybridum (Liliales, Melanthiaceae): The correct name for crisped bunch-flower. Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature 22(1): 125-127.

Virginia bluebell Mertensia virginica Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood Collectors Blooms March, April Marray, Walker, Chattooga •Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.). 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario.. Botany Division, National Museum of National Sciences, Ottawa. forest: Late successional riparian. Floodplan forests in limestone valleys. •Argus, G.W., and D.J. White, eds. 1982. Atlas of the rare vascular plants of Ontario. Part 1. National Museum Natural Science, Ottawa.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Indian olive, conjurer’s nut, Nestronia umbellula Locally Rare, G4. Mature oak forests: Logging, clearing, conversion of habitat to pine Flowering (late April–May) and Stephens. Plants occur at Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia leechbrush Woodlands, savannas, and grasslands. plantations and developments. fruiting (July). 45 sites, about half on public and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Shrubby heaths in oak-hickory-pine woods lands. Many of Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber .Dry, open, upland woods with mixed these populations are small Press, Portland, Oregon. hardwood-pine canopy and have either female- Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of flowered plants only or male- the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. flowered only, Libby, G.W. and C.T. Bloom. 1998. Nestronia umbellula Rafinesque (Santalaceae) from the which limits reproduction to Highland Rim of Kentucky. Castanea 63: 161-164. root-sprouting. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Sowers, F.C. Why conjurer’s nut? a look at reproductive biology in Nestronia umbellula Rafinesque, a rare plant. M.S. thesis, University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. htt // h b i d /fl ht Dwarf ginseng Panax trifolius Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood Destruction of habitat by logging, clearing, and Flowering (April–June) and Union, Dawson, White, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia forest. Mesic hardwood coniferous forest. development. Invasion by exotic fruiting (August–October). Rabun. About eight and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Rich, moist hardwood forests.. plants, especially Nepalese browntop grass and populations are known, most NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. Japanese honeysuckle, and rooting by wild hogs. on National Forest or http://www.natureserve.org/explorer state conservation lands. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Schlessman, M.A. 1990. Phenotypic gender in sex changing dwarf ginseng, Panax trifolium (Araliaceae). American Journal of Botany 77(9): 1125-1131. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www herbarium unc edu/flora htm Silverling, silver whitlow-wort Paronychia argyrocoma Locally Rare, G4. Rock outcrops and cliffs. Restricted habitat and limited number of occurrences, Blooming and fruiting from June Chattooga, Dade, Walker, •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Sandstone and gainite outcrops. making it especially vulnerable to human disturbance; through September Chattoosa, Union, Lumpkin plants can be subject to trampling in popular vista •Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database areas (Southern Appalachian Species Viability (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. Project 2002).

Swamp lousewort Pedicularis lanceolata Locally Rare, G5.Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal Clearing of streamsides and logging in wetland Flowering (August–October) Towns, Union. Three Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia ponds and wet woods. Seeps, springheads, wet forests, conversion of habitat to pasture; use of and fruiting (September–October) populations are known, 2 on and University of Georgia Press, Athens. woods over mafic bedrock. herbicides in utility rights-of-way, invasion by exotic state-owned lands, one in Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United pest plants. the States, Vol. 2, dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Chattahoochee National Lackney, B.K. 1981. Parasitism of Pedicularis lanceolata Michx., a root hemiparasite. Bulletin Forest. Torrey Botanical Club 108 (4): 422-429. Macior, L.W. 1969. Pollination adaptation in Pedicularis lanceolata. American Journal of Botany 56(8): 853-859. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Tenaglia, D. 2008. Missouri plants: photographs and descriptions of flowering and nonflowering plants of Missouri. htttp://www.missouriplants.com

Broadleaf phlox, Large leaf Phlox amplifolia Locally Rare, G3G5. Mature high-elevation Destruction of habitat, logging, grazing, roadside Phlox amplifolia flowers from the Walker, Chattooga, Murray, •Deam, C. C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Division of Forestry, Dept. of Conservation, Indianapolis, Indiana. 1236 pp. phlox mesic hardwood forests. Mesic hardwood forest mowing, creation of powerline corridors and roadway latter part of May to September Gilmer. Also Dade & over basic soil.Slopes of rocky, calcareous construction (VA DNH 1992a, IN NHDC 1994). (Deam 1940, Gleason 1952, Whitfield . (Conasauga, •Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th edition. American Book Company, New York. woods Steyermark 1963, Radford et al. Coosawattee , Oostanaula + 1968, Fernald 1970, Gleason and Upper Coosa). •Fernald, M.L. 1970. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. 1970 printing with corrections by R.C. Rollins [of 1950 8th edition]. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. Cronquist 1991). •Gleason, H.A. 1952. The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 3 volumes. Hafner Press, New York. 1732 pp.

•Gleason, H.A., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Harvill, A.M., Jr., T.R. Bradley, C.E. Stevens, T.F. Wieboldt, D.M.E. Ware, and D.W. Ogle. 1986. Atlas of the Virginia flora. Second edition. Virginia Botanical Associates, Farmville. 135 pp.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1993. Species distribution data for vascular plants of 70 geographical areas, from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, July, 1993.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Medley, M.E. 1993. An annotated catalog of the known or reported vascular flora of Kentucky. PhD. dissertation. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.

•Moye, William S. 2006. Highly Ranked Plants of the South Mountain Region. Unpublished notes sent via email to Misty Franklin in February 2006.

•Pittillo, J.D. 1994. Natural areas inventory of Jackson County, North Carolina. Conservation Trust for North Carolina, Raleigh; Jackson County Dept. of Planning and Development; and NC Natural Heritage Program, DPR, Raleigh, NC.

•Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

•Smith, E.B. 1988b. An atlas and annotated list of the vascular plants of Arkansas. Second edition. Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 489 pp.

•Steyermark, J.A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 1728 pp.

•Weakley, Alan S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Unpublished mss. available as .pdf from the Herbarium, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1320 pp.

•White, P. S. 1982. The flora of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: an annotated checklist of the vascular plants and a review of previous work. USDI, National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, Res./Resources Manage. Rept. SER-55. 219 pp. Large purple-fringed orchid, Platanthera grandiflora Locally Rare, G5. Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal Rare to infrequent throughout its limited range, Surveys are best conducted Gilmer, Fannin, Union. •Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.). 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario.. Botany Division, National Museum of National Sciences, Ottawa. Greater Purple Fringed ponds: Mature high elevation mesic hardwood making it especially vulnerable to forest management during flowering (June–July). Orchid forest. Wet thickets and open northern practices (harvest, site prep, Rx fire), land-use •Brown, P.M. 1997. Wild Orchids of the Northeastern United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 236 pp. hardwood forests. Tuberculous roots can store conversion, and habitat fragmentation (Southern water, allowing them to survive temporary Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). Logging •Brownell, V.R. and C.S. Blaney. 1997. Summary Natural Area Reports for Natural Areas East of Rideau River. Prepared for Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Planning and Development Approvals Department. 324 pp. drought, they cannot survived extended drought and other mechanical clearing of habitat. Damming or ditching small streams. •Brunton, D.F. 1984. Nature Reserve Potential and Management in the National Capital Region on National Capital Commission Lands, Ontario/Quebec. Conservation Studies 29, National Capital Commission, Ottawa. Plant poaching. •Brunton, D.F. 1997. Summary: Natural Area Reports for Natural Areas West of Rideau River (500 series). Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Planning and Development Approvals Department. 164 pp.

•Case, F.W., Jr. 1987. Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region. Revised Edition. Bulletin 48, Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. 251 pp.

•Catling, P.M., V.R. Brownell, and G. Allen. 1999. A new natural hybrid fringed-orchid from Ontario. Lindleyana 14(2):77-86.

•Clelland, R. 1991. Americus naturalis: inventory of Virginia flora. Published by the author. 163 p.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp.

•Greenwood, E.W. 1972. A new species for survey recording, taxonomic changes in the purple fringed-orchids: Habenaria psycodes (L.) Spreng. and Habenaria grandiflora Torrey. Unpublished bulletin, Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club. 3 pp.

•Kartesz, J. T. 1991. Synonym names from 1991 checklist, as extracted by Larry Morse, TNC, June 1991.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•PALMER, E.H. 1935. HABENARIA GRANDIFLORA (BIGEL) (LARGE PURPLE FRINGED ORCHIS). BULL NAT HIST SOC MD 5(11):70-71.

•Reddoch, J.M. and A.H. Reddoch. 1997. The orchids in the Ottawa District: floristics, phytogeography, population studies and historical review. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111(1):1-185.

•Reddoch, J.[M.] 1976. Large Purple Fringed-orchid: a new-old species. Trail & Landscape 10: 130-135.

•STOUTAMIRE, W.P. 1974. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PURPLE FRINGED ORCHIDS PLATANTHERA PSYCODES AND P. GRANDIFLORA. BRITTONIA 26:42-58.

Spotted mandarin? Nodding Prosartes maculatum Locally Rare. Mature high elevation mesic Land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation Blooms April - May Approximately twelve •Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp. Mandarin , Yellow Mandarin forest. Mature, rich mesic hardwood forest: (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project occurences in Georgia slopes, ravines, or dry ridge crests 2002). Other threats include opening of the forest •Johnson, R. G. 1968. Notes on the Distribution of Disporum maculatum (Buckl.) Britton. Castanea 33:262-266. (Appalachian Mountains) canopy (i.e. clear-cut logging), digging by wildflower gardeners, or casual flower picking. •Jones, Q. 1951. A cytotaxonomic study of the genus Disporum in North America. Contibutions from the Gray Herbarium, 1951.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•McCance, R.M., Jr. and J.F. Burns. 1984. Ohio Endangered and Threatened Vascular Plants. Abstracts of State-listed Taxa. Department of Natural Resources. Columbus, Ohio.

•Natural Heritage Program Files. 1995. Unpublished data.

Fire cherry, Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica Locally Rare, G5. a short-lived, successional Destruction of understory in hardwood production Flowers bloom with the expanding Rabun, Towns, Union Anderson, Michelle D. 2004. Prunus pensylvanica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/prupen/all.html [2018, November 7]. tree in eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), leaves from late March through northern hardwood, and spruce (Picea spp.)-fir June. Fruit matures from July to (Abies spp.) forests. In the southern September and may persist on Appalachians it generally occurs between 2,500 trees through the autumn. Though and 4,500 feet. shade intolerant. commonly found on mesic sites with nutrient-rich soil is generally absent from wet sites. Optimum pH for is 5.0 to 6., though is also grows on more acidic soils Choke cherry, Virginia Bird Prunus virrginiana Locally Rare, G5. Mature high elevation mesic Land-use conversion, habitat fragmentation, and Bloom mid spring Towns, Habersham, •Cody, W.J. 1988. Plants of Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Agriculture Canada, Publication 1818/E, Ottawa ON. Cherry forest. Boulderfields in northern hardwood forest management practices (Southern Appalachian Lumpkin, White, Gilmer. forest. Species Viability Project 2002). Also Cherokee County •Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, eds. 1999. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 4, Dicotyledons (Orobanchaceae through Rubiaceae). B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, and B.C. Minist. For., Victoria. 427pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2014b. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 9. Magnoliophyta: Picramniaceae to Rosaceae. Oxford University Press, New York. xxiv + 713 pp.

•Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

•Herbarium, Museum of Man and Nature, 190 Rupert Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.

•Marshall, H.H. 1989. Pembina Hills Flora. Morden and District Museum Inc., Morden MB.

•McGregor, R.L., coordinator, and T.M. Barkley, R.E. Brooks, and E.K. Schofield, eds.: Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Univ. Press Kansas, Lawrence. 1392 pp.

•Punter, E. 1994. Inventory and annotated checklist of the vascular plants of the Manitoba Model Forest. Project 93-2-6.

•Scoggan, H.J. 1978. The Flora of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Publ. in Botany 7(4).

Virginai mountain mint Pycanthemum virginianum Locally Rare, G5. Glades and Berrens: Flowers from August to Towns. AlsoFloyd •Bouchard, A., D. Barabé, M. Dumais et S. Hay 1983. Les plantes vasculaires rares du Québec. Syllogeus no 48. Musées nationaux du Canada. Ottawa. 75 p. Woodlands, savannas, and grasslands. September Wet barrens and meadows. Gravelly shores, •Gill, L.S. 1981. Taxonomy, distribution and ecology of the Canadian Labiatae. Feddes Repertorium 92 : 33-93. meadows, dry to wet thickets. •Grant, E. et C. Epling. 1943. A study of Pycnanthemum (Labiatae). University of California Publications in Botany 20 195-240

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Rousseau, C. 1974. Géographie floristique du Québec-Labrador : Distribution des principales espèces vasculaires. Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec. 798 p.

Staghorn sumac Rhus typhina Locally Rare, G5. Early-succ essional forest. Is a first to second successional plant. Flowers from May to July, Murray, Towns, Fannin, Sullivan, Janet. 1994. Rhus typhina. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Open montane forest. Primarily a species of depending on latitude. Lumpkin, White U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, forest edges and disturbed The fruits are usually ripe by Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: sites. It occurs on the edges of many forest September and persist on the https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/rhutyp/all.html [2018, November 7]. types, and is a frequent tree through the winter member of early oldfield communities, particularly on dry soils

Dwarf palmetto Sabal minor Locally Rare. Found on a number of substrates Land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation are Morphologically distinct from S. Unknown •Kartesz, J.T. 1991. Accepted taxonomic names from November 1991 checklist, as extracted by Ken Wright, The Nature Conservancy, December 1992-January 1993. ranging from loamy limestone-derived soils to low-level threats (Southern Appalachian Species palmetto, because it lacks an sandy soils. Viability Project 2002). above ground stem. •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.

Red elderberry ,European Sambucus racemosa spp. Locally Rare, G5. Spruce-fir forests. Habitat modification, open canopy. Bloms May- June. One of the Towns •Cody, W.J., C.E. Kennedy, B.Bennett, and P. Caswell. 2004. New records of vascular plants in the Yukon Territory VI. Canadian Field-Naturalist 118(4): 558-578. Red Elder. Pubens High elevation summits and boulderfields. earliest native shrubs in bloom. Prefers shade and moist soils. Fast-growing and short-lived. •Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vasculr plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A., Volume 5. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

•Douglas, G.W. and G. Ruyle-Douglas. 1978. Contributions to the floras of British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. I. Vascular plants. Canadian Journal of Botany 56: 2296-2302.

•Douglas, G.W., G.W. Argus, H.L. Dickson, and D.F. Brunton. 1981. The rare vascular plants of the Yukon. Syllogeus No. 28. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 61 pp.

•Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

•Herbarium, Museum of Man and Nature, 190 Rupert Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

•Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.

•Punter, E. 1994. Inventory and annotated checklist of the vascular plants of the Manitoba Model Forest. Project 93-2-6.

•Scoggan, H.J. 1957. Flora of Manitoba. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin number 140.

•Scoggan, H.J. 1978. The Flora of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museum of Canada, Publ. in Botany 7(4). Canada burnet Sanguisorba canadensis Locally Rare G5 Yes Rabun Towns Union No GaDNR Heritage data and Forest Service Records Purple pitcher plant Sarracenia pupurea Locally Rare, G5. State Endangered. Bogs, Conversion of habitat to pine plantations, pastures, Blooms April–May; its pitchers Rabun, Union, White, Botanical Society of America. 2008. Carnivorous plants online. Fens Seeps, seasonal ponds: Mountain Bogs. and development. Fire suppression are distinctive throughout the Fannin. 4 populations from http://www.botany.org/carnivorous_plants/Sarracenia_purpurea.php and closure of canopy. Use of herbicides in growing season. Rabun Couty Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia powerline rights-of-way. Poaching. Off-road vehicle and University of Georgia Press, Athens. use. Digging by feral hogs. Ellison, A.M., H.L. Buckley, T.E. Miller, and N.J. Gotelli. 2004. Morphological variation in Sarracenia purpurea (Sarraceniaceae): geographic, environmental, and taxonomic correlates. American Journal of Botany 91(11): 1930–1935. 2004. Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States, Vol. 2, dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Godt, M.J. and J.L. Hamrick. 1999. Genetic divergence among infraspecific taxa of Sarracenia purpurea. Systematic Botany 23(4): 427-438. Honda, M. 2008. Insectivorous plants in the wilderness. http://www.honda-e.com/IPW_3_Description/TX-1PitcherPlants.htm International Carnivorous Plant Society. 2008. Carnivorous plant FAQ. http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5538.html AND http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq5542.html McDaniel, S. 1971. The genus Sarracenia. Bulletin 9, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. Naczi, R.F.C., E.M. Soper, F.W. Case, Jr., and R.A. Case. 1999. Sarracenia rosea (Sarraceniaceae), a new species of pitcherplant from the southeastern United States. Sida 18(4): 1183-1206. Ne'eman, G., Ne'eman, R. and A.M. Ellison. 2006. Limits to reproductive success of Sarracenia purpurea (Sarraceniaceae). American Journal of Botany 93:1660-1666. Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Schnell, D.E. 1979. A critical review of published variants of Sarracenia purpurea L. Castanea 44: 47-59. Schnell, D.E. 1993. Sarracenia purpurea L. ssp. venosa (Raf.) Wherry var. burkii Schnell (Sarraceniaceae) – a new variety of the Gulf coastal plain. Rhodora 95: 6-10. Schnell, D.E. and R.O. Determann. 1997. Sarracenia purpurea L. ssp. venosa (Raf.) Wherry var. montana Schnell & Determann (Sarraceniaceae) – a new variety. Castanea 62: 60-62. Schnell, D.E. 2002. Carnivorous plants of the United States and Canada, 2nd edition. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, Oregon. Stevens, T. 2002. An interview with Dr. Rob Naczi about Sarracenia rosea. Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 31: 87-90. Weakley A S 2008 Flora of the Carolinas Virginia Georgia northern Florida and surrounding Bottomland skullcap? Scutellaria nervosa Locally Rare, G5. Forested Floodplains. Wetland drainage. Flowering (late April–early Murray, Chattoga, Floyd, •Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy (eds.). 1982-1987. Atlas of the Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario.. Botany Division, National Museum of National Sciences, Ottawa. Veined Skullcap June). Putnum •Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed., Corr. Printing, 1970. Van Nostrand, New York. LXIV+1632 pp.

•Fritsch, P. 1992. Scutellaria nervosa (Lamiaceae), a species of skullcap new to Michigan. Michigan Botanist. 31: 37-38.

•Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Hough, M. Y. 1983. New Jersey Wild Plants. Harmony Press, Harmony, New Jersey. 414 pp.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Krings, A. 2001. A Scutellaria (Lamiaceae) New to North Carolina and a Key to the Small-Flowered Carolina Congeners. Sida 19(3): 735-739.

•Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

•Scutellaria nervosa: Benedict, J.E. SN (MARY) 1924-06-01; Frederick County, "Point of Rocks."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Frye, C.T. 6546 (TAWES) 2013-06-06; Allegany County, "Rich ravine along Fossil Run."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Lea, Chris SN (TAWES) 1994-06-09; Montgomery County, "White's Ferry Woods."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Leonard, E.C. 2705 (USDC) 1924-06-01; Frederick County, "mucky soil in wood lane, the grottoes near Point of Rocks."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Sheldon, E.S. SN (USDC) 1881-05-22; Montgomery County, "Great Falls, MD."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Simmons, R.H. SN (USDC) 1988-05; Charles County, "Chapmans Forest, shell-marl ravine forest."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Steele, E.S. SN (USDC) 1896-05-22; Montgomery, "Chatauqua."

•Scutellaria nervosa: Steury B W 020716 2 (USDC) 1997-05-15; Prince George's County "shell-marl ravine forest along Accokeek Creek " Showy Skullcap Scutellaria serrata Locally Rare, G4G5. Rich hardwood forests, Clearing, logging, and development in mountain Flowering (late April–early Gilmer, Fannin, Union. Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia usually on west-facing slopes. forests. June). and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Joshee, N., T.S. Patrick, R.S. Mentreddy, and A.K. Yadav. 2002. Skullcap: potential medicinal crop. In, J. Janick and A. Whipkey, Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, Virginia. http://www. hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-580.html NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www natureserve org/explorer Tree-toothed cinquefoil, Sibbaldiopsis tridentata Locally Rare, G5. Glades and barrens: Clearing, logging, development of high-elevation Flowering (June–August) Towns, Lumpkin, Union. Two Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia Mountain Cinquefoil Rockoutcrops and Cliffs. Grassy Balds. summits. Trampling by hikers and climbers. populations are known, both and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Rocky summits. High-elevation rocky clearings in the Chattahoochee Eriksson, T., M.J. Donoghue, and M.S. Hibbs. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of Potentilla using and mountaintop balds. National Forest. DNA sequences of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacers (ITS), and implications for the Life History: classification of Rosoideae (Rosaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 211: 155-179. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program Social Circle Biltmore carrionflower, Smilax biltmoreana Locally Rare, G3G4. Mature mesic hardwood Second home and commercial development has Distinguished by its ovate leaves Possibly Rabun, Habersham •Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp. Biltmore's Greenbrier forest. impacted some portion of this species habitat with glabrous and glaucous & Stephens (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project abaxial surfaces. •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 2002). •Moye, William S. 2006. Highly Ranked Plants of the South Mountain Region. Unpublished notes sent via email to Misty Franklin in February 2006.

White goldenrod.Prairie Solidago ptarmicoides Locally Rare G5. Glades and barrens. Flowers bloom July – aster Woodlands, savvanns, and grasslands. Dry, October.This goldenrod is very National Plant Data Center, NRCS, USDA.1996 Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. http://plants.usda.gov sandy, usually calcareous soils, cracks in unusual because it looks like an Reference for: Solidago ptarmicoides rocks, limestone pavements, rocky outcrops, aster, and it was even classified grassy slopes and prairies as an aster, Aster ptarmicoides, for many years American moutain ash, sorbus americana Locally Rare, G5. High elevation early Logging, clearing, and home-building on mountain Flowering (June–July) but Rabun, Towns, Union, Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia American rowan succession: Canopy gaps. summits and ridgelines leaves and growth form are Lumpkin . Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Grassy blads and Northern hardwood forest. distinctive throughout the growing Conservation Status: Five Foote, L.E. and S.B. Jones, Jr. 1989. Native shrubs and woody vines of the southeast. Timber Moist areas on rocky mountain tops, grassy season; bright orange-red leaves populations are known, most Press, Portland, Oregon. balds, openings in high-elevation hardwood are showy in the fall, and the in the Chattahoochee Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native trees of the southeast. Timber Press, forests. fruits last through the winter. National Forest. Portland, Oregon. Lance, R. 2004. Woody plants of the southeastern United States: a winter guide. University of Georgia Press, Athens. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Peattie, D.C. 1966. Natural history of trees of eastern and central North America, 2nd edition. Bonanza Books, New York. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm

Hardhack, Hardbark spirea, Spireae tomentosa Locally Rare, G5. Open wetlands: Early Flowering is July to September. Rabun, Towns, Union, Aldén, B., S. Ryman, & M. Hjertson Svensk Kulturväxtdatabas, SKUD (Swedish Cultivated and Utility Plants Database; online resource on www.skud.info). 2012 (Kulturvaxtdatabas) Spirarea, Steeplebush successional forest. Is a NNIS in several European Lumpkin 3.Gleason, H. A. & A. Cronquist Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, ed. 2. 1991 (Glea Cron ed2) Wet meadows, moist old fields, bogs and Countries. 4.Jarvis, C. Order out of chaos: Linnean plant names and their types. 2007 (Linn PlNames) swamps; lake edges, marshes, dunes, roadside 5.Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Hortus third. (Hortus 3) swales 6.Magee, D. W. & H. E. Ahles Flora of the Northeast. A manual of the vascular flora of New England and adjacent New York. (F NE US) 7.Radford, A. E. et al. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. (F Carolin) 8.Rhoads, A. F. & T. A. Block The plants of Pennsylvannia. An illustrated manual. 2000 (F Penn) 9.Scoggan, H. J. The flora of Canada, 4 vol. (F Canada) 10.Tutin, T. G. et al., eds. Flora europaea. (F Eur) 11.Walters, S. M. et al., eds. European garden flora. (Eur Gard F) 12.Welsh, S. L. et al. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Mem. 9. (F Utah)

Oval ladies' tresses Spiraea ovalis Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood It produces delicate white flowers Green, Walker, Gordon, Spiranthes ovalis. Natural Resources Conservation Service PLANTS Database. USDA. Retrieved 13, November, 2018s". County-level distribution map from the North American Plant Atlas (NAPA). Biota of North America Program (BONAP). 2014. Retrieved 13, November, 2018 forest: Late successional riparian. Seepy in the fall. It can be distinguished Towns, Stephens, Floyd, Spiranthes ovalis North American Orchid Conservation Center stream margins, floodplain forest. from other Spiranthes in eastern Union Alan Weakley (2015). "Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States". North America by its small, tightly Flora of North America, Spiranthes ovalis spiraled flowers, and the presence of basal leaves at flowering time

Hedge nettle Stachys nuttallii Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood Walker, Murray, Floyd, •Kartesz, J. T. 1991. Synonym names from 1991 checklist, as extracted by Larry Morse, TNC, June 1991. forest. Mesic hardwood forest on basic soils, Chattooga, Gordon Alluvial floodplains. Wet to moist hardwood •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. forests in north Georgia. •Kartesz, J.T. 1996. Species distribution data at state and province level for vascular plant taxa of the United States, Canada, and Greenland (accepted records), from unpublished data files at the North Carolina Botanical Garden, December, 1996.

•NELSON, T.B., AND J.E. FAIREY, III. 1979. MISAPPLICATION OF THE NAME STACHYSNUTTALLII (LAMIACEAE) TO A NEW SOUTHEASTERN SPECIES. BRITTONIA 31(4):491-494.

•Natural Heritage Program Files. 1996. Unpublished.

•Nelson, J. B. 2008a. A new hedge-nettle (Stachys: Lamiaceae) from the interior highlands of the United States, and keys to the southeastern species. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 2(2):761-769.

•Pringle, J.S.2002. Nomenclature of the heart-leaved hedge-nettle, Stachys cordata (Lamiaceae). Sida 20: 583-584. Mountain camellia Stewartia ovata Locally Rare, G5. Mature hemlock forest: Late Stewartia ovata is wide ranging but infrequent; it is Blooms June - July •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. successional riparian. threatened by land-use conversion, habitat fragmentation, and interspecific factors - it seems to •Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp. have difficulty becoming widely established (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). •Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Rosy twisted stalk , eastern Streptopus lanceolatus Locally Rare, G5. High elevation boulderfields. Logging and clearing in mountain coves and Flowering (April–mid-May) and Towns, Union . Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia twisted stalk, eastern rose Rich, moist, high-elevation coves and boulderfields fruiting (June–July). Conservation Status: Plants and University of Georgia Press, Athens. mandarin boulderfields are known from only two FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. sites, both in the Oxford University Press, New York. Chattahoochee National Hemmerly, T.E. 2000. Appalachian wildflowers. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Forest. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Dwarf filmy fern Trichomanes petersii Locally Rare, G5 .Rock outcrops and cliffs. On Habitat degredation, trampling. Habersham , Stephens, •Flora of North America Editorial Center for Bryophytes. 2008. Sarmentypnum. In: Bryophyte Flora of North America volume 2: Acrocarpous Mosses, Part 2, and Pleurocarpous Mosses (= Flora of North America Vol. 28). Online. Available: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/V2/CallSarmentypnum.htm (Accessed 2011). tree trunks and noncalcareous rocks in deep Walker Also in Georgia: narrow gorges Coffee, Dade, Polk •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Tufted club rush, Deerhair Trichophorum caespitosum Locally Rare, G5. High elevation, seepy areas. Air pollution is a potential threat to high elevation SCIRPUS CESPITOSUS could Rabun •Cody, W.J. 1988. Plants of Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Agriculture Canada, Publication 1818/E, Ottawa ON. Bulrush, Tufted Bulrush habitats (Southern Appalachian Species Viability easily be mistaken for a species Project 2002). of ELEOCHARIS; however, the •Crins, W.J. 2002. Trichophorum Persoon. Pages 28-31 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee (Editors), Flora of North America, North of Mexico, Volume 23, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. 608pp + xxiv. former has spikelets subtended by a short-awned scale, while the •Crins, W.J. 2002. Trichophorum Persoon. Pages 28-31 in Flora of North America Editorial Committee (Editors), Flora of North America, North of Mexico, Volume 23, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA. 608pp + xxiv. latter do not. ELEOCHARIS CESPITOSUS forms large, •Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, eds. 2001. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 6, Monocotyledons (Acoraceae through Najadaceae). B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, and B.C. Minist. For., Victoria, BC. 361pp. distinctive tussocks. •Fernald, M.L. 1921. The North American representatives of Scirpus cespitosus. Rhodora 23: 22-25.

•Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. D. Van Nostrand, New York. 1632 pp.

•Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 16+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 1, 1993; vol. 2, 1993; vol. 3, 1997; vol. 4, 2003; vol. 5, 2005; vol. 7, 2010; vol. 8, 2009; vol. 19, 2006; vol. 20, 2006; vol. 21, 2006; vol. 22, 2000; vol. 23, 2002; vol. 24, 2007; vol. 25, 2003; vol. 26, 2002; vol. 27, 2007. [floraofnorthamerica.org]

•Glaser, P.H. 1983. Carex exilis and Scirpus cespitousus var. calosus in patterned fens in northern Minnesota. Michigan Botanist 22: 22-26.

•Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. 910 pp.

•Greuter, W., J. McNeill, F.R. Barrie, H.M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T.S. Filgueiras, D.H. Nicolson, P.C. Silva, J.E. Skog, P. Trehane, N.J. Turland, and D.L. Hawksworth (editors). 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) adopted by the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress, St. Louis, Missouri, July- August 1999. Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, Germany.

•Herbarium, Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

•Herbarium, Museum of Man and Nature, 190 Rupert Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

•Hollingsworth, P.M. and G.A. Swan. 1999. Genetic differentiation and hybridisation among subspecies of deergrass (Trichophorum cespitosum (L.) Hartman) in Northumberland. Watsonia 22: 235-242.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

•Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A Synonymized Checklist and Atlas with Biological Attributes for the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First Edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, NC. Starflower Trientalis borealis Locally Rare, G5. Mature high-elevation mesic Logging, clearing, and road-building Flowering and fruiting (May– Murray, Gilmer, Union, Anderson, R.C. and M.H. Beare. 1983. Breeding system and pollination ecology of Trientalis hardwod forest. Northern hardwood forest, June). Towns, Lumpkin. Georgia borealis (Primulaceae). American Journal of Botany 70(3): 408-415. rocky. Moist, deciduous northern hardwood Conservation Status: Eight Anderson R.C. and O.L. Loucks. 1973. Aspects of the biology of Trientalis borealis Raf. forests and boulderfields. populations are known, all in Ecology 54: 798-808. the Chattahoochee National Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia Forest. and University of Georgia Press, Athens. Duncan, W.H. 1970. The southern limits of Trientalis borealis. Rhodora 72: 489-492. Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, 2nd edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York. Hemmerly, T.E. 2000. Appalachian wildflowers. University of Georgia Press, Athens. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Smith, R.M. 1998. Wildflowers of the southern mountains. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. Pale yellow trillium Trillium discolor Locally Rare, G4. Mature mesic hardwood Logging and clearing of hardwood slopes, damming Flowering late March–early Stephens. Georgia Bale, M.T., J.A. Zettler, B.A. Robinson, T.P. Spira, and C.R. Allen. 2003. Yellow jackets may be forest. Mesic hardwood fores. streams and flooding ravines, May. Conservation Status: About an underestimated component of an ant-seed mutualism [in T. discolor]. Southeastern Naturalist overbrowsing by deer, and invasion by exotic pest 10 populations are known, 2(4): 609-614. plants, especially Japanese honeysuckle and most on the Chattahoochee Crowell, W.L., Jr. 1996. Element stewardship abstract for Trillium discolor, faded trillium. The kudzu. National Forest and U.S. Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Army Corps of Engineers Duncan, W.H. and M.B. Duncan. 1999. Wildflowers of the eastern United States. University of land. Georgia Press, Athens. Farmer, S.B. 2006. Trillium and the Trillium family (Trilliaceae). http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium Farmer, S.B. and E.E. Schilling. 2002. Phylogenetic analyses of Trilliaceae based on morphological and molecular data. Systematic Botany 27: 674-692. FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York. Freeman, John D. 1975. Revision of Trillium subgenus Phyllantherum (Liliaceae). Brittonia 27:1-26. Harbison, T.G. 1901. New or little known species of Trillium. Biltmore Botanical Studies 1(1): 19-24. Marinelli, J. 2005. Perfume for pollinators. Brooklyn Botanic Garden Plants & Gardens News 20(2). http://www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/wildlife/2005su_makingstink.html Patrick, T.S. 2007. Trilliums of Georgia. Tipularia, Journal of the Georgia Botanical Society 22: 3 - 22. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Barksdale trillium, Southern Trillium sulcatum Locally Rare, G4. Mature mesic hardwood Logging and clearing of hardwood slopes, damming Blooms April - May Walker and Dade County Patrick, T. S. 1984. Trillium sulcatum (Liliaceae), a new species of the southern Appalachians. Brittonia 36: 26–36.. US Plants Database Retrived Nov, 13, 2018https://uswildflowers.com/detail.php?SName=Trillium%20sulcatum Red Trillium, Furrowed forest: Matuer hemlock forest. Mesic hardwood streams and flooding ravines, (Cloudland Canyon State Wakerobin forest.rich woodlands, usually on moist north or overbrowsing by deer, and invasion by exotic pest Park). east facing ledges, slopes, and streambanks. plants.

Horse gentian, feverwort Triosteum aurantiacum Locally Rare, G5. Basic mesic forests: Flowers May - June Union, Fannin, Lumpkin, •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Woodlands, savannas and grasslands. Gilmer, Towns, White Woodlands over circum nuetral soil. Forested •Wiegand, K.M. 1923. Notes on Triosteum perfoliatum and related species. Rhodora 25:199-203. habitats on calcareous soils. Open, often mesic, woodlands.

Three-birds orchid Triphora trianthophora Locally Rare, G3. Mature mesic hardwood Conversion of habitat to pine plantations and flowering (July–frost). Towns, Walker. Georgia Brown, P.M. and S.N. Folsom. 2002. Wild orchids of Florida. University Press of Florida, forest. Loamy soils with harwoods and developments, disturbance to soil and Individual flowers usually last only Conservation Status: Seven Gainesville. rhododendron. Floodplain terraces along ground layers, removal of canopy trees, and for one day, from mid-morning to populations are known, 6 on Brown, P.M. and S.N. Folsom. 2004. Wild orchids of the southeastern United States, north of creeks in the Piedmont, moist hardwood forests competition from invasive pest plants. mid-afternoon, although a public lands, including the peninsular Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. and colony may flower for several Okefenokee National Wildlife Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia rhododendron thickets in the mountains, moist days. Plants do not emerge every Refuge and Chattahoochee and University of Georgia Press, Athens. hardwood hammocks in the Coastal Plain. In year, and population sizes may National Forest. FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. northern states, three birds orchid is usually fluctuate greatly from year to Oxford University Press, New York. associated with beech trees. year. Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States, Vol. 1, monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Luer, C.A. 1975. The native orchids of the United States and Canada, excluding Florida. New York Botanical Garden, New York. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Ramstetter, J.M. 2001. Conservation and research plan: Triphora trianthophora (Swartz) Rydb., three birds orchid. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts. www.newenglandwildflower.org/conserve/pdf/Triphoratrianthophora.pdf Tenaglia, D. 2006. Missouri plants: photographs and descriptions of flowering and nonflowering plants of Missouri. htttp://www.missouriplants.com Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill.

Bearberry, Southern Vaccinium erythrocarpum Locally Rare, G5. Table mountain pine forests, Blooms June-July. Also native in Rabun, Towns, Union White 2000. database, The PLANTS Database Mountain Cranberry, Rock outcrops and cliffs: Shrub blads: Mature China, Japan and Korea Ericaceae of North America Update Mountain Blueberry, high-elevation mesic hardwood forest. Orrell T. (custodian) (2015). ITIS Regional: The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (version Dec 2014). In: Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 26th August 2015 (Roskov Y., Abucay L., Orrell T., Nicolson D., Kunze T., Flann C., Bailly N., Kirk P., Bourgoin T., DeWalt R.E., Decock W., De Wever A., eds). Digital resource at Dingleberry Mixed oak-heath forest. www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.

American flase hellebore, Veratrum viride Locally Rare, G5. Mature mesic hardwood Is toxic to domestic animals and considered a weed Towns, White, Union, •Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, eds. 2001. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia, Vol. 6, Monocotyledons (Acoraceae through Najadaceae). B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, and B.C. Minist. For., Victoria, BC. 361pp. Green False Hellebore forest. Seepy northern hardwood forest.wet by many. Fannin, Gilmer, Habersham soils in meadows, sunny streambanks, and •Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002a. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol. 26. Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxvi + 723 pp. open forests •Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Ozark bunchflower, Wood’s Veratrum woodii Locally Rare, G5. Mesic forest over basic Logging and clearing of hardwood forests, Flowering (July–September); Stephens, Walker. Georgia Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia and University of Georgia Press, Athens. false hellebore soils.Lower slopes and stream terraces in overbrowsing by deer, competition from exotic pest however, plants may flower only Conservation Status: Twenty Ebinger, J. 1996. Flowering in false hellebore (Veratrum woodii, Liliaceae) populations in east-central Illinois. Castanea 61(1): 46-48. moist, hardwood forests, usually over basic plants. every few years. populations are known, 4 on FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York. soils. conservation lands. Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP2. United States Forest Service, Atlanta. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer North American Pollinator Protection Campaign and the Pollinator Partnership. 2009. Selecting plants for pollinators: a regional guide for farmers, land managers, and gardeners in the ecological region of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (draft). http://www.pollinator.org/PDFs/Guides/Laurentianrx10FINAL.pdf Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Tenaglia, D. 2006. Missouri plants: photographs and descriptions of flowering and non-flowering plants of Missouri. htttp://www.missouriplants.com Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm Zomlefer, W.B., W.M. Whitten, N.H. Williams, and W.S. Judd. 2003. Overview of Veratrum s.l. (Liliales: Melanthiaceae) and an infrageneric phylogeny based on ITS sequence data. Systematic Botany 28(2): 250-269.

American dog violet viola conspersa Locally Rare, G5. Bogs, Fens Seeps, seasonal Blooms April - July Gleason, Henry A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Second Ed. ponds: Mature high-elevation mesic hardwood The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY forests. moist rich woodlands, swampy Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. woodlands, and moist meadows in wooded Indiana Academy of Science. The Morton Arboretum. Lisle, Illinois. areas. Sometimes this violet is found in slightly sandy habitats that are similar to the preceding USDA, NRCS. 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). ones. Dominant canopy trees in these habitats are typically ash, maple, or elm. Dog Violet is National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. found in higher quality habitats where the original ground flora is still intact. Turkeybeard Xerophyllum asphodeloides Locally Rare, G5. Table mountain pine forest: Logging and other mechanical clearing. Conversion Flowering (late May–June). Murray, Fannin, Dawson, Bourg, N.A. and D.E. Gill. 2000. Ecological effects of fire on Xerophyllum asphodeloides, a rare Woodlands, savannas, and grasslands. of habitat to pine plantations and Plants die after flowering but non- Rabun, Lumpkin. Georgia Appalachian lily. In, Yaussy, D.A. Proceedings of a workshop on fire, people, and the central Xeric oak-pine forest. Dry woods with Virginia, developments. Fire suppression, canopy closure, and flowering leaf clumps are Conservation Status: Ten hardwoods landscape, March 12-14, 2000, Richmond, Kentucky. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-274. shortleaf, or table mountain pine; dry bluffs with shrub encroachment. Plant poaching. recognizable all year. Fly-poison populations are known, 2 on Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, mountain (Amianthium muscaetoxicum) has national forest land, 3 on Pennsylvania. laurel and rhododendron. similar flowers and a flowering state Bourg, N., D. Gill, and W. McShea, J. Kress. 2002. Fire and its role in metapopulation dynamics stalk 12 - 48 inches (0.3 - 1.2 conservation lands. of turkeybeard (Xerophyllum asphodeloides), a rare forest herb. Abstract, Ecological Society of meters) tall, but its leaves are America Annual Meeting. http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/esa2002/document/17064 wider, ¼ - 1 inch (0.5 - 2.8 cm) Center for Plant Conservation. 2009. National collection plant profile. wide, and are not stiff, wiry, or http://www.centerforplantconservation.org toothed; it typically occurs in Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia moister habitats than eastern and University of Georgia Press, Athens. turkeybeard. FNA. 2003. Flora of North America, Vol. 26, Magnoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York. Horn, D., T. Cathcart, T.E. Hemmerly, and D. Duhl. 2005. Wildflowers of Tennessee, the Ohio Valley, and the southern Appalachians. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Lewis, L. 2002. Rare burst of blooms shows bright side of wildfires. National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0625_020701_fireecology.html NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer. Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Utech, F.H. 1978. Comparison of the vascular floral anatomy of Xerophyllum asphodeloides (L.) Nutt. and X. tenax (Pursh) Nutt. (Liliaceae-Melanthioideae). Annals of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 47: 147-167. Vance, N.C., P. Bernhardt, R.M. Edens. 2004. Pollination and seed production in Xerophyllum tenax (Melanthiaceae) in the Cascade Range of central Oregon. American Journal of Botany (91): 2060-2068. Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm