Appendix B Biological Assessment

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for Activities Related to

Vegetation, Fire, Wildlife Habitat and Transportation Management in the Dinkey Project Area

Cherokee National Forest South Zone Polk County, Tennessee

Prepared by Philip Earhart South Zone Wildlife Biologist 250 Ranger Station Road Tellico Plains, TN 37385 (423) 253-8400 (voice) (423) 253-2804 (fax) [email protected]

Reviewed by Mary Miller Forest Wildlife Biologist 2800 Ocoee Street North Cleveland, TN 37312 423-476-9756 [email protected]

With input from Mark Pistrang, Botanist Jim Herrig, Fisheries Biologist

November 8, 2016

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 ACTION AREA, SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...... 1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA TO BE EMPLOYED ...... 7 2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY ...... 8 3.0 SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED ...... 8 4.0 HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS ...... 9 4.1 GRAY BAT ...... 10 4.2 INDIANA BAT ...... 12 4.3 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT ...... 14 4.4 SMALL WHORLED POGONIA ...... 16 5.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS ...... 18 6.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF PREPARER(S)...... 19 7.0 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES ...... 19 ATTACHMENT A ...... 24 PRC*...... 24 ATTACHMENT B ...... 27

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to document any potential effects of the proposed action on Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened (PET) species or their habitat, and to ensure land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. The objectives of this assessment are to:

1) Ensure Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any plant or animal species. 2) Comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions by Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species. 3) Provide a process and a standard by which PET species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

These objectives are in compliance with direction given in Forest Service Manual 2670 (USDA FS 2005).

1.1 ACTION AREA, SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The action area for wildlife and plant resources includes the project area (approximately 3,734 acres) and the encompassing private lands for a total of approximately 5,773 acres. The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal actions and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. These spatial bounds were chosen because vegetative cover types, forest structure, and habitats are similar. These bounds also allow for a “snap-shot” of the overall current condition of a selected area and to focus management needs and analysis in that area. Bounds for cumulative effects include any reasonably foreseeable activities (next 10 years) on state and private lands within the action area.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 1

The environmental baseline provides context for the impacts of the proposed action with regard to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable federal, state, and private actions within the action area that may be affecting listed species. The activities in the table below are activities within the action area that have received concurrence from the USFWS (10 years prior (2004) to 10 years post-treatment (2024)) or have occurred on private lands.

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Regeneration harvest on private lands Rough Creek and Laurel Branch Rough Creek and Laurel Branch prescribed burns prescribed burns Noxious weed treatments Noxious weed treatments Noxious weed treatments Hemlock wooly adelgid treatment Hemlock wooly adelgid treatment

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 2

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION

Vegetation and Forest Health Improvements

Maintain or restore natural oak and oak-pine communities and create early-successional habitat through shelterwood with reserves type harvest on approximately 52 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly upland sites that would support mostly “dry to mesic oak forest” or “dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests”.

Maintain or restore shortleaf pine, pitch pine and associated pine-oak communities and create early-successional habitat through seedtree and clear-cut with reserves type harvest on approximately 178 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly ridge sites that would support “xeric pine and pine-oak forests.”

All treatment areas proposed for shelterwood, seedtree, and clear-cut with reserves would require pre-harvest and post-harvest site preparation and timber stand improvement release treatments:

• Pre-harvest understory/mid-story site preparation: mid-story species would be treated by a cut surface method along with an herbicide (imazapyr and/or glyphosate) to reduce post-harvest sprouting of overly-competitive species. Major species targeted for treatment include red maple, white pine, yellow poplar and rhododendron between 1 to 5.9 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Treatment would occur prior to harvest, where applicable. Species not treated include hard and soft mast producing species. • Post-harvest site preparation: site preparation would include mechanical slash down (chainsaw) of residual species between 1 to 5.9 inches DBH if any are present that might inhibit healthy growth of regeneration. Major species targeted for treatment include red maple, white pine, yellow poplar and rhododendron. Treatment would occur post-harvest, where applicable. Species not treated include hard- and soft-mast producing species. Lastly, a site preparation prescribed burn would follow slash down treatments. The site preparation burns would be during either growing or dormant season. • Planting: enrichment of oaks would be planted at a 30x30 foot spacing and a planting of shortleaf pine at a 15x15 foot spacing would be implemented after site preparation burn treatment. Planting would help ensure there is a source of desirable tree species in the understory. • Timber stand improvement (TSI) release treatment: Where applicable, two years after planting, a release treatment would be applied to ensure desired conditions are achieved. The need for a fifth and/or seventh year TSI release treatment would be determined during post-harvest monitoring. The TSI release would chemically (triclopyr) treat post- harvest, overly-competitive sprouts of undesirable species such as red maple, white pine, yellow poplar and rhododendron that would inhibit the growth of desirable species of oaks and shortleaf pine. Species not treated include dogwood and other hard- and soft- mast producing species.

Silvicultural intermediate treatments: • Thinning- 356 acres commercial harvest, 32 acres non-commercial cut and leave for the purpose of increasing stand age and structure diversity and wildlife habitat for those

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 3

species that require openings in the tree canopy. Priority for removal would first be damaged and diseased trees followed by red maple, white pine, yellow poplar, scarlet oak and black oak. Favored reserve trees include den trees, large and long-lived mast- producing trees and long-lived yellow pine. Likely species to leave would include black gum, white oak, hickory, chestnut oak and yellow pine. Each stand would be variable density marked resulting in areas of higher basal area where favorable leave trees may be clumped. Areas where fewer favorable leave trees occur may result in lower basal area, but the overall stand basal area would be within the range of 50-69 square feet. • Post-harvest prescribed burn: A growing or dormant season prescribed burn needed for site preparation to limit competition of undesirable species with desired species and to promote oak regeneration in compartment 362, stands 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41 would be implemented when optimal post-harvest burning conditions and coordination with State of Georgia Forestry Commission are met. • TSI release treatment: The need for a fifth and/or seventh year TSI release treatment would be determined during post-harvest monitoring. The TSI release would chemically (triclopyr) treat post-harvest, overly-competitive undesirable sprouts of undesirable species such as red maple, white pine, yellow poplar and rhododendron that would inhibit the growth of oaks and shortleaf pine. Species not treated include dogwood and hard- and soft-mast producing species.

Silvicultural treatments within the expanded streamside management zone- 75 acres: • Within the expanded streamside management zone (the area 100-200 feet away from the stream), merchantable trees would be marked based on a 50% canopy reduction and pulled out by cable for the purpose of increasing stand age and structure diversity and wildlife habitat for those species that require openings in the tree canopy. Priority for removal would first be damaged and diseased trees followed by white pine, red maple, scarlet oak, and black oak. Favored reserve trees include den trees, large and long-lived mast-producing trees and long-lived yellow pine. Likely species to leave would include black gum, white oak, hickory, chestnut oak, yellow poplar and yellow pine.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burn O-52 Laurel Branch and O-53 Stillhouse in the growing or dormant season. These units total approximately 1,681 acres. Burn areas would typically be burned at 2-5 year intervals, depending on vegetative response. Pre- and post-burn monitoring would be implemented to determine burn frequencies, seasonality, and intensities. Fire intensity would vary depending on vegetation type, slope, aspect and weather conditions. Higher fire intensities would be expected on ridge tops and in dry oak or yellow pine forest types. In order to minimize fire line construction, the burn block would employ natural or existing man-made fuel breaks such as streams/shoreline and roads. Approximately 1,046 feet of dozer line and 0.24 miles of hand line would be constructed as holding lines. Some of the objectives of burning are described below: • Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities throughout the planning area, specifically improving habitat for game and non-game species and managing for identified natural plant communities. • Create canopy gaps for birds requiring a well-developed understory

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 4

• Manage competing vegetation. Low-value, poor-quality, shade-tolerant hardwoods often occupy or encroach upon land best suited for pine and oak species. Unwanted species may crowd or suppress pine and oak seedlings. Prescribed fire could be used to limit competition of undesirable species with desired species. Prescribed fire may also be used in mature hardwood stands to control the composition of advanced regeneration to favor oak species. • Reduce fuel accumulations to acceptable levels thereby reducing the possibility of severe wildfire events from occurring and damaging natural resources, recreation, and wildland-urban interface areas present near the project area. • Perpetuate oak-pine/grassland and woodland cover types by increasing the amount of available sunlight to the ground to encourage native grasses and forbs to re-establish and improve habitat conditions for fire-adapted plant species. • Maintain grass, forb, and shrub understories in wildlife stand improvement areas. • Maintain open timber stands; produce vegetative changes and increase numbers and visibility of flowering annuals and biennials.

Wildlife Habitat Improvements

Wildlife stand improvement, mid-story reduction (non-commercial)- 444 acres The stands proposed for mid-story reduction are composed predominately of mixed oak or pine- oak forest types. Several stands are mixed mesophytic hardwood. The understory in most stands is predominately lacking due to overstocked stands with little sunlight reaching the forest floor. Mast producing species such as oak and hickory are being encroached by Virginia pine, maple, rhododendron or other competing species. Ridge tops and stands classified as “xeric” or “dry” contain off-site white pine that is also competing with oaks, hickories, and yellow pines. The objective is to improve wildlife habitat diversity by reducing the mid-story component of the stands to allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thus increasing grass, forb, and shrub production. Reducing the mid-story component of these stands could also improve mast production by releasing the crowns of mast producing species; an emphasis for Prescription 8.C. Mid-story reduction reduces competition for resources such as sunlight, water and nutrients. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs are important browse for various wildlife species (including black bears) as well as nesting habitat for a variety of bird species. Hard mast is an important food source for many wildlife species, including black bears.

A diameter class cut ranging from 1-8 inches diameter breast height (DBH) would be used to select trees for mid-story removal. Chainsaws would be used to fell mid-story trees while retaining oaks, hickories, and shortleaf pine and/or pitch pine in addition to most soft mast producers (black cherry, dogwood, service berry). Parameters for selecting trees for removal include: low-value wildlife species (such as Virginia pine), poor growth form, and disease. Felled trees would be left and utilized as micro-habitats by forest floor species. Snags would be retained unless they pose a safety hazard.

There are five stands where rhododendron is the dominant species, compartment 347, stands 2, 9, 11, 13 and 14. The rhododendron in these stands would be treated with a cut and stump herbicide (imazypry or triclopyr) application.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 5

Wildlife pond construction- up to 30 ponds

Wildlife ponds provide valuable water sources for game and non-game animals, including the endangered Indiana bat, threatened Northern long-eared bat, and also provide habitat for amphibians. Pond locations would be selected in areas where water sources or pond habitat is needed. The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) objective is to provide a water source every 0.5 miles.

Ponds would typically be located in log landings, skid trails, openings, and old roads accessing project areas. Ponds are small (0.1 acre or less) and shallow with gradually sloping sides to provide amphibian habitat in the edges of the pond. Ponds would typically be built in terrain that is fairly flat and in areas that provide good watershed for holding water for a portion of the year (ponds may be ephemeral and dry up during summer months). A bulldozer would be used to construct ponds.

Nest box installation- up to 60 boxes

Artificial roost boxes for bats would be installed to provide additional roosting habitat. Boxes may provide roost sites for the endangered Indiana bat or threatened Northern long-eared bat. Nest boxes for cavity nesting birds or small mammals would also be placed in forest stands to provide habitat for animals where natural cavities are limited.

Nesting boxes would be installed on trees or poles. Boxes would be placed in proposed silvicultural or wildlife stand improvement areas and/or log landings.

Wildlife Plantings- 10 acres

Mast producing species are important food sources for many species of wildlife. Provide or increase the amount of quality mast producing plants throughout the project area for wildlife forage by planting native hard or soft mast producing trees and/or shrubs in log landings, temporary roads, skid trails, or other open areas created by project activities.

Transportation Improvements

Reconstruct approximately 1.29 miles of existing Nation Forest Service Roads (NFSRs) to bring them up to haul standards. Work would consist of widening curves, spot placing gravel, brushing, minor re-shaping, cleaning and constructing dips and other drainage structures to improve overall drainage, upgrading culverts, and replacing gates.

Construct approximately 2.7 miles of temporary roads to access treatment units. Temporary roads would be closed and stabilized following completion of the project.

Decommission a portion of NFSR #65 (Sholey Branch) that crosses Tumbling Creek totaling approximately .49 miles.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 6

Perform pre-haul maintenance on approximately .6 miles of NFSRs to prepare the roads for timber haul.

Add approximately .45 mile NFSR #33621 to the system where it would intersect with CR #158 in Georgia. This newly constructed road would be used to replace the portion of NFSR #33621 that currently fords Tumbling Creek because the section crossing Tumbling Creek would be decommissioned.

1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA TO BE EMPLOYED

Proposed management actions would be conducted in accordance with the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) (USDA FS 2004a) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (FEIS) (USDA FS 2004b) on a site-by-site basis. All Forest-wide standards would be followed except that prescribed burning may occur after May 1 in accordance with the Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat Biological Opinions.

The following forest wide standards and design criteria will be followed including but not limited to:

1. Use broad-based dips or water bars on all access ways on non-level slopes. 2. Implement Tennessee Best Management Practices (BMPs) as a minimum to achieve soil and water quality objectives. When Forest Plan (RLRMP) Standards exceed BMPs, the standards shall take precedence over Tennessee BMPs. 3. Streamside management zones (riparian corridors and filter zones) would be established, as specified in the RLRMP. 4. Any new threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species locations discovered within a project area may result in all actions being delayed or interrupted within the area. The appropriate district wildlife/fisheries biologist or botanist would be consulted to determine effects of the action on the species. 5. Trees known to have been used as roosts by Indiana bats or Northern long-eared bats are protected from cutting and/or modification until they are no longer suitable as roost trees unless necessary for public safety. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must occur before cutting or modification within 150 feet. 6. Snags with exfoliating bark are not intentionally felled unless necessary for public safety. Exceptions may be made for small-scale projects such as insect/disease control, salvage harvesting, and facility construction. 7. During all silvicultural treatments in hardwood forest types, retention priority is given to the largest available trees that exhibit characteristics favored by roosting Indiana and Northern long-eared bats. 8. Mixing-water for herbicide use would be brought to the site by work crews and not obtained from streams or other bodies of water. 9. No herbicide would be applied within 30 feet of open water except for selective treatments that use herbicides labeled for aquatic use.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 7

10. Skid trails and temporary roads for the purpose of timber harvest would not be constructed for sustained distances over 200 feet in areas with slopes of 40% or greater (“steep area”). The 200-foot length can be exceeded however where the skid trail and/or temporary road is needed to traverse a steep area in order to access the remaining harvest unit(s). Trees within the traversed steep area would not be harvested, except where possible through cable winching to equipment placed outside the steep area.

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

Informal consultation/conferencing between the Forest Service, Cherokee National Forest and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, Tennessee began in June 2014. Laura Morris (USFS) notified David Pelren (USFWS) regarding the Dinkey Project. Philip Earhart (USFS) contacted David Pelren (USFWS) in January of 2016 regarding the updated status of the Dinkey Project and discussed the implementation of the programmatic biological opinions for Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Tennessee Field Office, issued a final Biological Opinion on January 22, 2015 addressing potential impacts of South Zone CNF management on the Indiana bat. This project is consistent with the guidelines of the Biological Opinion.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the final 4(d) rule and Programmatic Biological Opinion which identifies Endangered Species Act protections for the northern long-eared bat, published in the Federal Register January 14, 2016. The final 4(d) rule and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Biological Opinion will go into effect on February 16, 2016. This project is consistent with the guidelines of the Biological Opinion.

3.0 SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED

Analysis of the project was conducted using best available science. Using information from project area habitat conditions, species habitat requirements, and species distributions and limiting factors, the entire 2001 Cherokee National Forest PET list was reviewed to determine if any PET species were likely to occur in or near the project area. Element Occurrence Record Database Maps that include Tennessee Natural Heritage and Cherokee National Forest data (2014) were examined to locate any records of PET species currently in the project area. Other pertinent survey data for this area include botanical surveys (Copperhead Consulting 2013) and bat surveys (Cochran et al. 1999, Cochran et al. 2000, Copperhead Environmental Consulting 2009, Sewell et al. 2007, Harvey et al. 1991, Kiser and Kiser 1999, Leftwich et al. 2008, Libby 2004-2005, 3-D International 1998, and O’ Keefe 2011-2012).

Attachment A lists the CNF PET species. Attachment B lists the Project Review Codes (PRC) used to determine whether further analysis is needed. The status of each species within the south zone of the CNF and within the project area is based on known surveys, literature review, and information as cited. The Threatened and Endangered species list on the CNF (Jennings 2014) was also reviewed.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 8

• For species with PRC of 1a, the project is located out of the species known range, or suitable habitat does not exist in the project area. The project is expected to have no effects on PET species. No further analysis will be done for these species. • For those species coded 2a, all requisite habitats have been identified and excluded from disturbance associated with the project and therefore the project is expected to have no effects on PET species regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project. No further analysis will be done for these species. • For those species coded 7a, a site specific inventory was conducted, but the species was not found in the project area. Based upon this, the project is expected to have no effects on PET species. No further analysis will be done for these species.

Any species given one of the remaining codes (3a, 4a, 5a, 6a, 7b) will be further evaluated in this BA (see Table below). For an explanation of the remaining codes see Attachment B.

Species known from the area or that have suitable habitat in the area and require further analysis are displayed in the table below.

4.0 HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS

Based on absence of habitat in the action area or the project occurring outside of the species range, the Dinkey Project would have “no effect” on the following CNF PET species.

TABLE 3.0 PET SPECIES OF THE CNF WITH A “NO EFFECT” DETERMINATION

Habitat in Determination Group Scientific Name Common Name Status Project Area of Effect Arachnid Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E None No Effect Fish Cyprinella caerulea Blue shiner T None No Effect Fish Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub T None No Effect Fish Etheostoma sitikuense Citico darter E None No Effect Fish Noturus baileyi Smoky madtom E None No Effect Fish Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom T None No Effect Fish Percina antesella Amber darter E None No Effect Fish Percina jenkinsi Conasauga logperch E None No Effect Fish Percina tanasi Snail darter T None No Effect Corynorhinus townsendii Virginia big-eared Mammal E None No Effect virginianus Glaucomys sabrinus Mammal Carolina northern flying squirrel E None No Effect coloratus Mollusk Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E None No Effect Mollusk Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel E None No Effect Epioblasma florentina Mollusk Tan riffleshell E None No Effect walkeri Mollusk Epioblasma metastriata Upland combshell E None No Effect Epioblasma Mollusk Southern acornshell E None No Effect othcaloogensis Mollusk Hamiota altilis Fine-lined pocketbook T None No Effect Mollusk Medionidus acutissimus Alabama moccasinshell T None No Effect

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 9

Mollusk Medionidus parvulus Coosa moccasinshell E None No Effect Mollusk Pleurobema decisum Southern clubshell E None No Effect Mollusk Pleurobema georgianum Southern pigtoe mussel E None No Effect Mollusk Pleurobema hanleyianum Georgia pigtoe E None No Effect Mollusk Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell E None No Effect Mollusk Pleuronaia dolabelloides Slabside pearly mussel E None No Effect Mollusk Ptychobranchus greenii Triangular kidneyshell E None No Effect Mollusk Ptychobranchus subtentum Fluted kidneyshell E None No Effect Mollusk Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean pearly mussel E None No Effect Reptile Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T None No Effect Nonvascular Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E None No Effect Plant Vascular Plant Geum radiatum Spreading avens E None No Effect Hedyotis purpurea Vascular Plant Roan Mountain bluet E None No Effect montana Vascular Plant Pityopsis ruthii Ruth's golden aster E None No Effect Vascular Plant Platanthera integrilabia White fringeless orchid T None No Effect Vascular Plant Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T None No Effect Vascular Plant Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T None No Effect

The following CNF PET species are either known to occur in the Dinkey Project area or have suitable habitat present in the Dinkey Project area and therefore will be analyzed in this Biological Assessment.

TABLE 3.1 PET SPECIES OF THE CNF ANALYZED IN THIS ASSESSMENT

Group Scientific Name Common Name Presence Status Mammal Myotis grisescens Gray bat Habitat Present E Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Habitat Present E Habitat Present / Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Known to Occur Vascular Plant Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia Habitat Present T

4.1 GRAY BAT

Habitat Relationships The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is a federally listed endangered species that is found throughout the limestone region of southern middle-western and southeastern United States (Whitaker 1998). It has been documented at 11 locations on the CNF, most of which on the North End of the CNF. Gray bats primarily use caves year-round for hibernating, maternity colonies, and roosting. They forage for insects over water along riparian areas and shorelines with forest cover (USFWS 1982). They feed primarily on flying insects such as mayflies, moths, flies, and beetles parallel to streams and generally within ten feet of the water surface (LaVal 1977).

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 10

Gray bats are threatened by the destruction of hibernacula (USFWS 1982) and white nose syndrome, a fungus that attacks hibernating bats. White nose syndrome has now been found in Tennessee. Large-scale population declines may occur in the future as the disease continues to spread.

Environmental Baseline Marginal foraging habitat for gray bat is present within or adjacent to the action area along the shoreline of Ocoee Lake Number Three. There are two documented gray bat captures on the South Zone of the Cherokee National Forest. Two adult male gray bats were captured approximately 6.55 miles from the action area boundary in 2013 (Kiser 2015). There are no known caves suitable for gray bats located near the action area.

Direct and Indirect Effects No direct effects are expected for gray bat. Habitat associated with caves would not be impacted because there are no caves located within the action area. Hibernacula and maternity colony habitat would not be affected. Proposed activities would occur during the day while bats are roosting in caves and are absent from the project area and therefore noise from proposed activities would not impact gray bats.

Vegetation treatments that include commercial harvest and non-commercial cut and leave and wildlife habitat improvements would have no direct effects on gray bats because the actions will take place outside of their foraging habitat. Riparian zone restrictions (no harvest within 100 feet of perennial streams) and streamside buffer zones (no ground disturbance) would protect foraging habitat downstream from changes to vegetation and water quality. Decommisioning of a portion of NFSR #65 (Sholey Branch) that crosses Tumbling Creek would have no direct effects on gray bats and may indirectly improve the gray bat foraging habitat by improving water quality within the action area. Temporary road construction and the construction of ponds will have no direct effects on gray bats because they will not be constructed within the marginal gray bat foraging habitat.

Prescribed burning would have no direct effects because gray bats would not be present during burning or would be able to simply avoid the area when the burn was being conducted since there are no caves located within the action area. Fire would be ignited along the upper slopes, backing down toward riparian corridors. Fire in riparian corridors is often patchy or goes out when it reaches the moist conditions in these areas. This burn would have indirect beneficial impacts for gray bat by increasing the light intensity available in the adjacent understory stimulating herbaceous growth and thus increasing insect production and prey availability for gray bats (Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Perry 2012, Taylor 2006). The increase in insect production would potentially provide better foraging opportunities for gray bat.

Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on gray bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 11

mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a,b,c). Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve gray bat foraging habitat across the landscape.

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to gray bats are expected.

Determination of Effects: Due to the lack of caves in or around the action area and the limited nature of foraging habitat that is present within the action area, the effects of most activities would be discountable. The proposed project “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” gray bat.

4.2 INDIANA BAT

Habitat Relationships The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) occurs from Iowa, south to Oklahoma and Alabama, west to South Carolina and north to New Hampshire. Caves are used for hibernacula. Over 90% of the population hibernated in five states (IN, MO, KY, IL, NY) in 2005. No hibernacula are known from the Cherokee National Forest (CNF), but one is located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Four additional hibernacula are located within 40-70 miles of the Cherokee National Forest (USFWS 2007). This bat has only been documented in Monroe County (summer) on the Cherokee National Forest. In the Southern Appalachian region, females currently establish primary maternity roosts under the sloughing bark of dead yellow and white pines and eastern hemlock (O’Keefe 2012). However, bats are able to adapt to their surroundings and use roost trees that are available on the landscape. Reproductive females require multiple alternate roost trees to fulfill summer habitat needs. Single bats also use a variety of tree species for roosts, as long as there is available sloughing bark or crevices on those trees. The majority of roosts are on mid and upper slopes in mixed pine-hardwood stands, but some roosts have been found near streams. This bat forages for flying insects along river and lake shorelines, in canopy gaps over upland waterholes, and along roads and trails. The Indiana bat returns to hibernacula beginning in late August (NatureServe 2014). Indiana bats are threatened by white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that attacks hibernating bats (USFWS 2013). Large-scale population declines are expected over the next several years as the disease continues to spread. Environmental Baseline Although suitable maternity and roosting habitat occurs within the action area, the closest known Indiana bat maternity colony (Monroe County record) is over 32 miles from the action area boundary. The closest Indiana bat capture site in Tennessee is over 28 miles from the action area. The closest known Indiana bat capture site from North Carolina is over 17 miles away from the action area.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 12

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed activities, noise from heavy equipment operation and tree felling may cause individual bats to fly out of trees or cause bats to be crushed if trees containing roosting bats are cut down or pushed over during implementation. Direct effects to bats from prescribed burning include displacement, injury, and mortality. Bats in roosts may be exposed to gases and heat in the plume generated by the spreading fire. Exposure would depend on how high bats roost aboveground, fire behavior, winds, and terrain. Dickinson’s research (2010) found that burning later in the season reduces risk to bats because they are less likely to be deeply in torpor during warm weather. To date, no known maternity colonies exist within the action area. However, should maternity colonies be present in growing season burn areas, there may be adverse effects to flightless pups. Female bats are able to carry their young after birth (until they are too heavy), which may reduce vulnerability (Dickinson et al. 2009). If bats leave roost trees during prescribed burns, bats are likely to return to the burn area after completion of the burn. Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a,b,c). The likelihood of any adverse effects toward Indiana bats are anticipated to be minimal, because: 1) no known maternity colonies or records of Indiana bats are known from the action area; 2) activities would not occur simultaneously but over an approximate 10-15 year implementation period; and 3) standards from the RLRMP would be followed (except prescribed burning may occur after May 1). Under the proposed activities, open areas would be created and/or maintained through tree removal, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and heavy equipment use. During harvest activities, standards from the RLRMP would ensure roosting habitat would remain in harvested units. Snags with exfoliating bark would also be retained unless removal for safety to the public was necessary. Herbicide application used in silvicultural activities would help maintain open forested stands. Open areas would increase sunlight on the forest floor, increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey (Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Perry 2012, Taylor 2006). Insects are also attracted to post-fire dead wood (Dickinson 2010). Bats may also benefit from reduced clutter in the canopy and a more open flight space. Construction of ephemeral pools in open areas would also provide additional feeding and drinking sites for bats. Temporary road construction may be beneficial by providing additional travel corridors within the action area. Although prescribed fire activities may eliminate some potential roosting and maternity colony snags or live trees, fire would also create new snags providing additional roosting habitat. Research has found that bats often take advantage of fire-killed snags (Perry 2012). If snags are consumed by the fire, they would likely be those that do not provide optimal habitat for this bat (snags with large plates of sloughing bark). There is a need to create new snags as old snags deteriorate and lose sloughing bark. Loss of potential roosting habitat should not cause bats to be “stressed” in finding lost roost trees after emergence from hibernacula. Since roost trees are ephemeral, bats are adapted to finding new roost trees should previous roosts be lost during the fire (O’Keefe 2011). In a 2010 study, prescribed burning caused no change in male Indiana bat

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 13

roost selection (Johnson et al. 2010). Indirect effects from prescribed burning would be beneficial by improving roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats. Placement of artificial roost structures in the project area after activities are completed may provide additional roosting habitat for bats. Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve bat roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape and manage the pine-oak forests these bats prefer.

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to Indiana bats are expected.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” Indiana bat. The effects to the proposed project activities are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. However, the activities connected with this project are consistent with the Forest Plan and with those described by previous formal consultations (USDA 2014, FWS #2014-F- 0387 Section 7 Consultation for Activities Affecting Indiana Bats on the Southern Districts of the Cherokee National Forest). As a result of those previous consultations, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a non-jeopardy Biological Opinion (FWS 2015) establishing annual incidental take authorizations. This project tiers to that Biological Opinion and no additional formal consultation is required.

4.3 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT

Habitat Relationships The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) is found throughout the eastern United States and Canada (USFWS 2013). This bat uses caves and man-made structures for hibernation. The nearest known hibernaculum is located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They leave their hibernacula March-May and return August-November (USFWS 2014). In summer, bats roost singly or in small colonies, mainly in trees but occasionally in caves. NLEB typically use large, tall trees (either live or dead) and roost under loose bark or in cavities or crevices. NLEB are somewhat opportunistic when selecting roost trees, not depending on a particular tree species. Structural complexity of roosting habitat may be more important. Forest canopy cover has been found to range from 56 to 84%, with some studies finding roosts in stands with lower canopy cover than the surrounding forest, particularly females (USFWS 2013). NLEB has also been occasionally found roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines (USFWS 2014). NLEB forage for insects by hawking and gleaning on forested ridges and hillsides. Gleaning behavior suggests that these bats have the ability to maneuver and forage in a cluttered environment (USFWS 2013). The single greatest threat to NLEB is white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that attacks hibernating bats (USFWS 2013). Large-scale population declines may occur in the future as the disease continues to spread.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 14

Environmental Baseline On the Cherokee National Forest, this bat has been documented in every county. Mist net and ANABAT surveys have been conducted on the Cherokee National Forest since 1998, with over 1,100 net nights and 1,000 NLEB captures. The population numbers of NLEB are highest in Kentucky and Tennessee (Miller 2013). NLEB have been captured during mist net surveys within the action area boundary, however there are no hibernacula or known maternity roost trees located within 0.25 mile of the action area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed activities, noise from heavy equipment operation and tree felling may cause individual bats to fly out of trees or cause bats to be crushed if trees containing roosting bats are cut down or pushed over during implementation. Direct effects to bats from prescribed burning include displacement, injury, and mortality. Bats in roosts may be exposed to gases and heat in the plume generated by the spreading fire. Exposure would depend on how high bats roost aboveground, fire behavior, winds, and terrain. Dickinson’s research (2010) found that burning later in the season reduces risk to bats because they are less likely to be deeply in torpor during warm weather. The ability to arouse and move during fires is strong evidence that NLEB adjust to changed habitats resulting from fires (Lacki et al. 2009). Growing season prescribed burning may cause adverse effects to flightless pups. Female bats are able to carry their young after birth (until they are too heavy), which may reduce vulnerability (Dickinson et al. 2009). If bats leave roost trees during prescribed burns, bats are likely to return to the burn area after completion of the burn. Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a,b,c). Under the proposed activities, open areas would be created and/or maintained through tree removal, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and heavy equipment use. Open areas would increase sunlight on the forest floor, increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey (Owen et al. 2003, Taylor 2006, Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Lacki et al. 2009, Perry 2012). Insects are also attracted to post-fire dead wood (Dickinson 2010). An increase in open areas would potentially make previously unsuitable roost trees suitable because of an increase in solar radiation (Johnson et al. 2009). During tree removal activities, standards from the RLRMP for Indiana bat would ensure roosting habitat would remain in harvested units for NLEB. Snags would also be retained unless removal for safety to the public was necessary. Studies have found that female NLEB roosts are more often in areas with partial harvesting than in random sites, which may be due to trees located in more open habitat receiving greater solar radiation and therefore speeding up development of young (USFWS 2013). Silviculture management of pine dominated stands may also be beneficial to this species in the long-term since they have been found to forage in or near pine- dominated stands more often than hardwood dominated stands. Because this bat is better suited for foraging in cluttered habitats, shelterwood, thinning and mid-story cuts would be more

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 15

beneficial to this bat than seedtree and clear cut harvests. In addition to creating and maintaining small openings in the forest, prescribed fire would improve and/or maintain pine-oak forests. NLEB forage in or near pine-dominated stands more often than hardwood dominated stands, in burned habitats more than unburned habitats (Lacki et al. 2009). Although prescribed fire activities may eliminate some potential roosting and maternity colony snags or live trees, fire would also create new snags, providing additional roosting habitat. Research has found that bats often take advantage of fire-killed snags (Perry 2012). Lacki et al. (2009) found that female NLEB preferentially choose roost trees in burned habitats compared to unburned habitats. There is also a need to create new snags as old snags fall down. Construction of ephemeral pools in open areas would provide additional feeding and drinking sites for bats. Temporary road construction may be beneficial by providing additional travel corridors within the action area. Placement of artificial roost structures in the project area after activities are completed may provide additional roosting habitat for bats. Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve bat roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape and manage the pine dominated forests these bats prefer. Flexibility in roosting habitats allows NLEB to be adaptable in managed forests (USFWS 2013).

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to the northern long-eared bats are expected.

Determination of Effects: This project “may affect, is likely to adversely” affect the northern long-eared bat; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016, signed by Lynn Lewis. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR §17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the RLRMP, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project.

4.4 SMALL WHORLED POGONIA

Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a federally threatened species that has an historic range that includes most of the eastern United States. Despite its wide geographical distribution however, it is extremely rare throughout its range. According to NatureServe 2014 this is “a widely distributed species with approximately 93 extant sites with better than poor viability known. The largest cluster of sites is centered around the Appalachian Mountains of New England and coastal Massachusetts, with two moderate-sized clusters centered around (1) the southern Appalachians and (2) the Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey. There are also a few widely scattered outlying sites. Populations are typically very small and the total number of individuals is estimated to be less than 3000.”

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 16

The species is known to occupy a wide range of habitats, thus making it one of the more difficult species to look for based upon habitat parameters. The 1992 Recovery Plan describes habitat requirements as follows: “The small whorled pogonia occurs on upland sites in mixed- deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third-growth successional stages. Characteristics common to most Isotria medeoloides sites include sparse to moderate ground cover in the species’ microhabitat, a relatively open understory canopy, and proximity to features that create long-persisting breaks in the forest canopy. Soils at most sites are highly acidic and nutrient poor, with moderately high soil moisture values. Light availability could be a limiting factor for this species” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). However, in regards to the description of “typical” habitats and site conditions, the recovery plan also states “Beyond this “common ground” of habitat characteristics, there are a myriad of exceptions and variations that may occur regionally and/or locally.” According to NatureServe 2014, typical habitats include “acidic soils, in dry to mesic second-growth, deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forests; typically with light to moderate leaf litter, an open herb layer (occasionally dense ferns), moderate to light shrub layer, and relatively open canopy. Isotria medeoloides frequently occurs on flats or slope bases near canopy breaks.” “Nearly all Isotria medeoloides populations are described as occurring in "second growth" or successional forest communities. This fact alone should not elicit the notion that Isotria medeoloides therefore requires such relatively young- aged forests. Rather, Isotria medeoloides is a forest plant and virtually all forests in the region reflect past logging or clearing” (NatureServe 2014).

Direct and Indirect Effects All areas of proposed ground disturbance associated with the various elements of this project as described above were surveyed (Copperhead Environmental Consulting 2013) in order to determine the potential effects of the action alternatives on this species. Isotria medeoloides was not found within any surveyed area and thus no direct or indirect effects to the species from ground disturbing activities would occur. The use of herbicides as a part of the various silvicultural activities that are proposed would conform to standards outlined in the Cherokee National Forest RLRMP (USDA Forest Service 2004a) that are designed to eliminate any potential effects to PET plant species (FW Standard 87).

Prescribed burning includes both dormant and growing season burns. Dormant season prescribed burning would be conducted when above ground stems of this species are absent, thus there would be no effects to Isotria medeoloides in areas of proposed dormant season burns. Prescribed burning conducted during the growing season has some potential to affect this species if present within the burn area; however, there appears to be little to no current information in the literature regarding the effects of fire on this species (Hessl and Spackman 1995). In a paper entitled “The Effects of Fire on Rare Plants” (Owen 2004), the effect of fire was classified for all 186 federally listed, proposed, or candidate plant species that were known to occur on federal lands at that time. Plants were classified into four categories; those that require fire, those that tolerate it, those that are never exposed to fire based upon their habitats, and those that are adversely affected by fire. While not specifically mentioned in that paper, Isotria medeoloides was lumped into the group of species that is tolerant of some fire based upon habitats in which it is found (pers. com. Wayne Owen 2005). There is no mention of fire within the 78 page recovery plan for this species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992) though the plan does state

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 17

that the species tends to occur on sites with soils that have relatively high moisture content. This suggests the species would occur within vegetative communities that would only burn during periods of drought. There are currently no records of this species known on the Cherokee National Forest. There are two known occurrences within the state of Tennessee, one located in Washington County on private land near the Forest and the other in extreme western Hamilton County.

The Cherokee National Forest has been conducting botanical surveys on all areas of proposed ground disturbing activities for well over 20 years. Many thousands of acres representing all major habitat types on the forest have been inventoried, and this species has never been detected. Habitat modeling developed in the northeast United States where the species has many more known occurrences suggests that occupied sites require overland vernal flows in conjunction with an impervious soil layer which leads to the seasonally high moisture content of soils (VonOettingen, pers com. 12/10/12). While the project area falls within the overall range of the species, the lack of previous detections combined with the xeric nature of the habitat proposed to be burned within the burn areas, presents an extremely low likelihood that the species would be present. Based upon this any potential impacts to the species would be discountable and the finding would be “not likely to adversely affect” for this species (Geoff Call, pers com. 12/10/12).

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to the small whorled pogonia are expected.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” small whorled pogonia.

5.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

Species Federal Status Determination of Effect

Gray Bat Endangered May affect, is not likely to adversely affect

Indiana Bat Endangered May affect, is likely to adversely affect May affect, is likely to adversely affect, but will Northern Long-eared Bat Threatened not result in prohibited take Small Whorled Pogonia Threatened May affect, is not likely to adversely affect

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 18

6.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF PREPARER(S)

Prepared by:

/s/ Philip W. Earhart November 8, 2016 Philip W. Earhart Date South Zone Wildlife Biologist

Reviewed by:

/s/ Mary C. Miller November 8, 2016 Mary Miller Date Forest Wildlife Biologist

With contributions from: Jim Herrig: Forest Aquatics Biologist Mark Pistrang: Forest Botanist/Ecologist

7.0 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Call, G. 2012. Personal Communication. US Fish and Wildlife Service Tennessee Field Office.

Cherokee National Forest. TES Database Maps.

Cochran, S. M., G. W. Libby, H. D. Bryan, and J. E. Spencer. 1999. A survey for the Federally Endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest Tennessee.

Cochran, S. M., G. W. Libby, H. D. Bryan, Macgregor, J. R., and J. E. Spencer. 2000. A survey for the Federally Endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky-Unaka and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest Tennessee.

Copperhead Consulting. 2009. Terrestrial Snail, Botanical, and Indiana Bat Surveys of the Middle Upper Tellico Project Area, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-13-0014 Order Number: AG-4756-D-13-0012.

Copperhead Consulting. 2013. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys of Upper Ocoee, South Zone Bulldozer Lines, and South Zone Trails Project Areas, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-13-0014 Order Number: AG-4756-D-13-0012.

Copperhead Consulting. 2013. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys of Upper Ocoee and

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 19

South Zone Cherokee Prescribed Fire Dozer Lines Project Areas, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-13-0014 Order Number: AG-4756-D-13-0029.

Dickinson, M. B, M.J. Lacki, and D.R. Cox. 2009. Fire and the Endangered Indiana Bat. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-46.

Dickinson, M. 2010. Burning and Bats: Fire’s Effect on the Endangered Indiana Bat. Fire Science Brief, Issue 109. Available: www.firescience.gov.

Harvey, M.J., C.S. Chaney, and M.D. McGimsey. 1991. Distribution, status, and ecology of small mammals of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee (Southern Districts). Report to the U.S. Forest Service Cherokee National Forest. Tenn. Tech. Univ. 65 pp.

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 2011. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hessl, A. and S. Spackman. 1995. Effects of Fire on Threatened and Endangered Plants: An Annotated Bibliography. Information and Technology Report 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service. Washington D.C.

Jennings, M. 2014. Letter of Threatened and Endangered Species to Consider on the CNF. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

Johnson, J.B., J.W. Edwards, W.M. Ford, and J.E. Gates. 2009. Roost selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian Mountains hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 258 (2009) 233- 242.

Johnson, J.B., W.M. Ford, J.L. Rodrigue, J.W. Edwards, C.M. Johnson. 2010. Roost Selection by Male Indiana Myotis Following Forest Fires in Central Appalachian Hardwood Forests. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 042010-JFWM-007R1.

Kiser, J.D. and R.R. Kiser. 1999. A survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Hiwassee, Nolichucky, Tellico, and Watauga Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Eco-Tech, Inc.

Kiser, J. 2015. Personal email communication with Mary Miller regarding capture records of the federally endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens) in 2013 on the Ocoee-Hiwassee Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

Lacki, M.J, D.R. Cox, L.E. Dodd, and M.B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of Northern Bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to Prescribed Fires in Eastern Kentucky Forests. Journal of Mammology, 90(5):1166-1175.

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 20

grisescens and Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammology, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Nov. 1977). Pp.592- 599. Websited available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1380007.

Leftwich, C, D. Dourson, and P. Roby. 2008. Terrestrial land snail and Indiana bat surveys of Hurricane Branch, Middle Citico, and Spring Creek, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

Libby, G. W., J. E. Spencer, H. D. Bryan, P. L. Droppelman. 2004. 2003 survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and other rare bat species on the Nolichucky/Unaka, Ocoee-Hiwassee, Tellico, and Watauga Ranger Districts Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Eco-tech, Inc.

Libby, G. W., J. E. Spencer, H. D. Bryan, P. L. Droppelman, W. K. Campbell. 2005. 2004 surveys for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky-Unaka and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest. Eco-tech, Inc.

Miller, Mary. 2013. Tennessee Bat Working Group Meeting Notes, November 21, 2013.

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. [web application] Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org (Accessed: January 12, 2016)

O’Keefe, J. 2011-2012. Indiana Bat Research. Indiana State University.

O’Keefe, J. 2011. Personal communication on Indiana bats and the use of ephemeral roost trees.

O’Keefe, J. 2012. Personal communication on new Indiana bat maternity colonies on the Cherokee National Forest.

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, J.T. Edwards and P.B. Wood. 2003. Home-range Size and Habitat used by the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist, 150(2):352-359.

Owen, W. 2004. The Effects of Fire on Rare Plants. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service. Washington D.C.

Owen, W. 2005. Personal communication.

Perry, R. 2012. A Review of Fire Effects on Bats and Bat Habitat in the Eastern Oak Region. Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-102.

Pistrang, M. 2014. Personal communication regarding the effects of dormant season prescribed burning on TES plants.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 21

Prescribed Fire and Indiana Bat Workshop. 2013. Fontana Village, NC.

Sewell, P, M Gumbert, P. Roby, and D. Foster. 2007. Mist net bat survey and rare species telemetry for the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee, 2006.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Imazypyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Triclopyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Taylor, D. 2006. Forest Management and Bats. Bat Conservation International.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2014. Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Program Records.

3-D International, Inc. 1998. Survey for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the Nolichucky, Unaka, and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2600. National Headquarters, Washington D.C., USA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan.

USDI Fish and Wildife Service. 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Amended through the 100th Congress.

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. 1994. 50 CFR Part 17. RIN 1018-AC11. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final rule to reclassify the plant Isotria medeoloides (small- whorled pogonia) from endangered to threatened. Federal Register. Vol 59, No. 193.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 22

Plan, First Revision. Prepared by S.L. Von Oettingen, New England Field Office. Region Five. Newton Corner, Mass.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4. Species Accounts: Small whorled pogonia. Available: http://endangered.fws.gov/i/q/saq1q.html.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Eastern Small-footed Bat and the Northern Long- eared Bat as Endangered or Threatened Species; Listing the Northern Long-Eared Bat as an Endangered Species. Federal Register 78: 61046- 61080.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance. Available: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Programmatic Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Activities Affecting Indian Bats on the Southern Districts of the Cherokee National Forest. FWS #2014-F-0387 Issued January 22, 2015.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Activities Affecting the Northern Long-Eared Bat on Southern Region National Forests. FWS Log #04E00000-2015-F-0003 Issued August 5, 2015.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. R.E.D. FACTS-Glyphosate. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. R.E.D. FACTS-Triclopyr. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/2710fact.pdfEP.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. R.E.D. Imazypyr. Available: www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/imazapyr_red.pdf. von Oettingen, S. 2012. Personal communication.

Whitaker Jr., J.O. and W.J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States. Cornell University Press. Ithaca , NY.

White-nose Syndrome.org. 2013. White-nose Syndrom.org: North America’s Response to the Devastating Bat Disease. Available: http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 23

ATTACHMENT A

PET Species Checklist

Proposed, Endangered and Threatened Species List Cherokee National Forest dated 7/6/2015

Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Arachnids Moss and liverwort mats on Microhexura 3 TDEC records; Roan 1a Spruce-fir moss spider Mountains of NC, TN rocks/boulders in mature spruce-fir E G1 montivaga Mtn.; Carter Co. forest > 5400 ft. Fish

Large streams, small to medium-sized 5 occ Conasauga R #1 & 1a Cyprinella caerulea Blue shiner C rivers, moderate gradient, low T G2 #2; Jack’s R; Sheeds Cr elevation & Mooneyham Cr

Large streams, moderate gradient, low 1a Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub LT,FB,SH 1 occ Experimental pop. T G2 elevation in Tellico R #1

2 occ Citico C r#1 & Large creeks & small-med rivers 10- 1a Etheostoma sitikuense Citico darter LT E G1 Experimental pop. in 80 m wide; moderate gradient, warm

Tellico R #1 2 occ Citico Cr #1 (Critical Habitat) & Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Noturus baileyi Smoky madtom LT E G1 Experimental pop. in elevation. Tellico R #1 2 occ Citico Cr #1 & Large streams to large rivers, low 1a Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom LT Experimental pop. in T G1 gradient, low elevation Tellico R #1. Large streams and small rivers, low 1a Percina antesella Amber darter C 0 occ E G1G2 gradient, low elevation 2 occ Conasauga R #1 Medium river, moderate gradient, low 1a Percina jenkinsi Conasauga logperch C (Critical Habitat) & E G1 elevation Jack’s R 2 occ Hiwassee R #1 & Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Percina tanasi Snail darter O, H, LT T G2G3 Citico Cr #1 to moderate gradient, low elevation. Mammals Uses caves year round; Karst regions Western NC, Eastern TN, 6 records just off forest Corynorhinus Virginia big-eared dominated by oak-hickory, or beech- 1a southwest VA, Eastern in NE Carter & SE E G3G4T2 townsendii virginianus bat maple-forest. Bluff lines are KY, and southwest VA Johnson Cos. important. Mature spruce fir and adjacent Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern 4 TDEC records; Monroe northern hardwood/hemlock forests 1a Mountains of NC, TN, VA E G5T1 coloratus flying squirrel and Carter Cos. above 4000 feet; abundant snags & woody debris, fungi 4 TDEC records, Cocke Uses caves year round; forages along VA to KS south, from TN 4a Myotis grisescens Gray bat & Greene Cos.; pvt in riparian areas/shorelines with forest E G3 to OK; SC to FL, AL Carter & Sullivan Cos. cover Hibernates limestone caves; maternity 2 TDEC records; Monroe VT to MI south, to SC, roosts primarily trees with loose bark; 4a Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Co; addtl. ANABAT E G2 AL; IA to AR, OK forages riparian areas and upland records Monroe Co. water holes Hibernates in caves and cave-like ME to NC; west to ND and Over 1000 mist net Northern long-eared structures; summer maternity roosts in 4a Myotis septentrionalis SD; south from GA to LA; captures on the CNF; all T G1G2 bat cavities, loose bark, crevices, or eastern MT and WY CNF counties hollows of both live and dead trees; Mussels Alasmidonta Small to medium rivers, moderate 1a Appalachian elktoe N, P, FB,LT 1 occ. Nolichucky R. E G1 raveneliana gradient, moderate elevation

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 24

Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Epioblasma 0 occ , nearest record 5 1a Oyster mussel H Large rivers, fast, shallow riffles E G1 capsaeformis miles below forest bdy Epioblasma florentina 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Small to large rivers, low gradient, 1a Tan riffleshell H E G1T1 walkeri #5 low elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Epioblasma metastriata Upland combshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E GH to moderate gradient, low elevation Epioblasma Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Southern acornshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E GHQ othcaloogensis to moderate gradient, low elevation Hamiota altilis 2 occ Conasauga R #1 & Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Finelined pocketbook C T G2 #2(Critical Habitat) to moderate gradient, low elevation Medionidus Alabama Large streams, low gradient, low 1a C O occ (Critical Habitat) T G2 acutissimus moccasinshell elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Medionidus parvulus Coosa moccasinshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E G1Q elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Pleurobema decisum Southern clubshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E G2 to moderate gradient, low elevation Pleurobema Southern pigtoe 2 occ. Conasauga R #1 & Medium rivers, moderate gradient, 1a C E G1 georgianum mussel #2 (Critical Habitat) low elevation Small streams to large rivers, Pleurobema 1 occ Conasauga R #1 1a Georgia pigtoe C moderate to high gradient, low E G1 hanleyianum (Critical Habitat) elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E G1 elevation Pleuronaia 1 occ Hiwassee R 1-5 Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Slabside pearly musselH E G2 dolabelloides (Critical Habitat) elevation 1 occ Conasauga R #1 Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Ptychobranchus greenii Triangular kidneyshell C E G1Q (Critical Habitat) elevation Ptychobranchus Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Fluted kidneyshell H O occ E G2 subtentum elevation Cumberland bean 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Large streams and small rivers, low 1a Villosa trabalis H,N E G1 pearly mussel #5 gradient, low elevation Reptiles 1 TDEC record Johnson Slow, shallow, mucky rivulets of Glyptemys 1a Bog turtle MA south to GA, TN Co.; CNF record Carter sphagnum bogs, seeps, wet cow T (SA) G3 muhlenbergii (S. pop) Co. pastures, & shrub swamps Non-vascular Plants 1 Record, Roan High elevation rocky summits and 1a Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen TN, NC, SC, GA E G2 Mountain rock outcrops. Vascular Plants Thin soil on rocky summits, cliffs, & Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Geum radiatum Spreading avens 3 Records ledges; open, grassy balds near E G1 Sevier, Blount, Carter. Rhododendron catawbiense; >4200’. Habitat includes crevices in rock Hedyotis purpurea var. Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Roan Mountain bluet 1 Record outcrops and gravelly soils at the E G5T2Q montana Carter edges of grassy balds. ME to GA; Midwestern Open deciduous, or mixed pine- Small whorled 4a Isotria medeoloides US and CAN. Washington, 0 Records deciduous forests, often on dry to T G2G3 pogonia Hamilton. moist leaf litter. Crevices in phyllite & graywacke 1a Pityopsis ruthii Ruth's golden aster Southeast TN 13 Records; Polk Co. boulders in historical flood zone E G1 Ocoee & Hiwassee Rivers. White fringeless AL, GA, TN, KY, MS Forested wetlands (Cumberland forest 7a Platanthera integrilabia 2 Records T G2 orchid McMinn and Polk co’s, TN acid seep) and wet utility ROW’s Mountains of NC, TN. Rocky places (outcrops, ledges, cliffs, 1a Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod 1 Record T G1 Carter Co, Roan Mtn. balds) above 4500 ft. 1 Record, no longer Riverbanks and riverside shrub AL, GA, KY, LA, NC, 1a Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea extant; Unicoi Co., thickets; rocky areas susceptible to T G2 OH, PA, TN, VA, WV Nolichucky River flood scour. Riparian dependent.

*PRC = Project Review Code; to get the appropriate code for each species use the Project Review Code Key.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 25

* Co. = Counties from which the species is currently known. Does not represent potential occurrence. Counties of occurrence for vascular plants obtained from University of TN Plant Atlas, online version, 4/04. *Range abbreviations refer to the major watersheds on the Cherokee NF: Conasauga, Ocoee, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, Pigeon, French Broad, Nolichucky, Watauga, and South Holton.

*Forest Occurrence Data is based upon currently known records. It is NOT necessarily reflective of potential occurrence, especially for plants.

*Habitat Information is only a summary. For a more thorough discussion on species, refer to the individual species write-ups that have been provided. For streams the following definitions apply: Orders Gradients Elevations small 3, 4 low <=2% low<=1200' medium 5, 6, 7 moderate>2% - <=4% high>1200' large 8, 9 high>4%

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 26

Dinkey BA South Zone Cherokee

ATTACHMENT B

List for determining the Project Review Code (PRC) for each PET Species

1a = The project is located out of the species known range, or suitable habitat does not exist in the project area. Determination of Effect: PET – No Effect

2a = All requisite habitat has been identified and excluded from disturbance associated with the project. Therefore, the project is expected to have no effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project. Determination of Effect: PET – No Effect

3a = The project is being implemented for the benefit of the species, and is expected to have totally beneficial effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project. Determination of Effect: T&E – May affect, not likely to adversely affect

4a = It is assumed that the species is present. Additional information on the number and location of individuals is not needed to improve the design and/or application of mitigation to reduce adverse effects, or to allow a better assessment of effects to viability of the population.

5a = The species is already covered by a current site-specific inventory for the project area and additional inventories are not needed.

6a = Inventory methods are not technically or biologically feasible and effective for providing substantial information on the number and location of individuals. It is assumed that the species is present.

7a = A site-specific inventory was conducted, but the species was not found in the project area. Determination of Effect: PET– No Effect

7b = A site-specific inventory was conducted, and the species was found in the project area.

Appendix B Biological Assessment – Dinkey EA 27