United States Environmental Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service

December 2006 Lost Creek

Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger District, Cherokee National Forest Polk County, Tennessee

For Information Contact: Janan Hay 250 Ranger Station Road Tellico Plains, TN 37385 423-253-8400 southernregion.fs.fed.us/cherokee

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 3 Proposed Action ...... 6 Decision Framework ...... 6 Public Involvement ...... 10 Issues ...... 11 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 11 Alternatives ...... 11 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...... 13 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ...... 13 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 16 Environmental Consequences ...... 17 Biological Factors ...... 18 Social/Economic Factors ...... 93 Physical Factors ...... 107 Consultation and Coordination ...... 123 References ...... 125

i INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: • Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tellico Ranger District Office in Tellico Plains, TN. Background ______The analysis area is comprised of Compartments 158, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, & 178, which are located just to the south and east of Reliance, TN (Figure 1).

1

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

2 Purpose and Need for Action______The Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP), approved in 2004, made broad decisions regarding allocation of land and measures necessary to manage National Forest (NF) resources. The RLRMP establishes direction for the multiple use management and sustained yield of goods and services for all NF lands within the Cherokee National Forest (CNF) boundaries. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources could be provided from these lands now and in the future (desired future condition). The RLRMP further allocates land into Management Prescriptions (MPs). A MP is a selected grouping of National Forest lands with similar land and resource characteristics and similar management goals. MPs provide a more specific set of goals and objectives, which help lead to the forests overall desired future condition (DFC). The 10 compartments that comprise the Lost Creek analysis area are assigned to Management Prescription 9.H. The RLRMP, pages 156 to 158 describe the DFC and standards for management activities/practices that will lead to the desired future condition of the management prescription. In addition, where MP 9.H is silent on specific goals, objectives and standards the forest wide goals, objectives and standards (pgs. 21-72) should be applied. Management Prescription 9.H emphasizes restoring forest communities to those plant communities predicted as most likely to occur in each ecological unit based upon their ecological potential. This may be accomplished through silvicultural activities such as prescribed burning; mechanical and chemical vegetation control; uneven-aged, two-aged, and even-aged silvicultural methods. This prescription is aimed at managing and restoring landscape vegetative community patterns to their ecological potential while providing suitable to optimal habitats to support populations of the plant and animal species within these communities, resulting in a very high likelihood that all native species within these associations continue to persist on national forest lands. Because goals, objectives, and standards were developed for the forest and each MP to permit management activities that would lead an area, toward its desired future condition comparison of these goals, objectives, and standards with the existing conditions identifies those areas where efforts should be focused and management activities should take place. The following are the goals and objectives that the Lost Creek proposal is designed to address: Goal 10 Maintain and restore natural communities in amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting viable populations of existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife species within the planning area. Goal 14 Contribute to conservation and recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species and avoid actions that would lead to federal listing of other species under the Endangered Species Act. Objective 14.02 Provide upland water sources approximately every 0.5 miles, to provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Water sources are comprised of both permanent ponds and ephemeral pools and are often located in openings or near road corridors that allow access by bats. Goal 15 Minimize adverse effects of invasive non-native species. Control such species where feasible and necessary to protect national forest resources.

3 Objective 15.02 Control non-native and unwanted native species, where they threaten TES [threatened, endangered and sensitive species] elements, ecological integrity of communities, or habitat created for demand species. Goal 17 Restore and maintain forest communities to those plant communities predicted as most likely to occur based on the ecological potential of the site potential natural vegetation. Objective 17.02 Over the ten-year period restore oak or oak/pine forests on at least 9,000 acres of appropriate sites currently occupied by pine plantations or other sites with minimal diversity. Objective 17.03 Over the ten-year period, restore at least 10,000 acres of shortleaf/pitch/table-mountain pine forests. Objective 17.05 Over the ten-year period reduce the acreage of Virginia pine forest by at least 25,000 acres, through restoration of fire-adapted pine or oak communities. Objective 17.06 Restore at least 5,700 acres in dry and xeric oak and pine-oak forests to open woodlands, savannas, and grasslands over a ten year period. Goal 18 Contribute to maintenance or restoration of native tree species whose role in forest ecosystems is threatened by insects and disease. Management activities will reduce the impacts from non-native invasive species. Objective 18.02 Promote the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining a site- specific basal area that promotes tree vigor. Encourage advanced regeneration of oak species. Goal 19 Where forest management activities are needed and appropriate to achieve the desired composition, structure, function, productivity, public health and safety, and sustainability of forest ecosystems; a result of such activities will also be to provide wood products for local needs. Objective 19.01 Provide 33,726 MCF of sawtimber per decade. Objective 19.02 Provide 6,242 MCF of pulpwood per decade. Goal 21 Use fire during dormant and growing seasons to achieve ecological sustainability, rehabilitation, and restoration of fire dependant and associated communities. Identify and establish appropriate “burning blocks” that facilitate the use of prescribed fire to maintain and restore fire dependant and associated communities. Objective 21.02 Prescribe burn an average of at least 5,200 acres per year of oak and oak/pine forest in an effort to maintain a fire return cycle of 4-12 years. Objective 21.04 Prescribe burn an average of at least 1,200 acres per year of pine/oak forest in an effort to maintain a fire return cycle of 4-12 years. Goal 24 Reduce hazardous fuels through wildland fire use, prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment. Objective 24.01 Reduce hazardous fuels between 19,000 and 60,000 acres per year with priority given to areas affected by insects, diseases, storm damage and along NFS boundaries with high values at risk. Goal 47 Construct, reconstruct and maintain roads to reduce sediment delivery to water bodies.

4 Goal 48 Provide a transportation system that supplies safe and efficient access for forest users while protecting forest resources. Emphasize acquisition of rights-of-way or fee simple titles as appropriate to facilitate maintenance and meet access needs. Goal 51 Construct new NFSR only where allowed by prescription and where existing roads are inadequate to meet the need. Objective 9.H-1.01 Manage forest successional stages to maintain a minimum of 50 percent of forested acres in mid-late successional forest, including old growth; a minimum of 20 percent of forested acres in late-successional forest, including old growth; and 4 to 10 percent in early successional forest. Table 1 displays the differences between the DFC and the existing condition of the analysis area in relation to Objective 9.H 1.01. As indicated in the table there is currently a lack of early successional habitat. There are also opportunities not listed in the table for the accomplishment of other RLRMP objectives. The difference between DFC and existing conditions provide opportunities for management activities that can lead this area toward the DFC. Table 1. Comparison of Selected Objectives by Condition Objectives/Standard Desired Existing Proposed Action Maintain a minimum of 50% 5,473+ ac 7,923 ac (72%) 7,218 ac (66%) of forested acres in mid to late successional forest including old growth Maintain a minimum of 20% 2,189+ ac 6,243 ac (57%) 5,608 ac (51%) of forested acres in late successional forest including old growth Maintain 4 to 10% of forested 438-1095 ac 394 ac (4%*) 1,099 ac (10%) acres in early successional *Includes 302 Ac existing Proposed action adds 705 forest 0-10, 40 Ac planned for ac (6%) to the existing regen in Mary Branch, early succession (394 Ac, and 52 Ac planned for 4%) for the above figure. SPB restoration Note: Total forested acres = 10,945 The following summarizes the purpose and need of the proposed action in this area. • It will restore natural oak and oak-pine communities on up to 398 acres. • It will restore shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak communities on up to 307 acres. • It will create up to 919 acres of open pine and pine-oak woodlands on sites that would naturally support these communities. • It will enhance hard mast production by planting oak within 3-5 acre inclusions in some stands for a total of 12-20 acres in 4 stands. • It will improve forest health by diversifying age classes (705 acres regeneration) and promoting tree vigor on up to 342 acres. • It increases the amount of 0-10 age class in 2006 from 4% of the forested acres within MP 9.H to 10%, thereby creating additional early successional habitat. The RLRMP objective for MP 9.H is to maintain 4 to 10% in the 0-10 age class. • It will maintain approximately 70 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings.

5 • It will improve and restore native species composition by promoting the establishment and development of oak, shortleaf pine, and other native species. • It will provide control of invasive exotic plant species. • It will reduce fuels on approximately 7,400 acres. • It will increase the number of upland water sources, which provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Proposed Action ______The Ocoee Ranger District is proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need (See Appendix A for maps).

Silvicultural Treatments – Proposed Activities 1) Restore natural oak and oak-pine communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 398 acres of existing forested stands that have been altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. Restore these stands to forested communities that would naturally occur on these sites. These are mostly upland sites that would support “dry to mesic oak forest” or “dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests”. Regeneration sources would be existing seedlings, coppice or stump sprouts, and supplemental planting of oaks. To ensure desired conditions are achieved, herbicide applications (triclopyr) would be applied in the second year after planting. Activities would occur on the following sites: Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation 158/7 32 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 158/9 30 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 158/23 23 Shelterwood Natural Regeneration 171/34 40 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 171/35 40 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 173/3 34 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, natural regeneration 175/16 (1)* 40 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 175/16 (2)* 40 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 175/32 39 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 176/17 40 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak, 2nd year chemical release 176/33 40 Shelterwood Manual site preparation, plant oak 2nd year chemical release TOTAL 398 * Stand 16 has been broken up into several smaller stands.

6 2) Restore shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 307 acres of existing forested stands that have been altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. These are mostly ridge sites that would support “xeric pine and pine-oak forests” within which fire has historically played an important role in shaping species composition. To ensure desired conditions are achieved, herbicide applications (triclopyr) would be applied in the second year after planting. Activities would occur on the following sites: Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation 158/5 28 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 169/5 40 Seedtree w/ Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, Reserves 2nd year chemical release 169/15 37 Seedtree w/ Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, Reserves 2nd year chemical release 171/4 30 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 171/18 40 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 173/13 27 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 175/19 36 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 177/8 29 Seedtree w/ Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, Reserves 2nd year chemical release 177/10 40 Shelterwood Site preparation burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release TOTAL 307

3) Improve forest health by diversifying age classes and promoting tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on up to 342 acres of existing forested stands that are heavily stocked or have been otherwise altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. Thinning these stands would promote tree vigor, increase browse in the understory, and promote the development of advanced oak regeneration. Activities would occur on the following sites: Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation 158/3 17 Thinning none 158/10 27 Thinning none 171/31 54 Thinning none 173/9 55 Thinning none 173/16 30 Thinning none 173/24 63 Thinning none 175/1 23 Thinning none 175/27 73 Thinning/Group none selection TOTAL 342

7

The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP objectives: Objective 17.02 Over the 10-year period, restore oak or oak-pine forests on at least 9,000 acres of appropriate sites currently occupied by pine plantations or other sites with minimal diversity. Objective 17.03 Over the 10-year period, restore at least 10,000 acres of shortleaf/pitch/Table- Mountain pine forests. Objective 17.05 Over the 10-year period, reduce the acreage of Virginia pine forest by at least 25,000 acres, through restoration of fire-adapted pine or oak communities. Objective 18.02 Promote the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining a site- specific basal area that promotes tree vigor. Encourage advanced regeneration of oak species. Objective 19.01 Provide 33,726 MCF of sawtimber per decade. Objective 19.02 Provide 6,242 MCF of pulpwood per decade. Objective 9.H-1.01 Manage forest successional stages to maintain a minimum of 50 percent of forested acres in mid-late successional forest, including old growth; a minimum of 20 percent of forested acres in late-successional forest, including old growth; and 4 to 10 percent in early successional forest.

Additional Wildlife Habitat Improvements – Proposed Activities 1) Create up to 919 acres of open pine and pine-oak woodlands on sites that would naturally support these communities. Dry and xeric oak and pine-oak forests were historically prone to wildfires, especially on south and west facing slopes and ridges. In conjunction with the thin, poor quality soils on these sites, open woodland conditions with a grassy herbaceous layer often developed. These communities provide important habitats for a wide variety of wildlife species. Game species such as white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkeys, and northern bobwhite utilized these areas for foraging, nesting, and brood rearing. Non-game species including grassland birds, neotropical migrants, raptors, and small mammals also utilize these areas. Treatments associated with creating woodland conditions may include prescribed burning on a rotation suitable to reduce woody vegetation in the understory and encourage establishment of desired herbaceous vegetation; herbicide application to reduce sprouting of woody vegetation; and cutting of understory and midstory vegetation with chainsaws or other hand tools to expose the forest floor to additional sunlight. Activities would occur on the following sites: • Create and maintain open woodlands within Compartment 169 between FDR 80, FDR 5030, Chestnut Gap Branch and Chestnut Gap (370 acres); and within Compartment 171 between Bearpen Branch and FDR 11727 (99 acres) 2) Reduce stand densities and increase herbaceous cover through burning remainder of Compartment 169 between FDR 1176, FDR 117701, Chestnut Branch, and FDR 80 (450 acres) on a 3-7 year rotation. This area is adjacent to the Bearpen Branch woodland and within the O- 29 (Rymer Camp) burn unit. 3) Maintain approximately 70 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings. Maintenance activities typically include, but are not limited to, mowing, fertilizing, sowing, day- lighting, and rehabilitation.

8 4) Enhance hard mast production by planting oak within 3-5 acre inclusions in Compartment 158 stand 5, Compartment 173 stand 13, Compartment 177 stand 8, and Compartment 177 stand 10. Total of 12-20 acres in four stands. 5) Control invasive exotic herbaceous species using the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate. Species can include, but are not limited to, kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, fescue and mimosa. The sites for possible treatment are; the area 100 feet on either side of National Forest System Roads (NFSR) listed below and 20 acres of wildlife spot openings.

NFSR Miles NFSR Miles NFSR Miles

1003 2.67 1160 3.76 117601 .34 103 &103A 7.3 80 6.31 117605 .36 5032 1.81 11692 .53 23 3.72 11732 .34 11727 1.76 331701 1.04 1173 1.73 1173-1 1.63 331801 .62 11581 .54 117401 .49 5030 1.6 11582 .5 117501 .29 5031 1.23 1176 2.32 117502 .31 68 7.73 1176-1 5.56 117701 1.3 68A .85

6) Create ephemeral pools for amphibians and bats in temporary roads and log landings. Approximately 10-30 pools (up to .25 acre each). The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP objectives: Objective 14.02 Provide upland water sources approximately every 0.5 miles, to provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Water sources are comprised of both permanent ponds and ephemeral pools and are often located in openings or near road corridors that allow access by bats Objective 15.02 Control non-native and unwanted native species, where they threaten TES [threatened, endangered and sensitive species] elements, ecological integrity of communities, or habitat created for demand species. Objective 17.06 Restore at least 5,700 acres in dry and xeric oak and pine-oak forests to open woodlands, savannas, and grasslands over a ten year period. Objective 21.02 Prescribe burn an average of at least 5,200 acres per year of oak and oak-pine forests in an effort to maintain a 4-12 year fire return cycle. Objective 21.04 Prescribe burn an average of at least 1,200 acres per year of pine-oak forests in an effort to maintain a fire return cycle of 4-12 years.

9 Fuel Reduction – Proposed Activities 1) Complete fuels reduction burns on approximately 7,400 acres within portions of burn units O-25 (Little Lost Creek), O-26 (Piney Flats), O-27 (Mary Branch), and O-29 (Rymer Camp). The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP objectives: Objective 24.01 Reduce hazardous fuels between 19,000 and 60,000 acres per year with priority given to areas affected by insects, diseases, storm damage, and along NFS boundaries with high values at risk.

Transportation System – Proposed Activities 1) Construct 1.25 miles of new system roads on Deep Gap Knob (NFSR 331701) and Boring Branch Spur (11582) to provide future access to the north end of Brock Mountain and TVA powerline. 2) Reconstruct 12.7 miles of existing system roads to bring them up to haul standards. Work primarily consists of widening curves, upgrading culverts, replacing gates, and improving overall drainage. (See Transportation Analysis for details by road) 3) Construct 3.9 miles of temporary roads to access various treatment units. The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP goals: Goal 47 Construct, reconstruct and maintain roads to reduce sediment delivery to water bodies. Goal 48 Provide a transportation system that supplies safe and efficient access for forest users while protecting forest resources. Goal 51 Construct new NFSR only where allowed by prescription and where existing roads are inadequate to meet the need. Decision Framework ______The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action, or another alternative in order to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposal. Public Involvement ______Scoping began March 22, 2006, with a legal notice in the Polk County News, to solicit the issues and concerns related to the Proposed Action. The 30-day comment period ended April 21, 2006. Letters (see Project File) were mailed to approximately 50 interested and affected agencies, organizations, tribes, individuals and adjacent landowners. See the Consultation and Coordination section of this document for a listing of the interested and affected agencies, organizations, tribes, individuals and adjacent landowners contacted. These letters informed recipients of the Proposed Action and requested their input. Additional information was sent to those that requested it. The proposal was also listed in the CNF Schedule of Proposed Actions in October 2005 and January, April, and July 2006. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and tribes, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.

10 Issues ______The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record at the CNF Tellico Ranger District. Significant issues were derived from the responses received from the public and by the ID Team. The issues carried forward and used to develop alternatives are the following: • Effects to the environment from the use of prescribed fire • Effects to the environment from the use of herbicides • Effects to visual integrity

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Lost Creek project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered in detail. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives ______Alternative A No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural processes and disturbances. No project activities would be implemented. Routine activities such as road maintenance and wildlife opening maintenance would continue to occur.

11 Alternative B The Proposed Action Following is a summary of the proposal that was scoped to the public during the 30 day legal comment period. A more detailed account of the proposed activities is presented in the previous chapter. In this alternative the Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger District is proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need (See Appendix A for maps). • Restore natural oak and oak-pine communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 398 acres of existing forested stands that have been altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. • Restore shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 307 acres of existing forested stands that have been altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. • Improve forest health by diversifying age classes and promoting tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on up to 342 acres of existing forested stands that are overstocked or have been otherwise altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. • Create up to 919 acres of open pine and pine-oak woodlands on sites that would naturally support these communities. • Maintain approximately 70 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings. • Enhance hard mast production by planting white oak within 3-5 acre inclusions in appropriate stands. Total of 12-20 acres in four stands. • Control invasive exotic herbaceous species within 100 feet on either side of NFSRs and wildlife spot openings. • Create ephemeral pools for amphibians and bats in temporary roads and log landings (approximately 10-30 pools). • Complete fuels reduction burns on approximately 7,400 acres within portions of burn units 0-25 (Little Lost Creek), 0-26 (Piney Flats), 0-27 (Mary Branch), and 0-29 (Rymer Camp). • Construct 1.25 miles of new system roads. • Reconstruct 12.7 miles of existing system roads. • Construct 3.9 miles of temporary roads.

Alternative C This proposal was developed in response to the issue regarding herbicide use. The proposal is similar in scope to Alternative B with the exception that no herbicides would be used for second- year hardwood release and there would be no treatment of exotic invasive plant species. Seedling release would be achieved through the use of mechanical treatments. All other activities are the same as those described above for Alternative B (See Appendix A for maps).

12 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ______Alternative D An issue that surfaced internally during the scoping/30-day comment period was whether all the proposed activities could be accomplished while meeting the scenic integrity objectives for the area. An initial proposal was made to develop an alternative that would drop any treatments that would result in stands that do not meet visual objectives. It was subsequently determined that this proposal was unnecessary as all visual concerns can be mitigated at the stand level.

Alternative E An issue was raised during the scoping/30-day comment period regarding potentially detrimental effects of the use of prescribed fire on the environment. The interdisciplinary team considered the development of an alternative that would not use prescribed fire as a tool, but found that this proposal would not meet the purpose and need of restoration of natural communities which depend upon the use of prescribed fire. Prescribed fire would only be used within appropriate vegetative communities within which fire has played a natural role in the past.

Alternative F An alternative was originally considered that included several more stands which would have resulted in achieving more acres toward meeting RLRMP objectives. After detailed field reviews these stands were dropped from inclusion in the project due to various resource constraints (riparian areas, rare plant locations, etc.). Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ______The vegetation, wildlife, aquatic, and soil and water mitigation measures contained in the forest wide standards of the RLRMP are summarized in Appendix B for the reader’s convenience. The portion of stands 158/7, 158/9, and 158/10 (totaling approximately 11 acres) that is within MP 7.B would be left uncut and considered reserve areas for the respective stands. Additional mitigation measures were also developed to reduce visual impacts from the alternatives. The following mitigation measures are in addition to those required by the RLRMP:  Mitigation Measures for All Shelterwood/Seedtree Treatments: • Limit openings along Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, and Benton MacKaye Trail to 400 linear feet. Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 35 for 1,000 linear feet between openings and 100 - 300 feet from the edge of the roadway. Favor leave trees of 12” plus dbh with well defined crowns in the 1,000 foot buffer areas. • Retain the appearance of a continuously forested ridgeline without noticeable gaps or breaks in the existing tree canopy cover. Special attention should be given to northern ridges of 158/5, 158/7, and 158/9; and at the top of the ridges especially in 169/15 and 169/5.

13 • Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 35 along the Benton MacKaye Trail and extend 100 feet from each side of the trail. Favor leave trees of 12” plus stems with well defined crowns along travel way. • Remove or treat slash and root wads to within an average of 4’ of ground when visible within 100 feet on either side of Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, and White Oak Flats Road. • Apply unit marking so as not to be visible within 100 feet of Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, and the Benton MacKaye Trail. • Use special road and landing design. When possible, log landings, roads and bladed skid trails are located out of view to avoid bare mineral soil observation from Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, and White Oak Flats Road. • Openings are shaped and oriented to contours and existing vegetation patterns to blend with existing landscape characteristics. Edges are shaped/feathered to blend with surrounding landscape. No geometric shapes are used. Heavily feather/shape 169/5, 169/15 and 177/10 to shape stand to contour, blend with surrounding forest, and eliminate geometric shapes. Careful layout of 169/15 and 16/5 is required to ensure that the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) would be met. • Involve Forest Landscape Architect in the layout of 177/10 due to likely prominent views of much of the stand and the potential for creating a vista point. • Revegetate all cut and fill slopes to the extent possible. • Flowering and other visually attractive trees and understory shrubs are favored when leaving vegetation. • Firewood sales are encouraged to further cleanup slash and logging debris in areas seen from travelways. • Schedule work outside of major recreation seasons where possible. • Construct roads and fire lines so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. • In stands 175/16 and 171/18 use the Benton MacKaye Trail as the harvest boundary. Minimal amounts of timber are on the southeast side of the trail in 171/18 and southwest side of the trail in 175/16. The cost of trail rehabilitation may likely exceed the benefit from harvesting the timber. • Leave a minimum basal area of 35 on the northeast side of Smith Mountain Road in 169/5.  Mitigation Measures for All Thinning/Group Selection Treatments: • Retain the appearance of a continuously forested ridgeline without noticeable gaps or breaks in the existing tree canopy cover.

14 • Remove or treat slash and root wads to within an average of 4’ of ground when visible within 100 feet on either side of McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, Little Lost Creek, and Big Lost Creek. • Apply unit marking so as not to be visible within 100 feet of noted travelways. • When possible, log landings, roads and bladed skid trails are located out of view to avoid bare mineral soil observation from noted travelways. • Edges are shaped/feathered to blend with surrounding landscape. No geometric shapes are used. Revegetate all cut and fill slopes to the extent possible. • Flowering and other visually attractive trees and understory shrubs are favored when leaving vegetation. • Fire wood sales are encouraged to further cleanup slash and logging debris in areas seen from travelways. • Schedule work outside of major recreation seasons where possible. • Construct roads, skid trails, and fire lines so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. • Limit actual group selection openings along McFarland Road to 5 acres maximum. Limit openings along McFarland Road to 400 linear feet. Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 50 for 1,000 linear feet between group selection openings and 100 feet from edge of roadway. Favor leave trees of 12” plus dbh with well defined crowns along travel ways. Feather/blend openings with surrounding area.  These measures apply to the visual corridor along the Benton MacKaye Trail. • Affected sections of the trail would be closed Monday - Friday while logging operations are on-going. Contact Benton MacKaye Trail Association 14 days in advance of closing. • Marking paint would be faced away from the trails within 100 feet. • Where possible, no logging decks would be located within 100 feet of the trail. • Any crossings would be laid out at right angles to the trails at designated locations and closed and rehabilitated to appropriate trail character after the logging operations have been completed. • Designate "rub" trees to protect residual trees from damage during logging operations when within 100 feet of the trails. • Blaze trees would not be cut. • Recreation resource specialists would coordinate marking along the trail. • Logging debris and equipment would be removed from the trail tread each afternoon for safety. • Logging would not be permitted on Saturday and Sunday and the trail would be open for use.

15 • Designate Kimsey Highway as an alternate route when logging or herbicide activities cause the closure of the Benton MacKaye Trail that is co-located on NFSR 331701. Sign both ends of the alternate route. • It is suggested that logging debris be removed from trail corridor (4 foot on either side of trail tread) and a 100 foot slash treatment zone be designated along the trail. Slash would be lopped to within 24 inches of the ground and root wads would be pulled back within the first 50’ feet. Slash would be treated to within 4’ of the ground for the remaining 50’. • Trail sections affected by logging or skidding operations would be rehabilitated. RLRMP Forest Wide Standard #28 states: Protect individuals and locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species, and individuals and locations of other species needed to maintain their viability within the planning area. Site specific analysis of proposed management actions will identify any protective measures.

The following are site specific mitigation measures to provide adherence to FW-28.

Unit Species/Mitigation 158/9 Lygodium palmatum – No skid zone; 169/5 Thermopsis mollis - Directional felling and no skid zone; 169/15 Melanthium latifolium – No skid zone; Thermopsis mollis - Directional felling and no skid zone; 171/35 Melanthium latifolium – No skid zone 175/16-1 Melanthium latifolium – No skid zone (also encompasses Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens); 175/16-2 Melanthium latifolium – No skid zone; Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens)- No skid zone 175/32 Fothergilla major & Thermopsis fraxinifolia – Directional felling and no skid zone 176/17 Melanthium latifolium – No skid zone; Thermopsis mollis - Directional felling and no skid zone; 177/8 Thermopsis mollis - Directional felling and no skid zone; Carex roanesis - No skid zone; 177/10 Melanthium latifolium – No skid zone; Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens)- No skid zone

Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 2 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

16

Table 2. Alternative Comparison ACTIVITY UNITS ALT. A ALT. B ALT. C

VEGETATION Seedtree with reserves Acres 0 106 106 Shelterwood Acres 0 599 599 Thinning Acres 0 342 342 Slashdown site preparation manual Acres 0 341 341 Site preparation burning Acres 0 341 341 Seedling release-chemical Acres 0 648 0 Seedling release- manual Acres 0 0 648 Regeneration – Oak planting Acres 0 341 341 Pine planting Acres 0 307 307 Natural Acres 0 57 57 Pine and pine-oak restoration Acres 0 307 307 Oak and oak-pine restoration Acres 0 398 398

TRANSPORTATION Road Construction Miles 0 1.25 1.25 Road Reconstruction Miles 0 12.7 12.7 Temporary Roads Miles 0 3.9 3.9 Maintenance Miles 45 45 45

WILDLIFE Maintenance of linear and spot openings Acres 70 70 70 Invasive exotic control- chemical Acres 0 1,530 0 Woodland restoration Acres 0 919 919 Creation of ephemeral pools # 0 10-30 10-30 FUEL REDUCTION Dormant season burning Acres 0 7,400 7,400 Line - stream/road/trail Miles 0 44.6 44.6 Line - dozer Feet 0 4650 4650

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected analysis area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

17 The Lost Creek analysis area is a portion of the 89,000+ acre K-1 Tract. (USDA) The K-1 Tract was purchased by the Forest Service from the Tennessee Land Company in 1912 under provisions of the Weeks Act of 1911. It was one of the first acquisitions of the CNF. When the tract was purchased by the Forest Service, the seller retained logging rights to portions of the tract. The analysis area was extensively logged between the 1890’s and the 1920’s with peak logging probably occurring in the 1920’s. The area was sparsely settled before Forest Service acquisition. Typically, the local population relied on subsistence farming and logging. It was common practice to use fire to clear and maintain fields and forest for grazing. The logging history and the subsequent wildfires resulted in a large portion of the area in 71 to 110 year age class. Very little active management took place in the analysis area in the years after the land was acquired. During the last 90 years of Forest Service administration, substantial progress has been made with wildfire prevention and control in the analysis area and the CNF in general. The reduction of wildfire has had a number of effects on the landscape, and it has aided the regeneration and establishment of fully stocked forest stands in the analysis area. Very little even age timber harvesting took place in the analysis area between the 1930’s and the 1960’s. Some thinning and uneven-aged regeneration may have occurred, though records are sketchy. Approximately 27 percent of the analysis area has been regenerated by even aged methods in the last 40 years. The southern pine beetle (SPB) impacted the analysis area between 1999 and 2002. Some nearly pure stands of pine and many scattered individual pine were killed. The species affected were Virginia, pitch, shortleaf and white pine. The present forest composition on the ridges and upper slopes is predominantly shortleaf and Virginia pine and upland oak species. Coves and lower slopes have yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock. Most of the forest acreage (approximately 70%) is greater than 70 years of age due to past land management practices. Activities that have occurred in the analysis area in the recent past (1990’s- 2005) include: harvesting (Mary’s Branch, Smith Mountain); prescribed burning; recreational uses such as camping, hiking (including newly designated Benton MacKaye Trail), hunting, etc.; and utility ROW construction and maintenance; and as mentioned above impacts from SPB. Activities that are currently occurring in the analysis area include: harvesting (Mary’s Branch); prescribed burning; recreational uses; maintenance of roads, existing ROWs, trails and campgrounds; and restoration of areas impacted by SPB. Reasonably foreseeable activities expected in the analysis area include: maintenance of roads, existing ROW’s, trails and campgrounds; restoration of areas impacted by SPB; recreational uses; impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid; changes in private land use patterns; and development of trail heads from proposed CNF trails strategy. Biological Factors ______This section discloses effects to biological elements of the environment expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. The biological environment includes the

18 diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat components, and individual species of concern or interest. Analysis of effects to these elements is organized in this document following the framework used during forest planning (USDA 2004). Use of this framework is designed to ensure comprehensive consideration of effects to the biological environment. Elements in this framework are listed in Table 3, where they are assessed for their relevance to this project. Only those relevant to the project are analyzed further in this document. Major forested communities and successional stages were calculated using data from the USDA Forest Service “R8 FSVeg Age Class Distribution” table run on March 14, 2006. Data for the ten compartments in the Lost Creek analysis: 158, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and 178 were used. Successional stages were analyzed based on the year 2006 for each alternative.

Table 3. Elements of the biological environment, derived from forest plan analysis, their relevance to Lost Creek Vegetation Management, and whether they will be further analyzed in this document. Analyzed Biological Element Relevance to this Project Further? Mesic Deciduous Forest Yes Mesic deciduous forests occur on 4,378 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas; and 274 acres would be impacted by the proposed activities. Spruce-fir Forest No There are no spruce-fir forests in the vicinity of the affected areas. Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest Yes Hemlock or white pine forests occur on 1,496 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas, and 50 acres would be impacted by the proposed activities. Oak and Oak-pine Forest Yes Oak and oak-pine forests occur on 3,445 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas; and 392 acres would be impacted by the proposed activities. Pine and Pine-oak Forest Yes Pine and pine-oak forests occur on 3,558 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas and 331 acres would be affected by the proposed activities. Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands Yes The activities propose to create this type of habitat. Rare Communities Wetland Communities Yes Associated with small streams in many stands. Barrens, Glades, and Associated Woodlands No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Carolina Hemlock Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Table Mountain Pine Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Basic Mesic Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Beech Gap Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Rock Outcrops and Cliffs (includes forested Yes Units 173/3, 175/27, 175/16-2,

19 Table 3. Elements of the biological environment, derived from forest plan analysis, their relevance to Lost Creek Vegetation Management, and whether they will be further analyzed in this document. Analyzed Biological Element Relevance to this Project Further? boulder fields) 175/32, and 177/10. High Elevation Balds and Meadows No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Caves and Mines No No caves are known to occur in the area. Successional Habitats Yes Vegetation manipulation activities would alter the forest age-class distribution. High Elevation Early Successional Habitats No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Permanent openings and old fields, Rights-of Yes The project proposes to create and way, Improved pastures maintain this type of habitat Forest Interior Birds No The affected area is not identified in the RLRMP as an area where edge effect is an issue. Old Growth No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Riparian Habitats Yes Riparian habitats occur near the proposed affected area. Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Yes Snags occur in or near the proposed affected areas. Aquatic Habitats Yes Several aquatic habitats occur in the proposed affected areas. Threatened and Endangered Species Yes Potential effects to T and E species will be analyzed. Demand Species Yes Demand species could be impacted by the project. Migratory Birds No Migratory bird issues are included in Major Forested Communities section. Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals Yes Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals could be impacted by the project. Species Viability Yes Species with viability concerns occur in the area. Forest Health Yes Forest health is an issue in the impacted area.

The RLRMP selected management indicator species (MIS) as a tool to help indicate effects of management on some elements of this framework. A subset of these MIS is selected for consideration in this analysis because their populations or habitats may be affected by the project (see Table 4)

20

Table 4. Forest-level Management Indicator Species Selected for Reasons for Species Name Purpose Project Selection/Non-Selection Analysis? Prairie warbler To help indicate management Yes Some proposed activities would create effects of creating and early successional communities. maintaining early successional forest communities Chestnut-sided warbler To help indicate management No There are no high elevation effects of creating and communities associated with the maintaining high elevation affected area. early successional forest communities and habitat Pine warbler To help indicate effects of Yes Pine and pine oak communities occur management in pine and in the vicinity of the project and some pine-oak communities are subject to management actions. Pileated woodpecker To help indicate management Yes Forests with snags occur in the effects on snag dependent vicinity of the project and some are wildlife species subject to management actions. Acadian flycatcher To help indicate management Yes Riparian habitats occur near the effects within mature riparian proposed affected areas. forest community Scarlet tanager To help indicate effects of Yes Xeric oak and oak pine communities management in xeric oak and occur in the vicinity of the project, and oak pine communities may be subject to management actions.

Ruth’s golden aster To help indicate management No No populations of this species or their effects on the recovery of this habitat occur in or near the vicinity of T&E plant species the project. Ovenbird To help indicate management No The affected area is not identified in effects of wildlife species the RLRMP as an area where edge dependent upon mature forest effect is an issue. interior conditions Black bear To help indicate management Yes Hunting demand for black bear could effects on meeting hunting be impacted by the alternatives. demand for this species Hooded warbler To help indicate effects of Yes Mesic deciduous forests occur on 4378 management on providing acres in the vicinity of the affected dense understory and areas; and 274 acres would be midstory structure within impacted by the proposed activities. mature mesic deciduous forest communities

Existing Condition The analysis area encompasses approximately 10,945-acre area within the Hiwassee River watershed. The area varies widely in topography, from sloping hills and flatter areas around the streams to steeper slopes on ridges in the area. Elevations are from around 800 feet to 3,000 feet

21 above sea level. Dry upland sites occupied by yellow pine, upland hardwood, and mixed stands are characteristic of the overall area; cove sites are also present and include yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock as predominant overstory species. Common shrub zone species including mountain laurel, blueberry, huckleberry, and greenbrier are present. Common herbaceous species include galax, poison ivy, ferns, trillium, and smilax. Approximately 71% of the compartments are greater than 70 years of age. There are currently 394 acres within the 0-10 year age class (base year 2006) of the total forested acres in compartments 158, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and 178 including 92 acres of planned regeneration and pine restoration. The 92 acres being treated is considered to be in regeneration and is accounted for in the age class distribution for all alternatives. Perennial water sources are readily accessible from all parts of the compartments. Openland, grassy wildlife openings within the compartments total approximately 45 miles of linear wildlife openings and approximately 20 acres of spot openings. The percentage distribution of major forest communities and corresponding successional stages are presented in Figures 2 and 3. There is some overlap of forest types and communities, thus the percentage of major forested communities will not equal 100%. Figure 2. Lost Creek Major Forested Communities

40%

31% 33% Mesic deciduous forests

Oak and oak-pine forests Pine and pine-oak Percent 14% forests Eastern hemlock and white pine forests

Communities

22

Figure 3. Lost Creek Successional Stages Existing Condition

57%

Early successional Sapling/pole 24% Mid successional 15% Late successional

4%

Successional Stage

Data for the analysis area and surrounding landscape (approximately 19,000 acres including compartments 157, 158, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 306, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319) has been analyzed. Forage availability (herbaceous material, browse, and soft mast) is low to moderate throughout most of the forest in the area. Snag density appears to be average to high. This is a result of several factors including the recent SPB outbreak, stand age and condition, species composition, and further susceptibility to insect, disease, and storm damage. Snag densities are expected to increase as existing stands mature and pines continue to die. Cover in the form of shrubby habitat is low to moderate. Many of the streams and hollows in the area have a good deal of downed trees, primarily as a result of past storms and insect outbreaks. In the stands proposed for harvest, the dominant overstory component is conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood. The midstory and herbaceous layers vary within forest types and communities. In summary, the primary wildlife management concern within the Lost Creek compartments is the lack of habitat diversity. Proposed actions are aimed at restoring communities based on their ecological potential. From a wildlife standpoint, proposed actions are aimed at diversifying the vegetation by increasing the amount of 0-10 year old stands in order to increase browse and cover, promoting hard mast production by planting oak as well as planting pine on a wide spacing within harvested stands thereby allowing reproduction of oaks, creating open woodlands for foraging and nesting habitat controlling invasive exotic plant species, and increasing upland water sources. The following sections describe the affected environment and effects by alternative for each biological element listed above in Table 3. Existing Condition Mesic Deciduous Forest Mesic deciduous forests as defined in the RLRMP include northern hardwood, mixed mesophytic, and bottomland hardwood community types, as well as the dry-mesic oak forest

23 communities. These forest types are characterized by relatively low levels of disturbance, and from a habitat perspective, their primary value is providing habitat for a variety of species dependent on mid- and late-successional forest stages. Mesic deciduous forests are abundant and well distributed on the CNF, comprising 44 percent of the CNF (USDA 2004). The best, most clustered distributions are found at the higher elevations of the Tellico Ranger District and Big Frog Mountain, followed by Big Bald, Unaka, Roan, Pond and Holston Mountains and Rogers Ridge. Poorest distributions are found on the pine- dominated Starr and Chilhowee Mountains. Mesic deciduous forests represent approximately 40 percent of the forested acres within the analysis area. These consist primarily of three forest types: cove hardwood-white pine-hemlock, white oak-red oak-hickory, and yellow poplar-white oak-red oak. Hooded Warbler (MIS) The hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) is a neotropical migrant that is fairly common to common throughout the southeastern U.S. during the breeding season (Hamel 1992). It nests in understory of deciduous forest, especially along streams and ravine edges, and thickets in riverine forests. It is an inhabitant of both young and mature forests but is most abundant in the latter. A dense shrub layer and scant ground cover are important. In North Carolina, it is common in mountain ravines with dense growth of mountain laurel and rhododendron and in bottomland swamps with dense pepperbush and giant cane. This warbler generally favors large tracts of uninterrupted forest, but sometimes nests in forest patches as small as 5 hectares, probably where these are close to larger forested areas. The nest is placed in sapling or shrub in dense deciduous undergrowth, usually between 0.3 - 1.5 m. Individuals often return to the same area to nest in successive years (males are more likely to do so than females) (Sauer et al. 2005). North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a fairly static population in the Blue Ridge Mountains from 1966-2005 (Sauer et al. 2005). The trend is significantly positive in eastern North America. It has been identified as a MIS for mid-late mesic deciduous forests with canopy gaps and structurally diverse understories. The hooded warbler is common in appropriate habitat on the CNF. Direct and Indirect Effects Mesic Deciduous Forest Stands proposed for treatment in the proposed action and alternative classified as mesic deciduous are dry-mesic oak forests. Dry upland slopes are typified by Virginia pine, pitch pine, shortleaf pine, as well as a mixture of chestnut oak, scarlet oak, and northern red oak. Vegetation becomes subxeric-submesic further down slope and the overstory commonly includes white oak, and southern red oak. More mesic slopes and coves usually contain white pine, white oak, hemlock, and yellow poplar. The amount of regeneration treatments would potentially affect the future quantity and distribution of mid-late-old successional mesic deciduous forests. The future age class distribution of mesic deciduous forests would be the same with either action alternative. Table 5 shows the number of acres of mesic deciduous forest that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative.

24

Table 5. Acres of Mesic Deciduous Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Shelterwood 0 acres 172 acres 172 acres Thinning 0 acres 102 acres 102 acres Total 0 acres 274 acres 274 acres

Alternative A (No Action) Under this alternative there is no change to the existing age class distribution of mesic deciduous forests. Forests would continue to age, only affected by natural forces of disturbance. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the RLRMP (USDA 2004b) states that expected population trends for hooded warblers under plan implementation is relatively stable for the next 50 years. Alternative A would have no effect on populations of this management indicator. The community may be affected by the increased invasion of noxious weeds. Dry-mesic oak forests may also be affected by the lack of fire. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore plant communities to a more natural species assemblage. The lack of fire would decrease biodiversity. This would lead to a reduction of habitat needed by wildlife and native plants, including hooded warbler.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under this alternative 172 acres would be reverted to early successional habitat through shelterwood harvest. Creation of early successional habitat within this forest type is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that use both early and late successional habitats including black bear, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Harvest treatments in this alternative would have the potential to temporarily negatively affect hooded warblers on 2% of the ten-compartment area. The negative effect would occur when the overstory is removed and the understory is also disturbed decreasing foraging habitat. This would be a temporary effect until the understory has time to become more developed. Another 102 acres would be thinned. Thinning would benefit hooded warblers by adding more structure in the understory to the older age class forest, which increases feeding and breeding habitat. The hooded warbler’s preference for nesting in riparian areas means few nests would be disturbed. The creation of open pine and oak woodlands would decrease the suitability of these areas for hooded warbler, however this treatment would occur in more xeric habitats not usually preferred by hooded warblers. Other species would benefit. This treatment is discussed in further detail in the section Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands. Mesic deciduous forests comprise 40% of the ten-compartment area. The loss of the 172 acres in the regeneration areas would leave 38% of the mesic deciduous forests in the analysis area. There would be ample habitat remaining in the surrounding forest until the understory can once again be developed. Conditions in other areas would remain relatively stable as the forest ages with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire. Herbicide use would benefit the community by reducing noxious weeds allowing native species to increase. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more

25 natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with dry-mesic oak forests. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the MIS or the community.

Alternative C Timber harvest and other actions effects would be the same as in Alternative B. No herbicide would be used; therefore noxious weeds would not be reduced. Invasive weed species would continue to displace native plants causing a potential reduction in breeding and foraging habitat. Cumulative Effects Mesic Deciduous Forest

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would not allow the control of noxious weeds which would negatively affect natural species assemblages within this community. The lack of prescribed burning may both beneficially and negatively affect the community and the MIS. Without burning, the dense understories preferred by hooded warblers would not be affected in the short-term. However, the lack of burning would also cause the forest to age and the canopy to close, causing less understory growth as sunlight is reduced to the forest floor. Lack of burning may also promote noxious weeds and species not usually found in these communities, including the increase of white pine. An increase of white pine would decrease the oak component. A decrease in oak would decrease the mast and habitat for many species. Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory temporarily, thus affecting foraging habitat for the MIS. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the hooded warbler when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid may affect hooded warblers by decreasing nesting sites; however foraging sites would increase by the increase in sunlight causing new growth in the understory. This community as a whole would likely be affected by the loss of this component. In what way is unclear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg.18) would have little effect.

Alternatives B and C Mature mesic hardwood forests were widespread historically. Species composition, diversity and structure of today's forests does not approximate historic conditions due to loss of the American chestnut, unregulated cutting and burning in the early 20th century, and loss of large diameter trees. Under plan implementation, long term stability or increases in mature mesic forest is expected (USDA 2004). Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory temporarily, thus affecting foraging habitat for the MIS. Burning in dry-mesic oak forests may be beneficial by maintaining the community.

26 Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the hooded warbler when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid may affect hooded warblers by decreasing nesting sites; however foraging sites would increase through the increase in sunlight causing new growth in the understory. This community as a whole would likely be affected by the loss of this component. In what way is unclear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg.18) would have little effect. Existing Condition Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest Eastern hemlock and white pine forests are broadly defined to include those forested communities that are either dominated or co-dominated by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) or eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) in the canopy. For the purposes of this analysis, forests with a significant component of eastern hemlock are classified as hemlock forests, even where white pine may be dominant (FSVeg types 4, 5, 8). White pine forests include all other forests where white pine is dominant (FSVeg types 3, 9, 10). This division puts priority on the presence of hemlock as a key habitat component. Eastern hemlock forests typically occur on acidic soils and often have a dense shrub layer composed of ericaceous species. These communities are typically low in herbaceous diversity, but may support rich bryophyte communities. White pine forests occupy similar sites but also may occur on dryer locations, particularly in areas where fire has been suppressed. White pine forests have also been artificially created as timber plantations. The combination of a largely evergreen canopy and a dense midstory in naturally occurring hemlock and white pine forests provide for a variety of benefits, including shading and cooling of riparian systems, thermal cover for wildlife, and nesting and foraging habitat for several species of neotropical migrant birds dependent upon the layered canopy structure and understory thickets (USDA 2004b). There is some evidence that hemlock-white pine forests provide necessary habitat components for the long-term conservation of red crossbills (USDA 2004b). Eastern hemlock forests may also be important refugia for species typically adapted to higher elevations. Red-breasted nuthatches, winter wrens, and golden-crowned kinglets are found in late successional hemlock forests down to elevations of 2,000 feet and several species of rare bryophytes that are known to occur primarily within the spruce/fir zone are also found at lower elevations in humid gorges often under a canopy that includes eastern hemlock (USDA 2004b). The current amount and distribution of mature eastern hemlock forests is threatened by the recent emergence of the hemlock woolly adelgid in the southern Appalachians. First identified in the eastern U.S. near Richmond, VA in the early 1950’s, this exotic pest has recently spread into the southern Appalachians and threatens to spread throughout the range causing mortality within five years after initial infestation (SAMAB 1996). On the CNF, eastern hemlock forests are found primarily in association with north facing coves and slopes and riparian systems. Years of fire suppression have allowed individual hemlocks and white pine to creep upslope onto more xeric slopes and ridges where they would not likely exist under a natural fire regime. There are currently approximately 45,125 acres of white pine forest types on the CNF; 6,664 acres of which originated as plantations.

27 Two key habitat variables are selected as management indicators to monitor the condition of eastern hemlock and white pine forest: the number of acres of hemlock forests infested with hemlock woolly adelgid, and the number of acres of white pine plantations restored to diverse native communities will be tracked annually. This project does not propose any harvest of hemlock forests and is focused on the restoration objectives within existing white pine plantations. Direct and Indirect Effects Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest Action alternatives propose a maximum of 50 acres of white pine forests to be treated by timber harvest. Table 6 shows the number of acres of white pine forest that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative.

Table 6. Acres of White Pine Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Thinning 0 acres 50 acres 50 acres Total 0 acres 50 acres 50 acres

Alternative A (No Action) Without treatment in white pine forests, white pine would increase and continue to become established in forests where it is not historically naturally occurring. Oaks and other native species would decrease leading to a reduction in mast and other wildlife habitat components. Exotics and noxious weed species would also continue to increase due to a lack of management. Native plants would be displaced and suitable habitat for wildlife would decrease.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, 50 acres would be harvested to begin restoration of diverse natural communities. The eventual forested stands would approximate desired future conditions favoring a mixed stand of tree species. This would increase the diversity of the forest and eventually favor more mast producing species. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with these communities. Approximately 41 acres within the woodland restoration site at Bearpen Lead is classified as hemlock and white pine. Burning and other treatments to open these stands would benefit natural systems. The goal is to restore natural communities which have been displaced by off-site tree species including white pine and other vegetation. These would lead to the diversification of the forest as a whole which would benefit many animal species by creating more forage, nesting, and brood habitat. Herbicide use would reduce the number of exotic and noxious weed species leading to an increase in native plants and wildlife habitat. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community.

28 Alternative C Under this alternative 50 acres would be treated to begin restoration of diverse natural communities. Forty-one acres would be treated to restore open woodlands. The eventual forested stands would approximate desired future conditions favoring a diversity of species and promote hard mast. Effects of other activities would be the same as in Alternative B. Exotics and noxious weed species would continue to increase due to a lack of management. Native plants would be displaced and suitable habitat for wildlife would decrease. Cumulative Effects Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest

All Alternatives Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas would reduce white pine in the understory. White pine is susceptible to burning. Without burning and other treatments to reduce the amount of white pine, it would continue to increase across the analysis area. Noxious weed species would also increase without treatments for control. Noxious weeds crowd out native species, decreasing habitat for native wildlife. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. Despite protection and restoration objectives given in the RLRMP, the current amount and distribution of mature eastern hemlock forests is threatened by the recent emergence of the hemlock wooly adelgid in the southern Appalachians. The fact that this community type is naturally limited in distribution, coupled with the impending threats from the hemlock wooly adelgid that will impact the species regardless of land ownership, leaves the long-term maintenance of historical distribution and abundance of this community type in question. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg.18) would have little effect. Existing Condition Oak and Oak-pine Forest Oak dominated forests covered under this section include dry to mesic oak and oak-pine forests. Dry-mesic oak forests vary greatly in their species composition due to their wide distribution. The major species include chestnut oak (Quercus montana), northern red oak (Q. rubra), black oak (Q. velutina), white oak (Q. alba), and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) (USDA 2004). The dry to mesic oak-pine forests considered here are oak-dominated forests containing a significant pine component. Predominant pine species include white pine (Pinus strobus), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), and loblolly pine (P. taeda). These dry to mesic types are distinguished from oak and oak-pine woodlands and savannas, which are targeted at xeric oak, oak-pine, and pine-oak types. These xeric types are covered under the section on Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands. In the southern U.S., acres of oak-hickory and oak-pine forests have increased over the last 50 years (USDA 2004). Oak and oak-pine forests are common throughout the South, comprising over half of the timberland of the region as a whole (USDA 2004). Oak-hickory forests are the dominant forest type in the Southern Appalachian Ecoregion. Oak forests are abundant on the CNF, comprising 36 percent of the CNF acreage. These forests are very well distributed within the northern portion of the CNF. Oak forests are less evenly distributed on the southern CNF, especially along the pine-dominated lower elevations including

29 Starr Mountain and the lower Citico Creek drainage; and in the highest elevations, where mesic deciduous forest types predominate. Several management indicators have been identified for assessing effects to oak and oak-pine forest communities. These indicators include both MIS and key habitat variables. Because of their wide distribution across moisture gradients, mid- and late-successional oak and oak-pine forests support a wide variety of species. Drier oak forests support a slightly different mix of species due to their more open condition. To represent this upland oak community, the scarlet tanager is selected as an MIS. This species is most abundant in upland mature deciduous forest (Hamel 1992). Scarlet Tanager (MIS) The breeding range of scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) includes eastern North Dakota and southeastern Manitoba across southern Canada and northern U.S. to New Brunswick and central Maine, south to central Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, northern Alabama, northern Georgia, northwestern South Carolina, western North Carolina, central Virginia, and Maryland (NatureServe 2004). North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a stable population in the Eastern U.S. from 1966-2005, but a declining trend in the Blue Ridge Mountains in the same time period (Sauer et al. 2005). Habitat on breeding grounds is deciduous forest and mature deciduous woodland, including deciduous and mixed swamp and floodplain forests and rich moist upland forests. The scarlet tanager prefers oak trees for nesting. They nest less frequently in mixed forest and are most common in areas with a relatively closed canopy, a dense understory with a high diversity of shrubs, and scanty ground cover. They are able to breed successfully in relatively small patches of forest. Tanagers also sometimes nests in wooded parks, orchards, and large shade trees of suburbs. They are known to breed in various forest stages but are most abundant in mature woods (according to some sources, prefers pole stands). Direct and Indirect Effects Oak and Oak-pine Forest Table 7 shows the number of acres of oak and oak-pine forests forest that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative by treatment type.

Table 7. Acres of Oak and Oak-Pine Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Seedtree 0 acres 40 acres 40 acres Thinning 0 acres 63 acres 63 acres Shelterwood 0 acres 289 acres 289 acres Total 0 acres 392 acres 392 acres

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct effects of the No Action Alternative. However, there would be indirect effects by no action. There would be an increase in noxious weeds and other species not naturally occurring in these communities without treatments. Prescribed fire and herbicide use would not be used. Lack of treatment with burning and timber removal would mean oak trees preferred by nesting scarlet tanagers would age and fall from the canopy, and would be often replaced by white pine or maple. This would lead to a reduction in scarlet tanager habitat.

30

Alternatives B and C Under these alternatives, 329 acres (3% of the analysis area) would be treated to create early successional habitat. Creation of early successional habitat within this forest type is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that depend upon a combination of early and late successional habitats including black bear, white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite, eastern wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Another 63 acres of oak and oak-pine would be thinned and approximately 132 acres within the woodland restoration site are classified as oak and oak-pine. Burning and other treatments to open these stands would benefit natural systems. The goal is to restore natural communities which have been displaced by off-site tree species including white pine and other vegetation. These would lead to the diversification of the forest as a whole which would benefit many animal species by creating more forage, nesting, and brood habitat. Thinning would increase the mast producing species in the stands, providing additional hard and soft mast for wildlife. These alternatives would have both negative and positive impacts to scarlet tanager. Removal of the overstory would reduce nesting sites in those stands. However, nesting habitat would remain in the trees left on site. In addition, the harvest would diversify the understory. Suitable habitat would increase as the stands grow. There would also be ample habitat remaining in the surrounding forest. Conditions in other areas would remain relatively stable as the forest ages with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire. Herbicide use would promote native species growth, contributing to habitat for wildlife. Burning would further promote oak regeneration and help restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with these communities. The other actions in Alternative B and C, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community. The lack of herbicides in Alternative C would allow an increase in noxious weeds and other species not naturally occurring in these communities. Cumulative Effects Oak and Oak-pine Forest

Alternative A (No Action) Insects and diseases such as gypsy moth and oak decline are expected to have an overall negative effect on oak forests in the future (SAMAB 1996). Several gypsy moth infestations have been detected in the Forest’s northeastern counties, and spread of the infestation is expected to expand throughout the Forest by 2020. Many of the older xeric oak forests are experiencing oak decline. The greatest impact of oak decline would be immediately behind the advancing front of gypsy moth due to repeated severe defoliations. As existing oak stands grow older, susceptibility would increase. Although oaks would not be eliminated from effected areas, oak abundance and diversity would be reduced. On both national forest and private lands, the future of oak forests would largely depend on management activity such as thinning and burning that encourage oak reproduction to offset the impacts of these insects and diseases.

31 Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory temporarily, thus affecting foraging habitat for the MIS. However, with the understory sprouting that typically occurs after a prescribed burn, the area would again provide better habitat to tanagers within a year or two. There would be no cumulative effect to scarlet tanagers because burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the scarlet tanager when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or MIS to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg.18) would have little effect. Cumulatively, Alternative A would not have an effect to scarlet tanager.

Alternatives B and C Insects and diseases such as gypsy moth and oak decline are expected to have an overall negative effect on oak forests in the future (SAMAB 1996). Several gypsy moth infestations have been detected in the Forest’s northeastern counties, and spread of the infestation is expected to expand throughout the Forest by 2020. Many of the older xeric oak forests are experiencing oak decline. The greatest impact of oak decline would be immediately behind the advancing front of gypsy moth due to repeated severe defoliations. As existing oak stands grow older, susceptibility would increase. Although oaks would not be eliminated from effected areas, oak abundance and diversity would be reduced. On both national forest and private lands, the future of oak forests would largely depend on management activity such as thinning and burning that encourage oak reproduction to offset the impacts of these insects and diseases. One of the primary management objectives of this project is to enhance oak. Both action alternatives would revert some acres to early successional habitat conditions, which may have some long-term forest health benefits through diversification of age-class distributions. Prescribed burning in or near any of the affected areas would remove understory in some areas, making the area temporarily less attractive to scarlet tanagers. However, with the understory sprouting that typically occurs after a prescribed burn, the area would again provide better habitat to tanagers within a year or two. Burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the scarlet tanager when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or MIS to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect. Cumulatively Alternatives B and C would benefit scarlet tanagers in some areas and have no effect in other areas.

32 Existing Condition Pine and Pine-oak Forest Pine dominated forests covered in this section include all “Southern Yellow Pine” (USDA 2004) forest types with various mixtures of hardwood species occurring as minor components. These forests occur on a variety of landforms at a wide range of elevations. Historically, in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province, these communities occupied areas that were subject to natural fire regimes and typically occurred on ridges and slopes with southern exposures (NatureServe 2002). However, due to a combination of previous land use, fire exclusion, and intensive forestry (plantations), many pine species have expanded beyond their natural range and today, pine-dominated communities can be found on virtually all landforms and aspects.

Pine Warbler (MIS) The pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) is a short-distance migrant and summer resident that occurs primarily at elevations below 3500 feet. It is more abundant on the southern ranger districts. Based on 1992-1993 point count data collected on the Tellico Ranger District, this species is not a predominant component of any community type, but was detected in yellow pine forest types across all successional stages. Point count data collected for this species from 1996-2002 on the Tellico and Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger Districts, indicates 88% of pine warbler observations were in conifer forests, 17% were in early successional vegetation, 54% were in mid successional, and 29% were in late successional. The overall regional population trend (Blue Ridge Mountains) for 1966-2005 is a slow and slight decrease (Figure 4) (Sauer et al. 2005).

Figure 4. Breeding Bird Survey trend data for Pine Warbler, Blue Ridge Mountain region.

33 Direct and Indirect Effects Pine and Pine-oak Forests Table 8 shows the number of acres of pine and pine-oak forests that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative by treatment type.

Table 8. Acres of Pine and Pine-oak Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Seedtree with reserves 0 acres 106 acres 106 acres Thinning 0 acres 54 acres 54 acres Thinning with group selection 0 acres 73 acres 73 acres Shelterwood 0 acres 98 acres 98 acres Total 0 acres 331 acres 331 acres

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct effects of the No Action Alternative. However, there would be indirect effects by no action. There would be an increase in noxious weeds and other species not naturally occurring in these communities without treatments. Prescribed fire and herbicide use would not be used. Lack of treatment with burning and timber removal would mean shade tolerant species, likely white pine or maple, would secede into pine and pine-oak communities reducing habitat of species which prefer those habitat types. This would lead to a reduction in pine warbler habitat.

Alternatives B and C Under Alternatives B and C, 331 acres of pine and pine-oak would be treated by timber harvest. The timber harvest and other treatments would promote and maintain these communities. The maintenance of naturally occurring pine and pine-oak would benefit species dependent on that habitat type, including the pine warbler. Furthermore, the amount of shade tolerant species that would replace these communities without treatment would be reduced. Creation of early successional habitat within this forest type is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that depend on both late and early successional habitats including black bear, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Shrubby and grassy habitats interspersed among the remaining mid to late successional habitats within the activity area provide soft mast and other forage, cover, and bugging areas important to those species. The importance of this habitat is further discussed in the section of this document pertaining to “Successional Habitats”. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with these communities. Approximately 328 acres within the woodland restoration sites are classified as pine and pine-oak. Burning and other treatments to open these stands would benefit natural systems. The goal is to restore natural communities which have been displaced by off- site tree species including Virginia pine and other vegetation. These would lead to the diversification of the forest as a whole which would benefit many animal species by creating more forage, nesting, and brood habitat. Herbicide use would reduce the number of exotic and noxious weed species leading to an increase in native plants and wildlife habitat. The other

34 actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community. The lack of herbicides in Alternative C would allow an increase in noxious weeds and other species not naturally occurring in these communities. Cumulative Effects Pine and Pine-oak Forests

All Alternatives Prescribed burning in or near any of the affected areas would benefit this community by suppressing shade tolerant species. Pine and pine-oak communities would be favored. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the community and MIS in some areas where pine was either planted or regenerated naturally. In other areas where red maple and other species are prolific, the community did not respond favorably. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or MIS to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect. Cumulatively Alternative A would benefit the community and MIS in some areas and have no effect in other areas. Existing Condition Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands Complexes of woodlands, savannas, and grasslands were once a frequent occurrence across portions of the southeastern landscape, primarily in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain provinces. Smaller occurrences likely occurred in the southern Appalachians on xeric ridge-tops and south- facing slopes where they were maintained by frequent fire (USDA 2004). Woodlands are open stands of trees, generally forming 25 to 60 percent canopy closure and may be of pine, hardwood (typically oak), or mixed composition. Savannas are usually defined as having lower tree densities than woodlands; grasslands are mostly devoid of trees. All of these conditions typically occurred in mixed mosaics within a fire-maintained landscape. In all cases, a well-developed grassy or herbaceous understory is present. Existing remnants of this habitat in both the southern Appalachians and Piedmont are limited primarily to roadsides and powerline rights-of-way due to reductions in fire frequency across most landscapes. One hundred thirty-seven species of viability concern are associated with this community in the southern Appalachian region. Of these, thirty-five species are of concern on the CNF. Because existing woodland, savanna, and grassland complexes are rare and not consistently tracked, the current acreage in such conditions is not well documented. These communities would likely occur on landforms currently occupied by xeric pine and oak communities. The distribution and condition of xeric pine and oak forests are discussed in other sections of this document. In an effort to restore some of the ecological role that these communities have historically played, the RLRMP includes objectives for restoring complexes of woodlands, savannas, and grasslands to fire-maintained landscapes. Desired conditions include heterogeneous canopy

35 coverage averaging 25 to 60 percent, and dense grass and herbaceous ground layers. Scattered patches may be devoid of canopy to provide for interspersed savanna and grassland conditions. Restoration activities may include thinning of trees (generally to less than 60 sq. ft. of basal area per acre) and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire on relatively short rotations (1 to 3 years) typically would be used to maintain desired conditions, and may involve both dormant and growing season fires. Direct and Indirect Effects Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no treatment to establish and maintain this community. Forests would continue to age, and noxious weeds and other non native or off site species would continue to increase.

Alternatives B and C Restoration and maintenance activities on approximately 919 acres would provide habitat for species associated with these community types, including several species of viability concern. Fire adapted species are expected to increase over time within these areas. Restoration and maintenance activities, including prescribed burning, may cause some short-term negative effects to individual species, by causing disturbance, mortality, or temporarily setting back plant and animal reproduction or growth. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long- term beneficial effect on organisms associated with xeric woodlands. Species associated with this community are relatively adapted to such disturbances, which are necessary to create and maintain optimal habitat conditions. In balance, these actions would result in long-term beneficial effects to associated species. Herbicide use would reduce the number of exotic and noxious weed species leading to an increase in native plants and wildlife habitat. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community. The lack of herbicides in Alternative C would allow an increase in noxious weeds and other species not naturally occurring in these communities. Cumulative Effects Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands

Alternative A (No Action) Past prescribed burning likely benefited this community by keeping the canopy open and increasing the grassy component, especially in areas affected by SPB. Future prescribed burning would do the same. Other past and future activities would have little effect. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community, but its effects are not clear. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would likely not affect woodlands, savannas and grasslands. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to woodlands, savannas and grasslands.

36 Alternatives B and C Past prescribed burning likely benefited this community by keeping the canopy open and increasing the grassy component, especially in areas affected by SPB. Utility rights of way may increase the amount and benefits of this community if maintained in a grassy state. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community, but its effects are not clear. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg.18) would likely not affect woodlands, savannas and grasslands. Historically present on xeric sites due to presence of fire, these habitats are much reduced today. Restoration would improve their distribution, but not likely to historical levels under any alternative. Restoration and management activities on National Forests would play a critical role in the conservation of this community within the landscapes containing National Forest System (NFS) land. Natural woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats are currently rare, occurring on private ownerships primarily along mowed roadside and powerline rights-of-ways. It is not expected that private landowners will restore or manage to maintain significant amounts of woodland, savanna, and grassland complexes; therefore, they would remain limited in abundance without national forest restoration efforts. Existing Condition Rare Communities Rare communities are assemblages of plants and animals and unique substrates that typically occupy a small portion of the landscape, but contribute significantly to biodiversity. They generally are limited in number of occurrences, small in size, and have relatively discrete boundaries. Forest Wide Standard FW-47 states that rare communities, wherever they occur on the forest, will be managed under the rare community prescription (USDA 2004a). This is done to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. Several small community occurrences were identified within the analysis area as a result of the botanical surveys (Donaldson 2005, Pistrang 2006). Community nomenclature follows NatureServe (2002b). Communities found include:

WETLAND COMMUNITIES NatureServe Element Code Community Name Global Rank CEGL004691 Appalachian Montane Alluvial Forest G2? CEGL007143 Montane Alluvial Forest (small river type) G3 ROCK OUTCROPS AND CLIFFS CEGL004980 Appalachian Feslic Cliff G3G4

Appalachian Montane Alluvial Forest & Montane Alluvial Forest (small river type) These community types best describe the small wetlands that are found associated with stream terraces within the analysis area. Associated rare species include Carex ruthii, and Juncus gymnocarpus (Donaldson 2005). Appalachian Felsic Cliff The best examples of this community type are found in stands 173/3, 175/27, 175/16-2, 175/32, and 177/10. The viability concern species Asplenium resiliens was found in association with this community type in stand 173/3 (Donaldson 2005).

37 Direct and Indirect Effects Rare Communities

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on rare communities.

Alternatives B and C Forest Wide Standard FW-47 states that rare communities, wherever they occur on the forest, will be managed under the rare community prescription (USDA 2004a). This is done to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. All wetland types described above would be excluded during sale layout and protected through the implementation of the riparian prescription. No skid zones would be marked around rock outcrops as they generally pose a barrier to harvest activities. Based upon this, implementation of Alternatives B and C would have no effect to rare communities. Cumulative Effects Rare Communities

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no cumulative effects to rare communities. Rare communities would be protected regardless of the action proposed in any projects.

Alternatives B and C The CNF RLRMP recognizes the value of rare communities on the landscape and provides for their protection. It is estimated that more than 50% of the nation’s wetlands have been destroyed in the past 200 years (Ernst and Brown 1988). Because wetlands are so vulnerable to destruction on private land, it is critical to maintain these communities where they occur on NFS land. Because all alternatives place priority on protection and maintenance of rare communities, cumulative effects on NFS lands are expected to be positive. Existing Condition Successional Habitats Forest age and related structure are key determining factors for presence, distribution, and abundance of a wide variety of wildlife. Some species depend on early-successional habitats, some depend on late-successional habitats, and others depend on a mix of both occurring within the landscape (USDA 2004). These habitat conditions are also important as wintering and stopover habitats for migrating species. In order to support viability of diverse plant and animal populations and to support demand for game species, a variety of habitat types are needed within national forest landscapes. This section deals only with successional forest conditions. Permanent openings such as open woodlands, savannas, grasslands, barrens and glades, balds, wildlife openings, old fields, pastures, and rights-of-way are covered elsewhere in this document. Mid- and late- successional/old growth conditions can be found under individual forest community sections. Early-successional forests are important because they are highly productive in terms of forage, diversity of food sources, insect production, nesting and escape cover, and soft mast. Early-

38 successional forests have the shortest lifespan (10 years) of any of the forest successional stages, and are typically in short supply and declining on national forests in the southern Appalachians, and in the eastern U.S. (USDA 2004). These habitats are essential or beneficial for some birds (ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided warbler, golden-winged warbler, prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, blue-winged warbler); beneficial to deer, turkey, and bear in the South; and sought by hunters, berry pickers, crafters, and herb gatherers for the opportunities they provide. Many species commonly associated with late-successional forest conditions also use early successional forests periodically, or depend upon it during some portion of their life cycle (USDA 2004).

Prairie Warbler (MIS) Prairie warblers (Dendroica discolor) are shrub land-nesting birds found in suitable habitats throughout the southern Appalachians (Hamel 1992). Prairie warblers require dense forest regeneration or open shrubby conditions in a forested setting. Near optimal habitat conditions are characterized by regeneration, thinned areas or patchy openings ten acres or more in size where woody plants average two to three meters in height, three to four cm in diameter, and occur in stem densities around 3,000 stems/acre (USDA 2004). Populations respond favorably to conditions created three to ten years following forest regeneration in larger forest patches. Providing a sustained flow of regenerating forests is necessary to support populations of prairie warbler. Populations of prairie warbler have been steadily declining in the eastern U.S. (Trend - 2.08, P value 0.0000; Sauer et al. 2005). Direct and Indirect Effects Successional Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) No additional early successional habitat would be created with this alternative. Forests would continue to age, affected by an increase in shade tolerant species that don’t provide habitat for species that use these communities. Noxious weeds would continue to expand their populations. There are currently 302 acres of existing forest in the 0-10 year age class, and another 92 acres planned in other projects totaling 394 ac (4% of the analysis area). This alternative would have no direct or indirect effect to prairie warbler. Habitat conditions would remain relatively stable as the stands age with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire.

Alternatives B and C Under these alternatives, 705 acres (6% of the 10,945 acre area) would be treated to create early successional habitat in Alternatives B and C. Creation of early successional habitat is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that depend on early successional habitats including chestnut-sided warbler, golden-winged warbler, prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and blue-winged warbler. The percentage distribution of successional stages if Alternative B or Alternative C is implemented is presented in Figure 5.

39 Figure 5. Lost Creek Successional Stages Alternative B or C

51%

Early Successional Sapling/pole 24% Mid successional 14% Late Successional 10%

Successional Stage

The proposed action would harvest 705 acres of forest bringing the early successional age class to 10%. None of the other proposed activities would affect prairie warbler because they don’t affect its habitat. Alternative B and C would create 705 acres or 6% more prairie warbler habitat. Alternatives B and C would benefit prairie warbler by creating more nesting habitat. Cumulative Effects Successional Habitats

All Alternatives Any activity which would open the understory and create patchy openings would benefit this community and MIS. This includes prescribed burning, timber harvest, utility rights of way and SPB affected areas. Recreation would not affect these types of habitats. Therefore, there would be beneficial cumulative effects to prairie warbler. The development of private land may have a detrimental affect if the land is converted to a use other than forested land. Existing Condition Permanent Openings and Old Fields, Rights-of-Way, Improved Pastures Habitats considered here include permanent openings and old fields, utility right-of-way, and improved pastures. Other early successional habitats such as woodlands, grasslands, and early successional forests are discussed elsewhere in this document. Permanent Openings and Old Fields Permanent grass/forb and seedling/sapling/shrub habitats are important elements of early successional habitat. Permanent openings typically are maintained for wildlife habitat on an annual or semi-annual basis with the use of cultivation, mowing, or other vegetation management treatments. These openings may contain native grasses and forbs, but many are planted to non-native agricultural species such as clover, orchard grass, winter wheat, annual rye, or other small grains. Old fields are sites that are no longer maintained and are succeeding to

40 forest or are maintained on a less frequent basis (5-10 year intervals, usually with burning and mowing). They are largely influenced by past cultural activities and may be dense sod or a rapidly changing field of annual and perennial herbs, grasses, woody shrubs and tree seedlings. Permanent openings are used by a variety of wildlife, both game and non-game species. The benefits of permanent openings to white-tailed deer are well documented. Permanent openings, especially those containing grass-clover mixtures, are used most intensively in early spring, but also are an important source of nutritious forage in winter, especially when acorns are in short supply. Forest openings also are a key habitat component for wild turkeys throughout the year. Maintained openings provide nutritious green forage in the winter and early spring and seeds during late summer and fall. Because of the abundance of insects and herbaceous plants produced in these openings they are especially important as brood rearing habitat for young turkeys. Linear openings, especially those associated with young regenerating forests provide optimal brood habitat conditions for ruffed grouse. There also are numerous wildlife benefits from openings maintained in native species. Native warm season grasses provide nesting, brood-rearing, and roosting habitat for northern bobwhite and other grassland species of wildlife. Native species are well adapted to local environments and generally require less intensive maintenance following establishment. Old fields provide food and cover for a variety of wildlife species. A number of disturbance- dependent birds, such as northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, golden-winged warbler, and blue winged warbler are associated with old field habitat. Recently abandoned fields are important for rabbits and many small mammals. Woodcock use old fields as courtship, feeding, and roosting sites. Although managed less intensively than other types of permanent openings, some degree of periodic management is necessary to maintain these habitats. There are approximately 1,517 acres of permanent maintained openings on the CNF. This represents 0.2 percent of the total national forest acres. Many were created by the expansion of log landings following timber harvest or by closing and seeding old roads to create linear openings. They are maintained with funding provided by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), the Forest Service, and partners including the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF). Many are planted in non-native grass-clover mixtures, which include combinations of white or red clovers along with wheat, rye, oats, orchard grass, and ryegrass. Some of the older openings are dominated by fescue and/or annual weed species, and some of the recently renovated openings are planted to grain sorghum. Rights-of-Way and Improved Pastures Although pastureland acreage has declined over the last 50 years, pastures still comprise approximately seven percent of the southeastern U.S. For Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) area, pastures comprise approximately 17 percent of the area, 99 percent of which is on private land (SAMAB 1996). There are no comparable estimates for rights-of-way. Utility Right-of-Ways (ROWs) and improved pastures typically are managed for purposes other than to provide wildlife habitat. However, they can provide wildlife benefits if managed appropriately. Rights-of-way can be established and maintained in plantings that enhance their benefits to wildlife. Once established, maintenance costs generally are reduced. There are approximately 1,300 acres of powerline ROW on the CNF. Right-of-way acreage was estimated by multiplying the existing 85 miles of powerline ROW known to the CNF by an average width

41 of 125 feet. The majority of these support a mixture of herbaceous plants and shrubs and are maintained by a variety of methods. The conversion of fescue pastures to native warm season grasses improves habitat conditions for northern bobwhite and numerous grassland species. Featured sites are primarily old farms that were in cultivation when acquired by the Forest Service. Native warm season grass plantings have been established at Doc Rogers fields, several tracts along the French Broad River, and along a powerline ROW between the Ocoee and Hiwassee Rivers. Emphasized species include bluestems, Indian grass, switch grass and native legumes. An experimental native cool season grass planting (Virginia wild rye) has been established along the Nolichucky River. These plantings total approximately 215 acres and were established with funds provided by the Forest Service, TWRA, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and several sportsmen’s organizations including Quail Unlimited. Direct and Indirect Effects Permanent Openings and Old Fields, Rights-of-Way, Improved Pastures

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would allow the spread of invasive plants into permanent openings and old fields, rights-of way, and improved pastures. Nepal grass and fescue, common on rights-of-way and fields now, would continue to displace native and other desired vegetation.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The proposed action would include approximately 70 acres of wildlife opening maintenance and herbicide use to control invasive species. This would benefit many species of wildlife, both game and non-game species. The openings provide an important source of nutritious forage in winter, especially when acorns are in short supply. Forest openings also are a key habitat component for wild turkeys throughout the year. Maintained openings provide nutritious green forage in the winter and early spring and seeds during late summer and fall. Because of the abundance of insects and herbaceous plants produced in these openings they are especially important as brood rearing habitat for young turkeys. Linear openings, especially those associated with young regenerating forests provide optimal brood habitat conditions for ruffed grouse. Alternative B includes the use of herbicides to control Nepal grass, fescue, and other undesired vegetation. This alternative would benefit this element by favoring native and other desired vegetation.

Alternative C Alternative C would have the same benefits as Alternative B with the exception of herbicide use. Herbicides would not be used. This alternative would allow the spread of invasive plants into permanent openings and old fields, rights-of way, and improved pastures. Nepal grass and fescue, common on rights-of-way and fields now, would continue to displace native and other desired vegetation.

42 Cumulative Effects Permanent Openings and old fields, Rights-of way, Improved pastures

Alternative A (No Action) Noxious weeds would continue to spread in the analysis area and surrounding areas. Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas could provide some of the benefits of openings if the burning frequency is adequate to stimulate grassy vegetation and create small openings. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect.

Alternatives B and C Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas could provide some of the benefits of openings if the burning frequency is adequate to stimulate grassy vegetation and create small openings. There would be no net loss or gain or other effect from road maintenance. If road maintenance occurs to access a stand then the road would be replanted after harvest and maintained as a linear wildlife opening again. Openland habitat, in the form of wildlife openings and rehabilitated roads (linear openings), would be maintained in these alternatives. This habitat type provides year-round forage, soft mast, and an abundance of insects for many species. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect. Existing Condition Riparian Habitats Terrestrial riparian habitats encompass the transition area between aquatic systems and upland terrestrial systems. All wetlands (including beaver ponds), as well as margins of varying widths along streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, are contained within terrestrial riparian habitats. These areas provide a number of critical functions for associated species. Most importantly, they provide rich, moist environments, not often found in upland areas. Riparian terrestrial habitats may serve as corridors for wildlife movement, allowing for daily travel and seasonal migration. The riparian area may serve as a connector of habitats and populations allowing gene flow to occur, thus keeping populations genetically vigorous (USDA 2004). Riparian habitats ideally include a mosaic of native plant and animal communities and successional stages, with a predominance of late-successional forests. Late successional riparian forests contain multiple canopy layers that provide a variety of ecological niches, thermal and protective cover, and maintenance of moist conditions. Decadence of older forests provide an abundance of snags and downed wood, which also help retain moisture and provide important habitat substrate for reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, invertebrates, and mosses and liverworts. The majority of riparian dependent species need or prefer late-successional forest conditions for the diverse structure and the moist, temperature-moderated microclimates they provide. This section of the Environmental Assessment examines the biological elements of the terrestrial riparian area. The physical elements are addressed in “Water and Soil Resource” discussed later. Acadian Flycatcher (MIS) Breeding range of the Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) includes southeastern South Dakota east across southern Great Lakes region to southern New England, south to southern Texas, Gulf Coast, and central Florida, west to central Kansas; in Canada, restricted to

43 southwestern Ontario (NatureServe 2002). The highest nesting densities were in the Cumberland Plateau and in Virginia and West Virginia. Key habitat requirements are moist deciduous forests with a moderate understory, generally near a stream (Hamel 1992). Humid deciduous forest (primarily mature), woodland, shaded ravines, floodplain forest, river swamps, hammocks and cypress bays of south, thickets, second growth, and plantations are used for nesting and breeding. Acadian flycatchers require a high dense canopy and an open understory. These birds tend to be scarce or absent in small forest tracts, unless the tract is near a larger forested area. North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a stable population in the Eastern U.S. from 1966- 2005, but a declining trend in the Blue Ridge Mountains in the same time period (Sauer et al. 2005). Direct and Indirect Effects Riparian Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would have no direct or indirect effect to Acadian flycatchers. Habitat conditions would remain relatively stable with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire. This alternative would have no short-term or long-term effects.

Alternatives B and C The proposed action and Alternative C would have little to no effect on Acadian flycatchers. This project would comply with the riparian area provisions of the RLRMP. No riparian habitat would be affected. These alternatives are not expected to affect Acadian flycatchers. Cumulative Effects Riparian Habitats

All Alternatives Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect. Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas would not cumulatively affect Acadian flycatchers. These projects would also be in compliance with the RLRMP and thus not be likely to impact Acadian flycatcher habitat. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to Acadian flycatchers. Existing Condition Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Large woody debris (including branches, large logs, stumps, and root wads) is an important habitat component both to streams and terrestrial areas. It is important both structurally and as a source of energy. Large snags provide birds with nesting and feeding sites, singing perches, and as lookout posts for predators and prey (USDA 2004). Bats roost and produce maternity colonies under exfoliating bark. Amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates utilize woody debris as cover. Animals use snags, logs, and stumps as denning sites. Downed wood and logs are used for drumming by grouse to attract mates. Turtles and snakes use logs in streams and overhanging branches for basking and sunning. Large woody debris in riparian areas is used as cover by amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates, and small mammals. Small mammals utilize logs as travel ways. Fungi and other decomposers of woody debris are key components of food webs. Rotting wood tends to absorb moisture during wet periods and release it in dry periods thus helping to maintain a cooler microclimate (USDA 2004).

44 Snag availability is currently not considered a limiting factor on the CNF. Snag availability is influenced by a variety of factors including tree species, age, slope, aspect, and health allowing for lots of variability within the landscape. It is estimated that there are about 7 to 8 snags per acre across the forest and the recent SPB outbreak has resulted in a sharp increase in snag availability over the past several years. Unless another disease outbreak occurs, a gradual decline toward pre-SPB outbreak levels should be expected over the next several years as these trees decay and fall to the ground. Snag availability is expected to exhibit a gradually increasing long-term trend as the average age of the forest continues to increase. With the provisions included under all alternatives in the RLRMP, existing snags, downed wood, and den trees would be well maintained on NFS land. Pileated Woodpecker (MIS) The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) utilizes many forest communities, but generally is limited to mature coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests with large, dead trees (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Highest densities occur in mixed pine-hardwood sawtimber. It is a locally common permanent resident of Tennessee found in woodlands with trees large enough for nesting and foraging (Nicholson 1997). It can be found throughout the elevational range of the Unaka Mountains but is less common at higher elevations and spruce-fir forests. It is typically considered a forest interior species but will readily fly across openings and is somewhat tolerant of forest fragmentation. Its occurrence in an area is more dependent on regional forested area rather then individual forested tracts. Tennessee Christmas counts show an increase in pileated numbers (Nicholson 1997). See the CNF FY04 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for details of habitat requirements, Cherokee point count data information, and RLRMP Standards and Objectives forest wide (USDA 2005). Figure 6 shows Breeding Bird Survey population trends for Blue Ridge Mountains. The overall regional population trend (Blue Ridge Mountains) for 1966-2005 is a steady increase (Sauer et al. 2005). Figure 6. Population trends for pileated woodpecker in the Blue Ridge, 1966-2005.

45 Direct and Indirect Effects Snags, Dens and Downed Wood

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would have no effect to snags, dens, and downed wood. The forest would continue to age, causing an increase in those elements. No management activities would take place. There would be no effect to pileated woodpeckers.

Alternatives B and C The proposed timber harvests would remove potential snags, dens and downed wood. This would negatively affect species in the area that use those elements. The effects would be limited to the areas affected by harvest. Due to the recent SPB outbreak, snags are not a limiting factor at this time. The proposed habitat improvements would negatively impact pileated woodpeckers by removing mature trees the birds might use for nesting and feeding. However, there is an abundance of this type of habitat found in the surrounding area. The proposed action and Alternative C would remove approximately 705 acres (6% of the 10,945 acre analysis area) of forest over 70 years of age in the area. The other activities proposed would not affect the woodpecker. Cumulative Effects Snags, Dens and Downed Wood

All Alternatives Areas affected by SPB and other areas potentially affected by hemlock woolly adelgid would increase snags, dens and downed wood and would benefit pileated woodpeckers. Timber sales may also provide snags and downed wood but would also remove some mature trees. Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas would not cumulatively affect pileated woodpeckers. Recreation would not affect this habitat component or the MIS. Private land development may reduce snags, dens and downed wood. Existing Condition Aquatic Habitats All streams in the Lost Creek analysis area drain to the Hiwassee River (5th level Hydrologic Unit Code – 06020002030). The analysis area (NFS lands only) contains approximately 46 miles of perennial streams; 20.6 miles of these perennial streams are capable of supporting fish (Table 9).

Table 9. Aquatic habitats in the Lost Creek Analysis Area (includes all Forest Service managed streams) Aquatic Habitats Project Ephemeral Streams 166 miles Intermittent Streams 55 miles Perennial Streams (no fish) 25.5 miles Coldwater Fish Streams 8.6 miles Coolwater Fish Streams 12 miles Warmwater Fish Ponds 0 acres

46 These streams support both cold (8.6 miles) and cool (12.0 miles) water fisheries (Table 10). All of the stream reaches are small having stream orders of 6 or less. Stream order is positively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Gradient varies considerably from a low of 0% to a high of 11.3%. Gradient is negatively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Elevation (at the lower end of the stream reaches) ranges from 800 to 1780 feet and is negatively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Generally cold water habitats (capable of supporting trout) occur above 1200 feet on the CNF.

Table 10. Streams capable of supporting fish in the Lost Creek Analysis Area on the Hiwassee/Ocoee Ranger District. Stream Name Reach Stream Fishery Order % Grad Low Miles Elev. Bearpen Branch 1 0.6 Cool water 4 11.3 1020 Bearpen Branch 2 0.6 Cold water 4 2 1360 Chestnut Gap Branch 1 0.9 Cold water 5 6.8 1460 Cold Spring Gap Branch 1 0.6 Cold water 4 5.7 1780 Jenkins Grave Branch 1 0.6 Cold water 3 9.3 1780 Lost Creek, Big 1 1.1 Cool water 6 0 800 Lost Creek, Big 2 1.5 Cool water 6 1.5 800 Lost Creek, Big 3 2.3 Cool water 6 0.8 920 Lost Creek, Big 4 0.8 Cool water 6 1 1020 Lost Creek, Little 1 0.4 Cool water 4 2 800 Lost Creek, Little 2 0.8 Cool water 4 3.5 840 Lost Creek, Little 3 1.3 Cool water 4 2.3 1080 Lost Creek, Little 4 1.3 Cold water 4 1 1240 Mary Branch 1 1.28 Cool water 4 2.4 940 Pace Shanty Branch 1 0.6 Cold water 4 3.3 1700 Piney Flats Branch 1 1.1 Cool water 5 4.3 1060 Piney Flats Branch 2 0.4 Cold water 4 2.8 1320 Puncheon Camp Branch 1 0.6 Cold water 4 4.3 1300 Rymer Camp Branch, 1 0.6 4 6.3 1590 unnamed trib. Cold water Rymer Camp Branch 1 0.8 Cool water 4 7.5 1140 Rymer Camp Branch 2 0.9 Cold water 3 5.6 1520 Sulpher Springs Branch 1 1.48 Cold water 5 4.3 1440

Based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the CNF RLRMP (USDA 2004b) Lost Creek watershed (6th level HUC) is a component of the Hiwassee watershed (5th level HUC) which has an Average Condition Rating for sediment, point source pollution, temperature and altered stream flow. An average rating is acceptable for point source pollution, temperature and altered stream flow but is not acceptable for sediment. Forest Service (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists conducted ten stream

47 surveys between 1992 and 2003 on streams in the Lost Creek analysis area. These surveys were done on Big Lost Creek (reaches 1 and 3), Pace Shanty Branch, Piney Flats Branch (reaches 1 and 2), Puncheon Camp Branch, Rymer Camp Branch (reaches 1 and 2), and Sulphur Springs Branch. Fish and habitat conditions were evaluated. All habitat surveys indicated that sediment ratings were good to excellent. None of the substrate surveys by the Forest Service indicated that sediment conditions were below average. It is likely that the unacceptable sediment rating for the larger Hiwassee watershed is predicted based on conditions that occur on privately owned lands. Direct and Indirect Effects Aquatic Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or use of herbicides. No new adverse effects would occur to the aquatic environment.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would employ filter strips between ground disturbance and streams (Forest Wide Standards-FW-3, FW-6, FW-7, FW-9, and FW-10; USDA 2004a). Vegetation management within defined riparian corridors would emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition (Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11- 29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32; USDA Forest Service 2004a). These standards are adequate to protect all aquatic habitats. Herbicides would be used during timber stand improvement and site preparation activities. Forest wide standards (FW-14, FW-15, and FW-16; USDA 2004a) would be followed during implementation. Implementation of Alternative B with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect effects to aquatic habitats from these management activities (Section 10.2, pp. 198-199; USDA 2004b).

Alternative C Alternative C would employ filter strips between ground disturbance and streams (Forest wide standards-FW-3, FW-6, FW-7, FW-9, and FW-10; USDA 2004a). Vegetation management within defined riparian corridors would emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition (Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11- 29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32; USDA 2004a). These standards are adequate to protect all aquatic habitats. Implementation of Alternative C with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect effects to aquatic habitats from these management activities (Section 10.2, pp. 198-199; USDA 2004b). Cumulative Effects Aquatic Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A does not propose any new ground disturbance. Other activities in the area (see pg. 18) may be contributing sediment to streams. Stream surveys conducted by Forest Service

48 (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists demonstrated that sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the CNF RLRMP (USDA 2004a). These activities, implemented in conjunction with Alternative A, would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands (Section 16) could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B includes temporary road construction, maintenance, and reconstruction; timber harvest; prescribed burning; maintenance of wildlife openings; oak planting; herbicide treatments; and ephemeral pool construction. Each of these activities must follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the CNF RLRMP (UDSA 2004a). Following these standards would result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re-vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams. Other activities in the area (see pg. 18) may be contributing sediment to streams. Stream surveys conducted by Forest Service (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists demonstrated that sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the CNF RLRMP (USDA 2004a). These activities, implemented in conjunction with Alternative B, would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands (Section 16) could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Alternative C Alternative C includes temporary road construction, maintenance, and reconstruction; timber harvest; prescribed burning; maintenance of wildlife openings; oak planting; and ephemeral pool construction. Each of these activities must follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the CNF RLRMP (USDA 2004a, pp. 166-168). Following these standards would result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re-vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams. Other activities in the area (see pg. 18) may be contributing sediment to streams. Stream surveys conducted by Forest Service (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists demonstrated that sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative C would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably

49 foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the CNF RLRMP (USDA 2004a). These activities, implemented in conjunction with Alternative C, would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands (Section 16) could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions. Existing Condition Threatened and Endangered Species Effects to federally-listed threatened and endangered species are analyzed in detail in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix C) for this project. Two federally listed species were analyzed and the results are summarized here. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Threatened and Endangered Species Indiana Bat With Alternative A, no activities would take place in habitat for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), therefore, that alternative would not affect Indiana bat. The proposed action and Alternative C are consistent with the RLRMP. Alternatives B and C are not likely to adversely affect the Myotis sodalis, because the project is consistent with the protective measures for Indiana bat set forth in the 2004 RLRMP. The USFWS concurs with this finding (Barclay 2006). Small Whorled Pogonia This species was not found during surveys and is only analyzed for prescribed burning effects. Dormant burning would have no effects. Growing season burns would restore natural assemblages and likely have long term beneficial effects. The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) concurs with this finding. Existing Condition Demand Species Black Bear (MIS) The black bear (Ursus americanus) uses a wide variety of habitats in the southern Appalachians, occurring primarily on national forests and national parks of the Southern Blue Ridge, Northern Cumberland, and Allegheny Mountains and the Northern Ridge and Valley. These public lands in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia connect to form a forested landscape of over six million acres where bears are generally distributed at low to medium densities. The increase of older oak forests in this large block of habitat, along with increased protection and conservative hunter harvest, has allowed bear populations throughout the southeastern mountain region to moderately increase over the past 30 years. Bears generally are absent from the Cumberland Plateau, Southern Cumberland Mountains, Southern Ridge and Valley and Piedmont (SAMAB 1996). Tennessee’s black bear population is estimated at 1,000 to 1,500 animals, half of which may occupy the CNF. Bait station survey data and legal harvest data indicate a significant population increase since 1980 (USDA 2004c). In the southern Appalachians, including the CNF, important habitat elements are habitat remoteness, habitat diversity, den site availability, and availability of hard mast. Black bears are opportunistic omnivores and consume a variety of seasonal plant and animal foods including flowering plants, grasses, various roots and tubers, and especially soft mast (grapes, berries, apples, etc.). However, availability of hard mast (acorns and hickory nuts) is

50 critical throughout the winter, and reproductive success is closely related to this habitat factor. Total production of hard mast and production by individual trees can fluctuate from year to year due to climatic and other factors (USDA 2004). Bears den in a wide variety of sites including road culverts, abandoned buildings, and in vegetation. Traditional dens are found on the ground in caves, rockfalls, or under the root mass of uprooted trees, and in hollow trees. Some researchers have found that hollow trees are preferred dens. Others have found that ground dens are preferred in the North Carolina mountains. Preference may be related to availability and may be a learned behavior (USDA 2004). Availability of potential den trees on the CNF is augmented by a forest wide standard requiring their retention during all vegetation management treatments. For this reason, the black bear was selected as an MIS to help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Demand Species

Alternative A (No Action) The No Action Alternative would result in a decrease in vegetative age class diversity. Habitat diversity would decrease over time as young timber stands grow out of reach for browsing, soft mast production in early successional areas declines, and dense escape cover declines. Black bear utilize shrub/sapling stage vegetation to varying degrees, and the RLRMP guidelines require that 4-10% of each compartment in Prescription 9.H be comprised of such habitat (0-10 year age class). Currently, 4% of lands in the analysis area are in or will be in the 0-10 year age class. This alternative allows the increase of white pine and other shade tolerant tree species to become more dominant. Hard mast would continue to decrease as a result. No other wildlife habitat improvements would take place under Alternative A.

Alternatives B and C The timber harvest in Alternative B and C increases the percentage of acreage in the 0-10 year age class from 4% to 10% in 2006 for all forested lands. The addition of structural and biological diversity in the form of shrub/sapling vegetation would provide soft mast, insects, forage, and escape cover. Additional cover would be provided by tops and root wads which are left behind. Known black bear den sites would be protected for as long as they remain suitable by prohibiting vegetation management and ground-disturbing activities within a minimum 100 feet around the den. Potential black bear den trees would be retained during all vegetation management treatments. Potential den trees are those that are greater than 20” DBH and are hollow with broken tops. Openings created by harvest would benefit black bear by providing soft mast and cover. Female bears use middle elevations with higher stand richness during summer months (Van Manen personal communication) and the addition of structural and biological diversity in the form of shrub/sapling vegetation would provide soft mast, insects, forage, and escape cover. Soft mast-producing species (dogwood, black gum, hawthorn, grapes, serviceberry, etc.) would be retained during vegetation cutting treatments to the extent possible, within constraints of meeting treatment objectives. Soft mast and other forage is a valuable diet supplement to black

51 bears, especially during the months when hard mast is absent and in years when there is a hard mast failure. Those that would grow naturally after harvest, such as blackberries, would provide this. The treatments include removing pine and planting oak in many stands. Oak would be released in some of the harvest areas producing a mixed pine-hardwood or hardwood-pine stand where there is now a pine stand. This would increase hard mast and would benefit bears. Negative effects would be a temporary increase in human disturbance. Overall use of the area by forest visitors is expected to increase slightly even though the open road density would remain the same. Access by foot, horseback, and mountain bike are likely to increase along newly closed roads. Some illegal vehicular use should also be anticipated based upon past history in the area. Disturbance disrupts movement patterns affecting feeding and mating. Disruption of these patterns uses essential energy and loss of energy could result in poor health, especially during winter when food is not as available and bears become dormant. Openland habitat, in the form of wildlife openings and rehabilitated roads (linear openings), would be maintained in these alternatives. This habitat type provides year-round forage, soft mast, and an abundance of insects for many species, and would be a benefit to black bear. Ephemeral pools may serve as a water source, but otherwise would not affect bears. Herbicide use would benefit the community by reducing noxious weeds allowing native species to increase. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with dry-mesic oak forests. The other actions in Alternative B, including road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the MIS or the community. Alternatives B and C would regenerate 705 acres of forest 71+ years of age. Over 5,600 acres (51%) of late successional forest would remain within these compartments. The proposed action alternative would benefit bears after the initial disturbance while timber is harvested. Cumulative Effects Demand Species

Alternative A (No Action) Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory immediately after the burn, but it is soon followed by a flush of new growth. That is beneficial to bears. There would be no cumulative effect because burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the bears when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or bears to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of habitat for bears. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect. There would be little to no cumulative effects to bears from the No Action Alternative.

52

Alternatives B and C Examination of this cluster of compartments within the context of the surrounding landscape reveals that approximately 7% of the total 19,000-acre analysis area would be considered early successional habitat after cutting in Alternative B or Alternative C. This habitat would provide needed age class diversity and soft mast. Large areas within these compartments would not be harvested, providing the extensive, fairly remote habitat black bear need for mating and feeding. Hard mast production would increase with the planting and release of oaks in the regeneration areas. Harvest of these stands within the analysis area would have a beneficial cumulative effect on black bear when viewed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory immediately after the burn, but it is soon followed by a flush of new growth. That is beneficial to bears. There would be no cumulative effect because burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the bears when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or bears to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of habitat for bears. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pg. 18) would have little effect. Existing Condition Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals A multitude of invasive, non-native plants threaten the integrity of native ecosystems in the southern Appalachian area. These include, but are not limited to, species such as kudzu, privet, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and Nepal grass. The SAA (SAMAB 1996) provides a summary of the major threats from invasive plant species. Although not mentioned in the SAA, the wild boar (Sus scrofa) is another example of non-native species that is negatively affecting certain habitats (beech forests and wetlands) in the southern Appalachians (USDA 2004b). Wild boars were introduced into the southern Appalachian Mountains in the early 1900’s. Originally imported for hunting, they eventually escaped from their enclosed hunting reserves in North Carolina and over time have become a naturalized component of the area’s fauna (USDA 2004b). Management of this species is somewhat controversial in that some hunters desire it as a major game species, yet its impacts to the natural environment must be considered. No major impacts from wild boars were seen within the analysis area and this species will not be analyzed further in this document. On the CNF, the following non-native invasive plant species are tracked through project level inventories: Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), small carpetgrass (Arthraxon hispidus), autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), English ivy (Hedera helix), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). While other invasive plant species may occur with scattered distributions on the Forest, these species are recognized as having significant occurrences with a high potential for impacts to native communities on the Forest.

53 In 1999 the Southern Region released a Noxious Weed Management Strategy that outlined five emphasis areas, 1) Prevention and Education, 2) Control, 3) Inventory, Mapping, and Monitoring, 4) Research, and 5) Administration and Planning. This was followed in 2001 with the development of the Regional Forester’s Invasive Exotic Plant Species list. The RLRMP includes numerous Goals, Objectives, and Standards to address the potential impacts of non- native invasive species. These include control efforts and maintenance and restoration of native species. Within the Lost Creek analysis area invasive plant species are abundant, yet mostly restricted to roads and trails and other disturbed sites. Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum) is a particular problem along linear wildlife openings and roads. This grass out-competes other desired vegetation and is often dominant where it occurs. Wildlife do not use Nepal grass, thus the plant is having an adverse effect on wildlife habitat within the analysis area. Direct and Indirect Effects Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals

Alternative A (No Action) No action would be taken to eliminate or control invasive species. Nepal grass and other invasive species would continue to spread though normal vectors, further affecting wildlife forage and native and desired non-native plants in the analysis area.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would treat invasive exotic herbaceous species with herbicide. This would reduce the impacts of these plants and reduce the likelihood of them spreading. This would benefit the impacted area by allowing native and desired non-native vegetation to reoccupy the site. Wildlife habitat would improve by the increase in forage and bugging areas.

Alternative C No herbicide treatments would occur with this alternative. Nepal grass and other invasive species would continue to spread though normal vectors with potentially increased spread in newly disturbed areas related to project implementation. This spread would further affect wildlife forage and native and desired non-native plants in the analysis area. Cumulative Effects Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals

Alternative A (No Action) No action would be taken to eliminate or control invasive species. Invasive species would continue to spread on the landscape over time, causing environmental degradation though a displacement of native species. There would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative would use herbicide to control invasive plant species in the Lost Creek affected area. The action is intended to slow the spread of these species on the landscape. The action would not cumulatively affect other areas or actions.

54 Alternative C No action would be taken to eliminate or control invasive species. Newly disturbed areas that result from project implementation would provide likely sites for new infestations. Invasive species would continue to spread on the landscape over time, causing environmental degradation though a displacement of native species. Existing Condition Viability Concern Species Effects to Regional Forester Sensitive Species are analyzed in detail in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix C) for this project. These species are those for which there is concern for viability of their populations across their range. Based on this analysis, seven Sensitive Species occur in the vicinity of the project. Some species were not found during surveys, but habitat is available within the prescribed burn areas. Thus they were also analyzed in the BE. Table 11 displays species evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect for each. Table 11. Species Evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect Scientific Determination of Determination of Determination of Name Effect-Alternative A Effect-Alternative B Effect-Alternative C No effect. No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Plethodon occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal aureolus affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. Negative effects short term. No effect. No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Plethodon occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal teyahalee affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. Negative effects short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal Speyeria diana affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. Negative effects short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Corynorhinus occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal rafinesquii affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. Negative effects short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal Myotis leibii affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. Negative effects short term. No effect: No activities would Alternative B is not likely to Alternative C is not likely to occur; no habitat would be adversely affect the Myotis sodalis. adversely affect the Myotis sodalis. Myotis sodalis affected. The proposed action is consistent The proposed action is consistent with the CNF RLRMP. with the CNF RLRMP. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Fumonelix occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal archeri affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Paravitrea occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal placentula affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Vertigo occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal bollesiana affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not Vertigo clappi occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal likely to cause a trend to federal affected. listing or a loss of viability. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Ditrichum occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward ambiguum affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability.

55 Table 11. Species Evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Homaliadelphus occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward sharpie affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Megaceros occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward aenigmaticus affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Aster georgianus affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Berberis affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. canadensis Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Botrychium occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward jenmanii affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Buckleya affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. distichophylla Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial. Long-term probably beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Carex roanensis occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Fothergilla affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. major Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial. Long-term probably beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Gentiana affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. austromontana Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would Not likely to adversely effect (pers. Not likely to adversely effect (pers. Isotria occur; no habitat would be comm. Jim Widlak 4/25/05) comm. Jim Widlak 4/25/05) medeoloides affected. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Lysimachia affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. fraseri Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Monotropsis affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. odorata Benefit from opening understory, Benefit from opening understory, negative impacts are short term. negative impacts are short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Penstemon occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward smallii affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Pycnanthemum No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not

56 Table 11. Species Evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect beadlei occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Scutellaria occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward saxatilis affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Thaspium affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. pinnatifidum Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Thermopsis occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward mollis var. affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. fraxinifolia Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial. Long-term probably beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not Trillium simile occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward likely to cause a trend toward Tsuga affected. federal listing or loss of viability. federal listing or loss of viability. caroliniana Negative impacts are short-term. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial. Long-term probably beneficial.

Alternative A would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Endangered Isotria medeoloides or Myotis sodalis. Alternatives B and C are not likely to adversely affect the Isotria medeoloides or Myotis sodalis. The USDI FWS concurs with these findings. The implementation of the proposed activities may affect individuals of sensitive species, however, this would not likely lead to a loss in range wide viability or trend toward federal listing. No other Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species that occur on the CNF would be affected. Formal consultation with the USDI FWS is not required. In addition to Regional Forester Sensitive Species, forest managers have responsibility to maintain occurrences of all native and desired non-native species that are necessary to maintain viable populations of these species on the Forest under RLRMP Forest Wide Standard 28 (FW- 28). Appendix E to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the RLRMP (USDA 2004c) lists species of viability concern known to occur on the Forest. The following sections describe the existing condition and effects by alternative for each plant species of viability concern that was found in the area. Site specific information is drawn directly from the botanical survey reports (Donaldson 2005, Pistrang 2006). Note that the following descriptions only provide a summary of important information for each species. Please refer to the botanical reports for comprehensive data, maps, and locations for each species and surveyed area. Existing Condition Acer leucoderme Acer leucoderme is known primarily from the southeast Piedmont (North Carolina to Alabama) but has documented occurrences from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It typically occurs on rocky slopes and bluffs, particularly over mafic or calcareous substrates

57 (Weakley 2004), and in moist woods along rivers and ravines (Wofford 1989). Acer leucoderme is locally common within the Ocoee and Hiwassee River drainages and is previously known from 27 locations on the Forest. New locations for this species were found during the botanical surveys within stands 158/9, 158/10, 158/25, and 173/24. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at low to moderate risk. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 1 7A – Scenic Byway Corridors 10 7D – Concentrated Recreation Zone 1 7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas 1 8C – Black Bear Habitat Management 13 9H – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant 1 Associations to Their Ecological Potential

Direct and Indirect Effects Acer leucoderme

Alternative A (No Action) Eleven of the twenty seven known sites occur within prescription allocations (1A, 7A) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Acer leucoderme.

Alternatives B and C Newly discovered populations of Acer leucoderme would be partially protected by riparian buffers within stands 158/9 and 158/10. The population in stand 158/25 would not be impacted as that stand has been dropped from the proposed action. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have limited effects to Acer leucoderme if it were present in the burn area. There is little information in the literature on the effects of fire on Acer leucoderme; however it is closely related to Acer saccharum which is known to be rather intolerant of fire (Tirmenstein 1991). Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. Within the analysis area, this species was most closely allied with mesic habitats that would not likely be affected by growing season burns. Based upon the known response to fire of related species, individuals subjected to fire would likely be killed (Tirmenstein 1991). Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Acer leucoderme. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Acer leucoderme in the future.

58 Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Acer leucoderme

All Alternatives Acer leucoderme is known to be locally common in the Ocoee and Hiwassee watersheds. Four new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area and while timber harvest activities may impact some individuals, effects would be mitigated and this species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Asplenium resiliens (blackstem spleenwort) Asplenium resiliens is a widespread species known from almost all the southern states from Nevada and Arizona east through Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Florida and north to Pennsylvania. In Tennessee it is known from virtually every county in the eastern two thirds of the state. It typically occurs on moist to dry outcrops of calcareous origin (Weakley 2004). The species was included as a viability concern species for the CNF primarily due to a very limited distribution of available habitat. This species is not tracked by the Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage (DNH), thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations have been estimated to number between 20 and 100. One location for this species was found along a narrow rock outcrop within stand 173/3. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at moderate risk. FW- 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Asplenium resiliens is a widespread species that is naturally limited on the CNF based upon the distribution of suitable habitat. The species occurs directly on the rock- faces of outcrops and cliffs in areas unlikely to be impacted by management activities. Direct and Indirect Effects Asplenium resiliens (blackstem spleenwort)

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Asplenium resiliens.

Alternatives B and C The newly discovered population of Asplenium resiliens occurs on a rock outcrop and should not be directly impacted from timber harvest activities. Indirect impacts such as changes in solar incidence and associated moisture regimes could alter habitat conditions for the species, but as it is known to occur in both moist to dry conditions, are not likely to cause its extirpation. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect large rock outcrop habitats and thus would have no effect on Asplenium resiliens. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the

59 form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Asplenium resiliens. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Asplenium resiliens

All Alternatives Asplenium resiliens is a widespread species known from almost all the southern states and virtually every county in the eastern two thirds of Tennessee. It is naturally limited on the CNF due to the limited distribution of habitat. One new location was found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area. This species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Cardamine flagellifera (running bittercress) Cardamine flagellifera is a southern Appalachian endemic known from the mountains of the Virginias, Carolinas, Tennessee, and Georgia. Habitat includes seeps, stream banks, and moist cove or bottomland forests, usually at moderate to lower elevations (Weakley 2004). This species is previously known from six locations on the Forest. One new site for this species was found within stand 178/14 where it is scattered and locally abundant (at least a few hundred plants, Donaldson 2005) within a rich cove forest community that spans the eastern two drainages in the stand. The species co-occurs here with another rare species, Scutellaria saxatilis. This stand was later dropped from the project. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to high risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 3 4F – Scenic Areas 1 7B – Scenic Corridors/Sensitive Viewsheds 2

Direct and Indirect Effects Cardamine flagellifera Five of the six previously known sites occur within prescription allocations (1A, 7B) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. The new population found in stand 178/14 would not be affected as this stand was dropped from the project.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Cardamine flagellifera.

60 Alternatives B and C The stand including the newly discovered site of Cardamine flagellifera was dropped from the project and would not be affected by harvest activities. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not be implemented within rich cove forest habitats and thus would have no effect on Cardamine flagellifera. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Cardamine flagellifera. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Cardamine flagellifera in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the viability of Cardamine flagellifera. Cumulative Effects Cardamine flagellifera

All Alternatives Cardamine flagellifera is previously known from six locations on the CNF. The new location found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area would not be affected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Carex ruthii (Ruth’s sedge) Carex ruthii is a southern Appalachian endemic that ranges from southwestern Virginia, through western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, to the northern portions of South Carolina and Georgia. Habitat includes seepage areas in both forested and open areas (Weakley 2004). The species is previously known from twenty locations on the Forest. This species was found just outside the stand boundary of stand 169/5 along a small stream. This species was removed from the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list during the most recent list revision due to the large increase in known sites being recorded in the southern Appalachian mountains. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates high risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 4A – Appalachian Trail Corridor 4 4K – Roan Mountain 1 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 2 7B – Scenic Corridors/Sensitive Viewsheds 2 8C – Black Bear Habitat Management 6 9F – Rare Communities 3 9H– Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant 2 Associations to Their Ecological Potential

61 Direct and Indirect Effects Carex ruthii Twelve of the previously known twenty sites occur within mapped prescription allocations (4A, 4K, 7A, 7B, 9F) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Based upon habitat constraints, most (all?) sites for this species should also be protected by riparian reserves.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Carex ruthii.

Alternatives B and C The newly discovered site of Carex ruthii is just outside the stand boundary of stand 169/5 and would not be affected by harvest activities. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian habitats and thus would have no effect on Carex ruthii. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Carex ruthii. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Carex ruthii in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the viability of Carex ruthii. Cumulative Effects Carex ruthii

All Alternatives Carex ruthii is previously known from twenty locations on the CNF. The new location found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area would not be affected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Cratoneuron filicinum (a rare moss species) Cratoneuron filicinum is a widespread and globally distributed species whose published range, like many mosses, is not well documented, and is primarily based upon scattered collections. Crum and Anderson (1981) list its North American range as Newfoundland across Canada to British Columbia, Alaska, and the Aleutians, south to North Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, and New Mexico. The species is also known from various locales in Europe, Asia, Africa, and New Zealand. Habitat is described as calcareous rock or soil, often in seepage areas or drainage ditches (Crum and Anderson 1981). Cratoneuron filicinum is not currently tracked by the DNH, thus no current records on populations have been kept, however NatureServe (2006) lists it as “S1” for the State of Tennessee indicating between 1 and 5 known populations statewide. One previous location is recorded in the bryophyte database for the CNF, collected by Sara Noble in

62 the Citico Creek Wilderness in 2001. This species was collected during the botanical surveys within stand 169/5 on rocks in a seepage area within a riparian area. Direct and Indirect Effects Cratoneuron filicinum Cratoneuron filicinum is a globally widespread species with an incomplete published distribution. NatureServe (2006) considers the species to be rare within Tennessee, but it is neither tracked by the DNH as a rare species nor was it considered in the terrestrial viability analysis for the CNF (USDA 2004c). FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. This species was found within one stand proposed for treatment, but the location would be protected through the adherence to riparian standards. No additional mitigation is proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Cratoneuron filicinum.

Alternatives B and C The newly discovered site of Cratoneuron filicinum within stand 169/5 is located within a riparian area and would not be affected by harvest activities. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian habitats and thus would have no effect on Cratoneuron filicinum. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Cratoneuron filicinum. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the viability of Cratoneuron filicinum. Cumulative Effects Cratoneuron filicinum

All Alternatives Cratoneuron filicinum is a widespread and globally distributed species whose published range, like many mosses, is not well documented, and is primarily based upon scattered collections. The newly found site for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area would be protected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (large yellow lady slipper) Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens is widespread in North America, though, like many related species, is at risk throughout its range due to habitat loss and pressure from collectors (NatureServe 2006). The species “parviflorum” has been variously treated in the literature, sometimes broken into three varieties. Variety pubescens is the most commonly encountered form, but can be confused with variety parviflorum which is considered to have viability concerns on the CNF. Both varieties are found very infrequently on the Forest and should probably be considered similarly with respect to conservation. Neither variety is currently

63 tracked by the DNH, thus no current records on populations have been kept. Numbers of populations for variety parviflorum have been estimated to be between 6 and 20 for the Forest. This species was found within stands 158/25 (three plants), 175/16-1 (two plants), 175/16-2 (1 plant), and 177/10 (twelve plants). The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to high risk levels for variety parviflorum. No rating is given for variety pubescens. Direct and Indirect Effects Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens was found within four stands proposed for treatment. One of those stands (158/25) containing three plants was later dropped from the proposed action. The two plants found within stand 175/16-1 are in association with another rare species that has been marked in the field for protection (see mitigation proposed below for Melanthium latifolium). One plant was found in stand 175/16-2 in a rich cove and twelve plants in 177/10. Of the twelve plants found in 177/10, eight occur within areas that would fall into riparian reserves.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens.

Alternatives B and C The majority of the newly discovered sites of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens would be protected by riparian reserves, occur within stands that were dropped from the proposal, or are associated with other rare species sites that are proposed for protection. Only five plants (one in stand 175/16-2 and four in stand 177/10) would potentially be affected by harvest activities. These sites are easily protected with designation of a no-skid zone during harvest activities. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect rich cove and riparian habitats and thus would have no effect on Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions in Alternative B. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. Cumulative Effects Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens

All Alternatives Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens is widespread in North America, though, like many related species, is at risk throughout its range due to habitat loss and pressure from collectors.

64 The majority of newly found plants within the Lost Creek analysis area would be protected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Isotria verticillata (large whorled pogonia) Isotria verticillata is widespread in the eastern US, from Maine and Michigan south to Florida and east to Texas. Habitats are not well defined and are simply described as moist to dry forests (Weakley 2004). This species was included as a viability concern species for the CNF primarily due to a possible association with wetland habitats. This species is not tracked by the DNH, thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations have been estimated to number between 6 and 20 locations. This species was found in two locations during the botanical surveys, stands 171/4 (in the riparian zone of the major drainage in the northern portion of the stand) and 169/5 (just outside the unit boundary near the Carex ruthii site). The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at high risk Direct and Indirect Effects Isotria verticillata Isotria verticillata is widespread in the eastern US. The species is not considered to be rare by the DNH, but was considered to be at risk of losing viability on the CNF. Two new populations of this species were found during the botanical surveys. The site in stand 171/4 would be protected by the riparian buffer. The second site is just outside the boundary of stand 169/5 and thus would not be impacted by the proposed action.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Isotria verticillata.

Alternatives B and C Neither of the two newly discovered sites of Isotria verticillata would be affected by harvest activities. The site in stand 171/4 would be protected by the riparian buffer and the other is just outside the stand boundary of stand 169/5. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have no effects to Isotria verticillata if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. No information on the effects of fire on Isotria verticillata were found in the literature and it must be assumed that this activity could be detrimental to the species if present. Creation of woodlands are only proposed within xeric habitats, thus it is expected that populations in more mesic sites and riparian areas would not be affected. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Isotria verticillata. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Isotria verticillata in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Isotria verticillata.

65 Cumulative Effects Isotria verticillata

All Alternatives Isotria verticillata is widespread in the eastern U.S. and the species is not considered to be rare by the DNH. Two new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area and neither would be affected by the proposed action. Prescribed fire could affect individuals of this species however it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Juncus gymnocarpus (naked fruited rush) Juncus gymnocarpus is primarily known to occur in bogs, seeps, and along streambanks. Its known range includes the mountains of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia, and the coastal plain of Alabama, Mississippi, and the Florida panhandle (Weakley 2004). Juncus gymnocarpus is previously known from forty eight locations on the Forest. This species was found at two locations within the analysis area, within stands 173/16 and 177/8 (Donaldson 2005). Both locations are associated with small stream drainages and are within protected riparian zones. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 10 4A – Appalachian Trail Corridor 5 4F – Scenic Areas 1 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 3 7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas 3 8C – Black Bear Habitat Management 19 9F – Rare Communities 2 9H – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant 3 Associations to Their Ecological Potential 12A – Remote Backcountry Recreation, Few Open Roads 1 12B – Remote Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Juncus gymnocarpus (naked fruited rush) Twenty two of the previously known forty eight sites occur within mapped prescription allocations (1A, 4A, 7A, 9F, 12A, 12B) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. It is likely, however, that based upon known habitat requirements, all sites fall into the unmapped riparian prescription that would also provide protection to sites. FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF would be protected. Based upon habitat requirements this species should be completely protected by riparian reserves, thus no additional mitigations are proposed.

66 Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Juncus gymnocarpus.

Alternatives B and C The two newly discovered sites of Juncus gymnocarpus are within riparian reserves and thus would not be impacted by harvest activities. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian habitats and thus would have no effect on Juncus gymnocarpus. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Juncus gymnocarpus. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Juncus gymnocarpus in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the viability of Juncus gymnocarpus. Cumulative Effects Juncus gymnocarpus (naked fruited rush)

All Alternatives Juncus gymnocarpus is previously known from forty-eight locations on the CNF. The new locations found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area would not be affected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern) Lygodium palmatum is widespread in the eastern US, from Maine and Michigan south to Florida and east to Mississippi, but is considered to be rare throughout its range. Habitats are described as bogs, moist thickets, and swamp forests in strongly acid soils (Weakley 2004), yet this species is often found in xeric openings on the CNF. This species was included as a viability concern species for the CNF primarily due to a possible association with wetland habitats. This species is not tracked by the DNH, thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations have been estimated to number between 6 and 20 locations. This species was found in three locations during the botanical surveys, within stand 158/9 (where the transmission line bisects the stand), along FSR 1160 on a cut-bank under the transmission line, and along FSR 1176-1 just outside stand 175/1. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at moderate to high risk Direct and Indirect Effects Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern) Lygodium palmatum is widespread in the eastern US, but is considered rare throughout its range. The species is not currently tracked by the DNH, due to a fairly widespread distribution in the eastern third of the state. Three new populations of this species were found during the botanical surveys. Two sites are outside the stands and thus would not be impacted by the proposed

67 action. The site within stand 158/9 occurs within the maintained transmission line right-of-way and adjacent open forest. This site can be easily avoided and would be marked on the cutting cards as a “no-skid zone”. No additional mitigation is proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Lygodium palmatum.

Alternatives B and C Two of the three newly discovered sites of Lygodium palmatum are outside the harvest units and would not be affected by harvest activities. The site within stand 158/9 occurs within the maintained transmission line right-of-way and would be avoided through the designation of a no- skid zone during harvest activities. Incidental damage could occur at this site, but it is expected that the population would remain viable at the site. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have no effects to Lygodium palmatum if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. No information on the effects of fire on Lygodium palmatum was found in the literature, however two related species (Lygodium japonicum and Lygodium microphyllum) were found to be quite resistant to fire (Munger 2005). Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Lygodium palmatum. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Lygodium palmatum in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Lygodium palmatum. Cumulative Effects Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern)

All Alternatives Lygodium palmatum is widespread in the eastern U.S. and the species is not considered to be rare by the DNH. Three new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area, two of which would not be affected by the proposed action. Prescribed fire could affect individuals of this species however it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower) Melanthium latifolium is an Appalachian endemic ranging from Connecticut to South Carolina, and considered rare in the southern Appalachians. Habitat is poorly defined and simply described as moist forests (Weakley 2004). Melanthium latifolium is previously known from two locations on the Forest. Additional locations for this species on the northern half of the

68 Forest have been reported, however these sites have not yet been added to the Forest database. Melanthium latifolium was found within the following stands: 169/15, 171/35, 175/16-1, 175/16-2, 176/17, and 177/10. Most sites are quite small and represent a single plant. The largest population (5 individuals scattered over three locations) is located within stand 175/16-1 (Donaldson 2005). The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to high risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 1 5A – Administrative Sites 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower) One of the previously known two sites occurs within a mapped prescription allocation (1A) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF will be protected. With only two previously reported sites on the Forest, these additional populations represent valuable new sites for conservation. All sites have been marked in the field with corresponding GPS waypoints recorded (Donaldson 2005). Small clumps of trees have been marked at all locations delineating the sites and timber should be directionally felled away from these zones. No skidding should take place within the marked areas.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Melanthium latifolium.

Alternatives B and C Mitigation has been proposed to protect the newly discovered sites of Melanthium latifolium. Most sites are composed of a single plant and are easily protected with a small retention clump. Based upon the implementation of this mitigation, these sites would not be affected by harvest activities. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have no effects to Melanthium latifolium if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. This activity would not be conducted within habitats typically associated with this species. Additional effects from growing season burns on species viability is described in Pistrang (2005). Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Melanthium latifolium. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Melanthium latifolium in the future.

69 Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the viability of Melanthium latifolium. Cumulative Effects Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower)

All Alternatives Melanthium latifolium is previously known from two locations on the CNF. The new locations found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area represent valuable new sites for conservation and would be protected from negative impacts. This species would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Panax quinquefolius (ginseng) Panax quinquefolius is endemic to almost half of the U.S. and over a quarter of North America. It has been reported and documented in 33 states, the District of Columbia, and 2 Canadian provinces. Its range is from southwestern Quebec, southern Ontario, south to Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Kauffman 2006). Habitat varies somewhat across its range, but is generally described as nutrient rich, mesic hardwood forests (Weakley 2004). Panax quinquefolius is previously known from seventy-four sites on the CNF, though there are numerous sites that have not yet been added to the Forest database bringing the current total to well over 100 known sites. Despite high numbers of sites for the species, few populations support more than 50 individuals and most contain only a few scattered plants. This is consistent with range wide trends reported by Kauffman (2006). Panax quinquefolius was found within the following Lost Creek stands: 158/10, 158/25, 173/9, 173/24, 175/16-1, 175/16-2, 176/17, and 178/14. Stands 158/25 and 178/14 were later dropped from the proposed action. Most sites are associated with riparian areas with the exception of small populations in stands 175/16-1 and 176/17. All populations are quite small and represent less than ten plants. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 5 4A – Appalachian Trail Corridor 8 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 2 7B – Scenic Corridors/Sensitive Viewsheds 3 7D – Concentrated Recreation Zone 1 7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas 5 8A1 – Mixed Successional Habitats 12 8B – Early Successional Habitat Emphasis 2 8C – Black Bear Habitat Management 29 9F – Rare Communities 5 9H – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant 2 Associations to Their Ecological Potential

Direct and Indirect Effects Panax quinquefolius (ginseng) Commercial collection of ginseng roots is listed as the primary factor in the species’ decline although impacts from timber harvest activities can also negatively impact the species

70 (Kaufmann 2006). Twenty-three of the previously known seventy-four sites occur within mapped prescription allocations (1A, 4A, 7A, 7B, 9F) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Many of the sites also fall into the unmapped riparian prescription that would also provide protection. FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF will be protected. The USDI FWS Division of Scientific Authority recently published a “non-detriment” finding for the harvest and export of wild and wild-simulated ginseng roots “provided that exported roots are from plants that were at least 5 years of age or older at the time of Harvest.” Timber harvest activities affect plants irregardless of age and thus could be detrimental to the species survival. Kauffman (2006) states that anecdotal information suggests that mature individuals are more resistant to canopy removal than young plants and seedlings, however very little published information exists on the impacts of canopy manipulation on ginseng.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Panax quinquefolius.

Alternatives B and C Of the eight stands where Panax quinquefolius was found, two stands (175/16-1 and 176/17) have no protection for ginseng populations. Of the remaining six stands, two were dropped from the proposed action and four would provide protection to most of the populations through adherence to riparian standards. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian or rich cove habitats and thus would have no effect on Panax quinquefolius. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Panax quinquefolius. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Panax quinquefolius in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Panax quinquefolius. Cumulative Effects Panax quinquefolius (ginseng)

All Alternatives Panax quinquefolius is a widespread species that is under intense pressure from commercial collection. The species has well over 100 populations documented on the forest, though most are small with only scattered individuals. Many new locations found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area occur within riparian areas and would be protected from timber harvest impacts. The biggest threat to this species survival comes from commercial harvest. The CNF issues permits for harvest in accordance with findings from the USDI FWS Division of Scientific

71 Authority. Based upon this, Panax quinquefolius would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Prosartes maculata (spotted mandarin) Prosartes maculata is known from most of the eastern states ranging from Michigan, south to Alabama. Despite being fairly widespread in distribution it is considered rare or uncommon throughout its range (Weakley 2004) though it is not currently tracked by the DNH as a rare species for the state. Habitat is described as nutrient-rich deciduous forests, especially coves (Weakley 2004). Prosartes maculata has not been tracked by the DNH as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the CNF have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations. This species was found within five stands during the botanical surveys (175/16-1, 175/16-2, 176/17, 176/34, and 178/14) two of which (176/34, and 178/14) were later dropped from the proposed action. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderate risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Prosartes maculata (spotted mandarin) Prosartes maculata is widespread in the eastern US, but is considered to be rare or uncommon throughout its range. The species is not currently tracked by the DNH as a rare species for the state. New populations of this species were found during the botanical surveys within five harvest units. Two of the stands (176/34, and 178/14) were later dropped and thus would not be impacted by the proposed action. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Prosartes maculata.

Alternatives B and C Two of the five newly discovered sites for Prosartes maculata would be unaffected by the proposed action. Prosartes maculata is not considered to be rare by the DNH, and under the RLRMP, is only considered to be at moderate risk with an estimated 20-100 populations on the Forest. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not be implemented within rich cove forest habitats and thus would have no effect on Prosartes maculata. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Prosartes maculata. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Prosartes maculata in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Prosartes maculata.

72 Cumulative Effects Prosartes maculata (spotted mandarin)

All Alternatives Prosartes maculata is widespread in the eastern U.S. and the species is not considered to be rare by the DNH. Five new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area, two of which would not be affected by the proposed action. Harvest activities could affect individuals of this species however it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Rhododendron cumberlandense (Cumberland azalea) Rhododendron cumberlandense is a southern Appalachian endemic known primarily east of the Blue Ridge from eastern Kentucky and western Virginia south to east-central Tennessee, northern Georgia, and northeast Alabama (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2006) also includes North and South Carolina within its range. Habitat is described as “balds and exposed or moist slopes” (Weakley 2004). Rhododendron cumberlandense is not tracked by the DNH as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the CNF have been estimated to number between 6 and 20 locations. Plants resembling this species were found throughout the Lost Creek analysis area but were never conclusively identified. Donaldson (2005) states “Rhododendron cumberlandense – a problematic species to identify if not seen when the flowers emerge (critical for distinguishing from R. calendulaceum). I suspect this species is found in most stands throughout the Lost Creek analysis area… In some areas it appears to be mixed with R. calendulaceum.” Based upon the described habitat requirements (balds and exposed slopes) and rarity of the species, it seems unlikely that this species is wide- spread throughout the analysis area and specimens are more likely the more common Rhododendron calendulaceum. Direct and Indirect Effects Rhododendron cumberlandense (Cumberland azalea) FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF would be protected. Conclusive identification was not made for Rhododendron cumberlandense however, regardless of whether the plants present are this species or the more common Rhododendron calendulaceum, effects are similar. The “azalea” Rhododendrons often bloom in canopy gaps and other openings and thus may react positively to harvest activities. While no information on the effects of fire on Rhododendron cumberlandense could be found in the literature, Coladonato (1992) states that the related species Rhododendron periclymenoides may be top-killed by fire but re-sprouts from the rootstock. Based upon this, no mitigations are proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Rhododendron cumberlandense.

Alternatives B and C The “azalea” Rhododendrons often bloom in canopy gaps and other openings and thus may react positively to timber harvest activities. Some incidental damage could occur during tree fall, but no lasting damage should occur.

73 While no information on the effects of fire on Rhododendron cumberlandense could be found in the literature, Coladonato (1992) states that the related species Rhododendron periclymenoides may be top-killed by fire but re-sprouts from the rootstock. Proposed fuel reduction burns and prescribed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions may affect individuals, but populations would be expected to recover. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Rhododendron cumberlandense. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Rhododendron cumberlandense. Cumulative Effects Rhododendron cumberlandense (Cumberland azalea)

All Alternatives Rhododendron cumberlandense was not conclusively identified within the analysis area. Based upon the above analysis, if present, it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Saxifraga careyana (Carey’s saxifrage) Saxifraga careyana is a southern Appalachian endemic that ranges from southwest Virginia to eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and northwestern South Carolina. Plants are often found on moist rock outcrops, cliffs, and in wet soil at the base of rock outcrops. (Weakley 2004). Saxifraga careyana is not tracked by the DNH as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the CNF have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations. This species was potentially found within two stands (158/7 and 158/9) during the botanical surveys. Plants were found on moist rock outcrops associated with riparian areas in both stands, but were past blooming and thus difficult to positively determine to the species level. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to moderate risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Saxifraga careyana (Carey’s saxifrage) FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF would be protected. Potential sites for Saxifraga careyana within stands 158/7 and 158/9 are located within riparian areas that would be protected through the adherence to riparian standards. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Saxifraga careyana.

74 Alternatives B and C Potential effects to Saxifraga careyana from harvest activities would be eliminated with the strict adherence to riparian standards. It is expected that all populations would persist after harvest activities. Proposed fuel reduction burns and prescribed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions are designed to avoid riparian areas and would have no effect on this species. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Saxifraga careyana. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the species. Cumulative Effects Saxifraga careyana (Carey’s saxifrage)

All Alternatives Saxifraga careyana is a southern Appalachian endemic however the species is not considered to be rare by the DNH. Two potential new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area and both would be protected by riparian standards. It is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Stachys sp. nov. (undescribed Stachys) During the botanical surveys a mint with characters intermediate to Stachys cordata and Stachys clingmanii was collected from stands 158/3, 158/9, and 158/10. Specimens were sent to Dr. John Nelson (University of South Carolina) and were tentatively placed by him within a group of similar specimens that may represent material sufficient to describe a new taxon. Direct and Indirect Effects Stachys sp. nov. (undescribed Stachys) FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF would be protected. All three collection sites were made in areas that would be protected through adherence to riparian standards. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of this species.

Alternatives B and C Potential effects to this species from harvest activities would be eliminated with the strict adherence to riparian standards. It is expected that all populations would persist after harvest activities.

75 Proposed fuel reduction burns and prescribed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions are designed to avoid riparian areas and would have no effect on this species. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of this species. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the species. Cumulative Effects Stachys sp. nov. (undescribed Stachys)

All Alternatives If this turns out to be a newly described species, the CNF would have three known protected sites. It is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Stewartia ovata (mountain camelia) Stewartia ovata is known from all the southeastern states from Virginia and Kentucky south through Mississippi to Florida (NatureServe 2006). It typically occurs in openings in mesic forests, especially acidic bluffs or Rhododendron thickets (Weakley 2004). Stewartia ovata is not tracked by the DNH as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the CNF have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations. This species was found within two stands (173/9 and 173/16) during the botanical surveys. Plants were associated with small streams in both stands. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to low risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Stewartia ovata (mountain camelia) FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF would be protected. New sites for Stewartia ovata within stands 173/9 and 173/16 are located within riparian areas that would be protected through the adherence to riparian standards. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Stewartia ovata.

Alternatives B and C Potential effects to Stewartia ovata from harvest activities would be eliminated with the strict adherence to riparian standards. It is expected that all populations would persist after harvest activities. Proposed fuel reduction burns and prescribed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions are designed to avoid riparian areas and would have no effect on this species.

76 Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Stewartia ovata. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the species. Cumulative Effects Stewartia ovata (mountain camelia)

All Alternatives Stewartia ovata occurs throughout the southeastern states and is not considered to be rare by the DNH. Two new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area and both would be protected by riparian standards. It is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banner) Thermopsis mollis is known from Virginia south through the Carolinas and east Tennessee to Georgia and Alabama (Weakley 2004). Habitat includes dry woodlands especially along ridges. This species was tentatively identified (see Donaldson 2005) within four stands in the Lost Creek analysis area (169/5, 169/15, 176/17, and 177/8). The only species this could be confused with is the related sensitive species Thermopsis fraxinifolia. Specimens were collected for further identification. Thermopsis mollis is not previously known from the CNF and thus was not evaluated in the forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) Direct and Indirect Effects Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banner) FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area would be protected. With no previously reported sites on the Forest, these new populations could represent valuable new sites for conservation. All sites have been marked in the field with corresponding GPS waypoints recorded (Donaldson 2005). Small clumps of trees have been marked at all locations delineating the sites and timber should be directionally felled away from these zones. No skidding should take place within the marked areas.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect to Thermopsis mollis.

Alternatives B and C Potential effects to Thermopsis mollis from harvest activities would be minimized with the implementation of the mitigation described above. It is possible that some individuals may be damaged during harvest activities, but expected that the population would persist after project completion. Thermopsis mollis typically occurs in forest openings and dry woodlands along ridges where natural fire historically played a role in shaping plant communities. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have very limited effects

77 to Thermopsis mollis if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. Thermopsis mollis is known to be top-killed by fire, but re-sprout from rhizomes and seed after fire (Carey 1994). Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Thermopsis mollis. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Thermopsis mollis in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banner)

All Alternatives Thermopsis mollis is not previously known from the CNF. One specimen was collected for additional identification work. If this species proves to be Thermopsis mollis the newly discovered sites represent valuable new sites for conservation. If the species turns out to be Thermopsis fraxinifolia important contributions to that species’ viability are achieved. Either way, effects to new locations found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area would be mitigated and this species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Triphora trianthophora (nodding pogonia) Triphora trianthophora is known from most of the eastern U.S. south through Texas into Mexico and Central America. Habitat in our area is considered to be mesic forests, often in association with rotten wood or humus (Weakley 2004). Triphora trianthophora is not tracked by the DNH as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the CNF have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations. This species was found within stand 173/24 during the botanical surveys. Over 270 plants were found at this site associated with a small stream. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderate risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Triphora trianthophora (nodding pogonia) FW - 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF would be protected. The site for Triphora trianthophora within stand 173/24 is located within a riparian area that would be protected through the adherence to riparian standards. No additional mitigation is proposed.

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Triphora trianthophora.

78 Alternatives B and C Potential effects to Triphora trianthophora from harvest activities would be eliminated with the strict adherence to riparian standards. It is expected that all populations would persist after harvest activities. Proposed fuel reduction burns and prescribed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions are designed to avoid riparian areas and would have no effect on this species. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Triphora trianthophora. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B or C would have no effect on the species. Cumulative Effects Triphora trianthophora (nodding pogonia)

All Alternatives Triphora trianthophora occurs throughout the eastern states and is not considered to be rare by the DNH. One new location was found for this species within the Lost Creek analysis area and would be protected by riparian standards. It is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Lost Creek analysis area and on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected Existing Condition Aquatic Viability Species of Concern The streams in the analysis area are relatively unproductive (conductivity/alkalinity levels below 50 ppm) resulting in low aquatic diversity and density. The main stream in the analysis area, Big Lost Creek, is impacted by naturally occurring acidic flows from Sulphur Springs Branch which has reduced fish diversity. Table 12 shows the most recent stream reach survey dates.

Table 12. Most Recent survey dates for streams in the Lost Creek Analysis Area. Latest Date of Fish Stream Name Stream Reach Sampling Bearpen Branch 1 Never Bearpen Branch 2 Never Chestnut Gap 1 Branch 10/30/1989 Cold Springs Gap 1 Branch 7/8/1991 Jenkins Grave 1 Branch 7/8/1991 Big Lost Creek 1 9/28/2000 Big Lost Creek 2 5/25/1988 Big Lost Creek 3 9/6/2003 Big Lost Creek 4 Never

79 Table 12. Most Recent survey dates for streams in the Lost Creek Analysis Area. Little Lost Creek 1 10/18/1979 Little Lost Creek 2 9/18/1989 Little Lost Creek 3 9/18/1989 Little Lost Creek 4 10/30/1989 Mary Branch 1 9/18/1989 Pace Shanty 1 Branch 5/22/1995 Piney Flats Branch 1 9/27/2000 Piney Flats Branch 2 9/27/2000 Puncheon Camp 1 Branch 7/9/1996 Rymer Camp 1 Branch 8/10/1994 Rymer Camp 2 Branch 7/8/1996 Tributary to Rymer 1 Camp Branch 7/26/1990 Sulpher Springs 1 Branch 7/3/1996 Table 13 displays the fish species found in the analysis area, their relative abundance in the analysis area and across the CNF, and their assigned Viability Goal (USDA 2006). No additional species of fish are expected to occur in the analysis area.

Table 13. The total number of populations of fish species found in the stream reaches of the analysis area is compared with the relative abundance of these species across the CNF and their viability goals Forest Viability Species Populations Goals Analysis Area Forest Wide Protect/Restore Tennessee dace 1 33 Enhance bluegill 1 46 Enhance brown trout 3 90 Enhance green sunfish 1 23 Enhance rainbow trout 13 254 Enhance redbreast sunfish 1 27 Enhance rock bass 3 65 Enhance smallmouth bass 3 45 Enhance spotted bass 1 19 Maintain banded sculpin 2 70 Maintain bigeye chub 1 12 Maintain blacknose dace 15 252 Maintain central stoneroller 4 124 Maintain creek chub 16 198 Maintain greenside darter 3 35 Maintain logperch 1 13 Maintain longnose dace 7 94

80 Table 13. The total number of populations of fish species found in the stream reaches of the analysis area is compared with the relative abundance of these species across the CNF and their viability goals Maintain mirror shiner 3 15 Maintain northern hogsucker 4 104 Maintain redline darter 2 43 Maintain river chub 1 59 Maintain snubnose darter 1 53 Maintain striped shiner 1 28 Maintain telescope shiner 1 27 Maintain Tennessee shiner 1 54 Maintain warpaint shiner 2 70 Maintain whitetail shiner 1 35

Species with a viability goal of Protect/Restore are rare species that are listed as Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Locally Rare (native species with fewer than 5 populations on the Forest). These species have a viability concern (USDA 2005) and Forest activities may have significant impacts on their viability. Forest Service Manual 2670.22 directs the agency to maintain viable populations of all native species. Opportunities to improve habitat conditions and increase populations through re-introductions on the Forest are pursued. Thirty-seven aquatic surveys documented only one Sensitive species in this watershed – Tennessee dace. Species with a viability goal of Enhance are game species; opportunities to improve habitat conditions for them on the Forest are pursued. Improvements usually involve building instream structures, stabilizing sediment sources and trimming thick rhododendron stands. These species do not have a viability concern on the Forest (USDA 2005). Species with a viability goal of Maintain are native species not included in either of the previous two categories. These species do not have a viability concern on the Forest (USDA 2005). Direct and Indirect Effects Aquatic Viability Species

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or use of herbicides. No new adverse affects would affect the viability of aquatic species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would employ filter strips between ground disturbance and streams (Forest Wide Standards-FW-3, FW-6, FW-7 FW-9, and FW-10; USDA 2004a). Vegetation management within defined riparian corridors would emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition (Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11- 29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32; USDA 2004a). These standards are adequate to protect all aquatic species. Prescribed burning would be utilized to control fuels build up and for woodland restoration. Forest Wide standards (FW-18 and FW-19) and Riparian standards (RX11-13 and RX11-14) would be followed during implementation.

81 Herbicides would be used during timber stand improvement and site preparation activities. Forest Wide standards (FW-14, FW-15, and FW-16) (USDA 2004a) would be followed during implementation. Implementation of Alternative B with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect adverse effects to aquatic species from these management activities (USDA 2004b).

Alternative C Alternative C would employ filter strips between ground disturbance and streams (Forest Wide Standards-FW-3, FW-6, FW-7, FW-9, and FW-10; USDA 2004a). Vegetation management within defined riparian corridors will emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition (Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11- 29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32; USDA 2004a). These standards are adequate to protect all aquatic species. Implementation of Alternative C with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect effects to aquatic species from these management activities (USDA 2004b). Cumulative Effects Aquatic Viability Species

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A does not propose any new ground disturbance. Other activities in the area may be contributing sediment to streams. Stream surveys conducted by Forest Service (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists demonstrated that sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a). These activities, implemented in conjunction with Alternative A, would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands (Section 16) could have a negative effect on the aquatic species regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B includes temporary road construction, maintenance, and reconstruction; timber harvest; prescribed burning; maintenance of wildlife openings; oak planting; herbicide treatments; and ephemeral pool construction. Each of these activities must follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a). Following these standards will result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re- vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams. Other activities in the area (see pg. 18) may be contributing sediment to streams. Stream surveys conducted by Forest Service (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists demonstrated that sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently,

82 past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP (USDA 2004). These activities, implemented in conjunction with Alternative B, would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands (Section 16) could have a negative effect on the aquatic species regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Alternative C Alternative C includes temporary road construction, maintenance, and reconstruction; timber harvest; prescribed burning; maintenance of wildlife openings; oak planting; and ephemeral pool construction. Each of these activities must follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a). Following these standards would result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re-vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams. Other activities in the area (see pg. 18) may be contributing sediment to streams. Stream surveys conducted by Forest Service (USDA 2006), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Strange and Habera 1993 and Bivens, et al 1995), and Auburn University (Johnston 2003) biologists demonstrated that sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a). These activities, implemented in conjunction with Alternative C, would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands (Section 16) could have a negative effect on the aquatic TES species regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions. Existing Condition Forest Health Forest health concerns for the CNF include insects, diseases, and potential storm damage. Damage to forest communities occurs in varying degrees depending on community types and species composition, location on the landscape, age of the forested community, past disturbance, and weather conditions. Gypsy Moth Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is a major defoliator of hardwood trees in both forest and urban landscapes. It was introduced from Europe into Massachusetts sometime between 1867 and 1869. Because the favored host, oak, is widespread in the eastern deciduous forests, gypsy moth thrives and continues to escape its range west and south each year. By the 1980’s, gypsy moth was established throughout the northeast. Today the area considered generally infested includes parts of Virginia, just north of the CNF. Gypsy moth is projected to occur on the forest between the year 2010 and 2025 (SAMAB 1996). The CNF can anticipate gypsy moth attack on the north end of the forest as early as the year 2010 and for the south end of the forest as early as 2020. Gypsy moth larvae feed on more than 300 species of trees, shrubs, and vines. Favored hosts include oak, apple, birch, basswood, witch hazel, and willow. Hosts moderately favored include

83 maple, hickory, beech, black cherry, elm, and sassafras. Least favored hosts are ash, yellow poplar, American sycamore, hemlock, pine, spruce, black gum, and black locust. Feeding on less favored host plants usually occurs when high-density larval populations defoliate the favored tree species and move to adjacent, less favored species of trees to finish their development. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) (HWA) was introduced into the eastern U.S. from Asia in the early 1950's near Richmond, Virginia. The HWA was present on some exotic tree species that a private collector planted in his arboretum. The distribution of the HWA remained localized until the 1960's. The population has since spread throughout the Shenandoah Valley into the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and the northeastern U.S. The entire range of eastern hemlock is threatened and could be infested within 30 years. Infestation by the HWA has been detected on the north end of the CNF. There are also well-established populations in North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park adjacent too much of the CNF. Recently, the adelgid has been found in several locations on the Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger District. The CNF can expect to see much of its hemlock infested in the near future. Impacts to the host species Tsuga canadensis and T. caroliniana, eastern and Carolina hemlocks, respectively, are severe. Once infested, tree mortality usually occurs in two to five years. Mortality is not restricted to any size or age of hemlock. This insect pest threatens the hemlock resource and also threatens the unique ecosystem it helps comprise. Hemlock provides habitat for a variety of plants and animals and helps to maintain stream temperatures for a variety of aquatic species. Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) The SPB (Dendroctonus frontalis) is the most destructive pine bark beetle in Tennessee and the southern U.S. (USDA 2004). Pine trees are killed singly, in small groups, or in large numbers, sometimes exceeding hundreds of acres. The SPB is a native pest to the South and occurs in small numbers (endemic) until outbreak or epidemic population levels develop. Infestations can develop into outbreak levels when pine forests are stressed by crowded growing conditions, trees are damaged from ice or wind, during drought conditions, or when stands are considered biologically mature. These stress conditions can often prevent the tree from producing adequate resin flow to "pitch out" the attacking insect, which is the tree’s main defense in a SPB attack. Once pine stands are weakened, they become more susceptible to attack by SPB. Once populations develop in weakened trees, the beetles may spread to healthy trees that normally would resist attack. When beetle populations become large (epidemic), they can successfully attack healthy, vigorous trees and result in widespread mortality. Natural enemies, including diseases, parasites, and predators (primarily the clerid beetle) can help maintain beetle populations at endemic levels. However, these forces seem to have relatively little effect during the early stages of an epidemic when SPB populations explode faster than parasite and predator populations respond to the availability of new host beetle levels. Ultimately, however, these biocontrol agents catch up with and actually exceed the abundant host beetles (food source) and contribute to the collapse of the epidemic. Most major outbreaks last three to five years and occur in irregular cycles of about seven to ten years, sometimes longer in the mountain region.

84 The SPB attacks all species of pines including white pine, but prefers loblolly, shortleaf, Virginia, and pitch pines all of which are native to the CNF. Pine is a significant component of the forested communities on the CNF and represents large portion of the CNF. Storm Damage Storm damage to trees from tornadoes, hurricanes, snow or ice loading with or without wind, is similar. These stresses cause hardwoods and pines to break off, split, be root sprung, bend and suffer branch and foliage losses. Stresses appear to be much the same, regardless of storm type. Tree crown configuration; age (old, large trees suffer greater damage); size and limberness of stems; branching habit; lean of bole; anchorage based on rooting characteristics and soil; and the presence of root and stem diseases have as much or more to do with tree damage as the intensity of the storm itself. Elevation can be important in the case of ice and snow damage. Frequently, a variation of one or two degrees in air temperature can result in bands of varying damage on the same hillside at different elevations, depending on the temperatures there at the time of precipitation. However, even here, pre-storm management to minimize damage is not possible because of the natural randomness of weather patterns. Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Health

Alternative A (No Action) No action would result in no immediate change in the existing vegetation. If no regeneration occurs, the present species composition of the forest would eventually shift from the current overstory of predominately shade-intolerant species to that of shade-tolerant species. Shade intolerant species such as shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, yellow poplar would decrease in abundance. Shade tolerant species such as red maple, black gum, white pine and hemlock would increase in abundance. The assemblage of understory plants would change following the succession of the forest canopy composition. The long-term effect of no action would be an older, more uniform forest where species composition, age-class distribution, and understory vegetation would continue to change relatively slowly by processes of natural succession. This alternative would not provide further age-class diversity with the addition of early- successional habitat through timber harvest and regeneration. Barring a major natural disturbance, plant communities favoring oak or shortleaf pine would be replaced under this alternative by the shade-tolerant species currently in the understory. There would be a higher proportional amount of acres in the 70+ age classes which would further imbalance the age-class distribution. This gradual shift of shade-intolerant species to that of shade-tolerant species would result in a reduction of some important wildlife elements such as hard and soft mast production, which would decline as the percentage of mature scarlet, black, chestnut and white oak trees declined. Soft mast would also be reduced due to the loss of early-successional habitat. As the trees grow older, there would be an increased vulnerability to insect and disease, which would result in trees with slower growth and decreased vigor. The Gypsy Moth poses real threats to oaks and hardwood stands in general. The SPB, which was noted as a threat to stands

85 of white and yellow pine in the analysis area, has killed some nearly pure pine stands as well as many scattered pine. Hardwood stands of advanced age may be vulnerable to oak decline. HWA poses a serious threat to the eastern hemlock found in the analysis area. The CNF HWA Suppression EA and DN (USDA 2005b) includes two hemlock treatment areas in the in the vicinity of Big Lost Creek Campground and Little Frog Mountain. These areas will be treated in the next few years using biological and chemical controls. These sites were chosen for treatment as part of a landscape level effort to maintain the presence and genetic diversity of hemlock. The treatment sites were chosen in coordination with other treatment sites on the landscape so that pollen may be transferred between sites. The older trees in the analysis area would eventually die as natural processes along with insect and disease impacts continue. Woody debris in the form of large trees and limb wood may increase on the forest floor as older trees and suppressed trees finally die and fall. Nine stands (52 acres total) of SPB killed pine in the analysis area are scheduled for restoration. This treatment consists of site preparation followed by planting shortleaf pine. This activity is part of a previous restoration decision and project. The fifty-two acres being treated is considered to be in regeneration and is accounted for in the age class distribution for all alternatives. White pine, and to a lesser degree eastern hemlock, have benefited from the absence of wildland fire in the analysis area. These species are best suited to occupy lower slope and riparian habitats and do not become established in areas that have periodic fire. Due to the lack of fire in the analysis area, they have seeded in on many upland sites. No action would result in no immediate change in the existing vegetation. The long-term effect of no action would be an older, more uniform forest where species composition, age-class distribution, and understory vegetation would continue to change relatively slowly by processes of natural succession.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Table 14 indicates the age class distribution for the Lost Creek analysis area after the proposed harvest activities would occur. The acreage in older successional stages and the associated vegetation would decrease by 705 acres or 6 % in Alternative B. Implementing this alternative over the long-term would lead to a more balanced forest-wide age- class distribution and improve the health and vigor of individual stands through harvesting. The base year for the table is 2006. Table 14. Age Class Distribution for the Lost Creek Analysis Area Age 0- 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt A 4 4 11 9 0 0 1 14 29 19 9 100 Alt B 10 4 11 9 0 0 1 13 27 17 8 100 Alt C 10 4 11 9 0 0 1 13 27 17 8 100 The definition of Basal Area is useful for the narrative that follows. Basal area is the cross sectional area of a tree measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. Basal area per acre is the sum of all individual tree basal areas on an acre which is used as a measure of stand density.

86 Seedtree with reserves (106 acres, stands 169/5, 169/15, 177/8) This regeneration method would leave 10 to 20 BA/AC (Basal Area per acre) of well spaced shortleaf pine seed trees where possible. All den trees would be left as well as some mast producing trees in order to make up the leave basal area. Most if not all of the trees left with this regeneration method would remain in the stand through the next stand rotation. This method produces a two-aged stand. Seedtrees which are left produce seed for the regeneration of the next stand. Natural regeneration of shortleaf pine can be unpredictable and planting these species is necessary to ensure adequate stocking. These stands would be planted with shortleaf pine at a rate of approximately 100 trees pre acre. The seedtree method allows enough sunlight to reach the forest floor to facilitate both the artificial and natural regeneration of shade intolerant species such as pitch pine, shortleaf pine and the oaks. The seed tree with reserves regeneration method would produce a mixed stand of shortleaf pine, mixed with Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, white oak, and other hardwood species. Shelterwood (599 acres, stands 158/7, 158/9, 158/23, 171/34, 171/35, 173/3, 175/16(1), 175/16(2), 175/32, 176/17, 176/33, 158/5, 171/4, 171/18, 173/13, 175/19, 177/10) These stands would be harvested with enough trees left in the individual stands to maintain approximately 20 to 40 BA/AC as a residual stand. The purpose of the leave trees is to provide a limited amount of shelter for the development of the new stand. Leave trees would be selected to approximate the species composition of the uncut stand. These leave trees may be harvested in the future when the young regeneration has become well established. Any future harvesting of leave trees would be subject to further analysis and NEPA process. Stands 158/7, 158/9, 171/34, 171/35, 175/16(1), 175/16(2), 175/32, 176/17 and 176/33 would be planted with northern red oak depending on seedling availability. These stands presently have a substantial component of white, northern red, chestnut, black and scarlet oak. Planting northern red in these stands at a rate of 50 trees per acre would ensure a substantial component of this species in the future stand. Northern red oak is a highly desirable mast producer. Stands 158/5, 171/4, 171/18, 173/13, 175/19, 177/10) would be planted with shortleaf pine at a rate of 100 trees per acre. These stands are suitable pine sites that currently have a component of shortleaf, pitch or Virginia pines. This treatment would be similar to the seedtree method with the exception that a higher basal area of residual trees are left after harvesting. Stands 173/3 and 158/23 (57 acres) would be regenerated naturally without the aid of planting. These hardwood stands have a substantial oak component and would regenerate well naturally on this site. Thinning (269 acres, stands 158/3, 158/10, 171/31, 173/9, 173/16, 173/4, 175/1) Thinning would leave a residual stand of approximately 50 basal area or greater. Thinning increases the growth and health of residual trees by making more space and nutrients available. Increased sunlight on the forest floor would increase the production of browse for wildlife and promote advanced oak regeneration. With shelterwood, seedtree and thinning, some residual trees would be damaged during the felling and skidding operations. Most damage would not be severe and most trees would recover quickly from these mechanical injuries. Open wounds are an entry point for insects and disease, and some trees may die as a result. The residual trees are more vulnerable to wind throw and ice damage, and some trees may be lost to these causes.

87 Manual site preparation (341 acres) A manual site preparation treatment would occur in shelterwood with reserve harvest stands. This treatment consists of cutting down the residual trees not needed for the leave tree component. Most of the trees cut in this treatment are the smaller intermediate and suppressed trees, which often do not develop into dominant and co dominant trees. This treatment is needed to reduce low level shade. Low level shade restricts the establishment of pine and oak, which need the sunlight and growing space. Site preparation with burning (341 acres) Stands planned for planting would be site prepped by prescribed burning. Site prep burning removes debris, releases nutrients, prepares the seedbed and facilitates easier planting. This treatment reduces competition for the newly planted seedlings, but does not eliminate naturally occurring hardwoods. Some damage to the residual trees would be expected, similar to that described for shelterwood harvesting. Seedling Release, chemical (648 acres) Chemical release would be used in all the regenerated stands that are planted with shortleaf pine and northern red oak. The release treatment would give a competitive advantage to the planted seedlings in the newly regenerated stands. When forest stands are regenerated, there would be a naturally occurring flush of new growth. This is more pronounced on the higher quality sites, such as the ones that are planted with oak. These new sapling stands contain large amounts of red maple, sourwood, black gum, and other species. Usually small amounts of northern red oak and shortleaf pine regenerate naturally, and more are planted to ensure a well-stocked stand. The release treatment using the herbicide triclopyr would give these desirable species a competitive advantage at a critical time in their development. Release treatments with herbicides are highly effective for improving the growth and survival of seedlings. Chemical release can make the difference between successful or unsuccessful planting. A single herbicide release treatment is as effective as repeated treatments without herbicides in most cases. Delays in treatment result in a reduction of survival and growth of desirable species. Triclopyr would be applied using the thinline method. Thinline is spraying a fine stream of herbicide solution from a hand held sprayer, onto the lower stem of a targeted sapling. The thinline method would be used to open a three to five foot radius around the planted northern red and shortleaf pine seedlings. Saplings treated by this method generally die or are stunted to the point that they are no longer competitive. Because the herbicide can be applied directly to targeted stems, very little overspray occurs. The thinline treatment would be applied in the second year after seedlings are planted. Invasive exotic control (1,530 Acres) Control invasive exotic herbaceous species by the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate. Species can include, but are not limited to, kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, and mimosa. The herbicides would be applied selectively using hand held or tractor mounted equipment. It is not likely that the entire 1,530 acres would be treated. These invasive species occur sporadically in the analysis area. Removing invasive exotic plant species would improve the natural diversity of the analysis area. Removing invasive exotics provides growing space and frees up nutrients for native species. Woodland Restoration (919 Acres ) This treatment would consist of cutting midstory and understory woody vegetation, herbicide treatment of woody vegetation and prescribed burning.

88 The maintenance of the woodland condition of the stand would be achieved by prescribed burning as needed. This treatment would create a low basal area forest with an understory with abundant native herbaceous species. Prescribed Burning (7,400 Acres) Dormant season prescribed burning would be done on 7,400 acres that is predominantly shortleaf pine, oak and mixed oak/pine. This type of low intensity burning would reduce the amount of white pine regeneration in the understory. Small hardwood stems in the understory would likely be top killed and then resprout. This type of prescribed burning would likely benefit the development of advanced oak regeneration. The total amount of prescribed burning would be implemented over a period of several years. Alternative B would establish 10% of the forested acres in the 0-10 age class thereby falling within 4-10% percent range prescribed in the 9H prescription. This alternative provides an amount of managed disturbance that would help improve overall vegetative diversity to the area. The proposed action would decrease the risk of oak decline, SPB outbreak and gypsy moth infestation by promoting vigorous stands and diversifying age class. In addition, Alternative B would improve soft mast production. Alternative B contributes to RLRMP objectives for the control of non-native and unwanted native species (15.02), the restoration of oak or oak pine forest (17.02), restores shortleaf pine (17.03), contributes to the reduction of Virginia pine and restoration of fire adapted pine or oak communities (17.05), creates woodland (17.06), promotes the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining basal area (18.02), and the creation of early successional habitat for prescription area 9H (9H-1.01).

Alternative C Alternative C is similar to Alternative B, but features the key difference of using of manual instead of chemical treatment for seedling release on 648 acres. Table 14 indicates the age class distribution would be the same as in Alternative B. Implementing this alternative over the long-term would lead to a more balanced forest wide age- class distribution and improve the health and vigor of individual stands through thinning. Second Year Release, Manual (648 acres) This treatment would occur on stands planted with northern red oak or shortleaf pine. The purpose of the release treatment is to give a competitive advantage to desirable species in the newly regenerated stands. Competing saplings would be cut in a three to five foot radius around the planted seedlings. Manual release on the medium to high quality sites in this analysis area would be limited in effectiveness. Rapid resprouting and fast growth would make follow up treatments necessary. Woodland Restoration (919 Acres) Woodland restoration in Alternative C is the same as in Alternative B. Prescribed Burning (7,400 Acres) The prescribed burning in Alternative C is the same as in Alternative B. Alternative C would establish 10% of the forested acres in the 0-10 age class which meets the 9H prescription area direction of 4 to 10 percent. Age class diversity is an important consideration

89 in mitigating the effects of oak decline, SPB outbreak and gypsy moth. This alternative provides an amount of managed disturbance that would help supply overall vegetative diversity to the area. Alternative C does not provide any control of invasive exotic plant species (Objective 15.02). The invasive exotic species kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, and mimosa would not be effectively controlled in the analysis area. Alternative C contributes to RLRMP objectives for the restoration of oak or oak pine forest (17.02), restores shortleaf pine (17.03), contributes to the reduction of Virginia pine and restoration of fire adapted pine or oak communities (17.05), creates woodland (17.06), promotes the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining basal area (18.02), and the creation of early successional habitat for prescription area 9H (9H-1.01). Cumulative Effects Forest Health

Alternative A (No Action) In the short term, Alternative A would have its greatest effect on the 0-10 age class. In the year 2006, there was only 4 percent of the suitable forested acres in the 0-10 age class. This limits the amount of soft mast and low cover for wildlife. In the long term, this alternative would create an older, more uniform forest, which would be more susceptible to oak decline, gypsy moth, hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) and SPB. Oak decline, gypsy moth, HWA and SPB would affect the forest structure and composition. Oak decline and the gypsy moth could affect the analysis area due to the large amounts of mature oak. Approximately 29 percent of the analysis area classified as primarily oak and oak pine forest types is over the age of 70. The effect would be a decline in the number of oaks and its associated hard mast. The SPB outbreak (1999 through 2002) has impacted the analysis area and the surrounding landscape. Approximately 52 acres of SPB impacted area are planned for restoration under another decision document. Approximately 19 percent of the analysis area is pine or pine hardwood forest types over the age of 60 and highly vulnerable to SPB. The probability of another SPB outbreak is high, and would result in a further reduction of pine species. Hemlock is a major forest component on approximately 1 percent of the analysis area, and a minor but important component over much more area. Nearly all of these stands are older than 60 years. Hemlock wooly adelgid is likely to kill most of these hemlock. Their position in the forest canopy is likely to be replaced by white pine and yellow poplar. Alternative A does not respond to the prescription area 9H objective of providing 4 to 10 percent of the analysis area in the 0-10 age class for early successional wildlife species. Alternative A does not provide measures to improve forest health and reduce forest susceptibility to disease and pest outbreaks.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The area considered for vegetative cumulative effects is all forested acres in the analysis area along with adjacent compartments 157, 158, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 306, 314, 315, 317, 318, and 319 which is an area of 26,186 acres of NFS land.

90 See Table 15 for the age class distribution in the previously mentioned compartments, in the various age classes (base year 2006) for all alternatives. Table 15. Age Class Distribution Percentages for Cumulative Effects Age 0- 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt 1 3 5 8 10 1 1 4 10 35 16 7 100 Alt 2 4 5 8 10 1 1 4 10 35 16 6 100 Alt 3 4 5 8 10 1 1 4 10 35 16 6 100

Alternative B would increase the amount of 0-10 year old habitat from 3 to 4 percent in the larger cumulative effects analysis area. The above table indicates that there is currently very little early successional habitat (0-10 year old). The majority of the area (68 %) would still be in the 71+-age class. Timber harvesting in the last forty years has begun to establish a more balanced distribution of age classes and the proposed action contributes to this. There are no other reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis area for the next 5-10 years. Chemical release of planted seedlings would occur on 648 acres using the herbicide triclopyr, and the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate would be used to treat invasive exotic plant species on as much as 648 acres. The cumulative use of these chemicals would not adversely affect desirable, non target tree species. The prescribed burning (7,400 ac) would take place over several years and would not have adverse cumulative effects. The stands proposed for harvests were evaluated as to the possibility of them being identified as existing old growth. This process followed the Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old- Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA 1997). None of the stands were found to qualify as existing old growth. Alternative B would reduce the risk of oak decline, gypsy moth, and SPB at the landscape level. Regeneration harvest diversifies the age class distribution and promotes the development of younger, healthy stands. Thinning improves the health, growth and vigor of stands by providing growing space for residual trees. Alternative B would not have any effect on limiting the spread of HWA because no hemlock is proposed for treatment. The cumulative effects of the proposed action along with other past harvesting would have minimal effect on the even-aged age class distribution in the area being considered.

Alternative C See Table 15 for the age class distribution in the previously mentioned compartments, in the various age classes (base year 2006) for all alternatives. The age class distribution would remain the same for Alternatives B and C. The majority of the area (68%) would still be in the 71+-age class. This alternative features the use of manual release treatment for the release of planted seedlings. Manual release treatment is not as effective as chemical release and follow up treatments may be needed to achieve the desired results.

91 The stands proposed for harvests were evaluated as to the possibility of them being identified as existing old growth. This process followed the Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old- Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA 1997). None of the stands were found to qualify as existing old growth. Alternative C would have the same effect on gypsy moth, SPB, HWA, and oak decline as Alternative B. The cumulative effects of the proposed action along with other past harvesting would have minimal effect on the even-aged age class distribution in the area being considered Summary of Alternatives The following table (Table 16) provides a comparison of the alternatives with regard to Biological Elements. Table 16. Comparison of Alternatives regarding Biological Elements. Biological Element Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Mesic Deciduous Forest No effect Benefit some Benefit some species. species. Temporarily Temporarily negatively affect negatively affect individual MIS. individual MIS. Eastern Hemlock and White No effect Benefit many Benefit many Pine Forest species. species. Oak and Oak-pine Forest No effect Positive effect to Positive effect to many species. Both many species. positive and Both positive and negative effects to negative effects to MIS. MIS. Pine and pine-oak forest No effect Benefit many Benefit many species. No effect species. No effect to MIS. to MIS. Woodlands, Savannas, and No effect Short term negative Short term Grasslands effect to some negative effect to species. Benefit some species. many species, Benefit many including viability species, including concern. viability concern. Successional habitats No effect Benefit many Benefit many species, including species, including MIS. MIS. Permanent openings and old No effect Benefit many Benefit many fields, rights-of-way, improved species, including species, including pastures MIS. MIS. Riparian habitats No effect No effect No effect Snags, dens and downed wood No effect Minor reduction in Minor reduction in available habitat available habitat Aquatic habitats No effect No effect No effect Threatened and Endangered No effect Not likely to Not likely to Species adversely affect. adversely affect. Demand species No effect Benefit many Benefit many species including species including MIS. MIS

92 Table 16. Comparison of Alternatives regarding Biological Elements. Biological Element Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Invasive non-native plants and No effect Controls existing No effect. animals non native populations. Species Viability No effect May impact May impact individuals. individuals. Forest health Increased Improve the health Improve the health vulnerability to and vigor and vigor insect and disease,

Social/Economic Factors ______Existing Condition Scenery and Recreation Resources Visitors come to the CNF to participate in a wide variety of recreation opportunities in an outdoor setting. Since visitor perception of an outdoor setting is often greatly affected by changes in the scenery of an area, these two resource areas are discussed together. The area analyzed for recreation and scenery effects is the Lost Creek watershed. During the planning process for the RLRMP forest-wide scenery inventories were updated to include increasing interest in scenery. The Benton MacKaye Trail was not updated in the RLRMP due to its recent completion. Scenery inventories for the trail were completed during the analysis of this project. Forest landscapes, including the Benton MacKaye Trail, were inventoried based on viewing distance, concern level and scenic attractiveness, and assigned individual scenic classes. Each Management Prescription includes a range of Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) based on the inventoried scenic class. In the Lost Creek analysis area, landscapes are classified as Scenic Classes 1 - 3; these, combined with the 9.H Management Prescription, provide the basis for SIOs of High, Moderate, and Low. Most of the analysis area has Low SIOs with the exception of foreground views from Kimsey Highway-NFSR 68, McFarland Road-NFSR 23, White Oak Flats Road-NFSR 103, Smith Mountain Road-NFSR 80, and the Benton MacKaye Trail which have an inventoried SIO of Moderate. Lost Creek Camp Ground, the only developed recreation site in the analysis area, has an SIO of High. Lost Creek Camp Ground is commonly used by those seeking a more primitive camping experience. The area is also used for day use activities such as picnicking and wild flower walks. Big Lost Creek and Little Lost Creek have an SIO of High and are used for fishing by visitors. Mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, motorcycle riding, and hunting for deer and turkey are also common activities enjoyed by forest visitors. The area is managed primarily as a Roaded Natural recreation setting as described in the RLRMP as, “undeveloped, but highly roaded settings popular for dispersed recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, camping and horseback riding” (USDA 2004a). The landscape is typified by ridges and narrow valleys of pine and oak forest with numerous small streams. There is one large block of private land in the analysis area and a mix of public and private lands surrounding the analysis area. Kimsey Highway is an historic travel way connecting Highway 30 with Highway 68. Many users feel a strong attachment to the primitive nature of the road and use it for scenic driving as well as recreation access to various sites including the Benton Mackaye Trail, and the Little Frog Wilderness. White Oak Flats Road is the main access to Lost Creek Camp Ground and is also used for scenic driving and as access to the Benton MacKaye Trail. McFarland Road is used as

93 access to private land, scenic driving, Benton Mackaye Trail access, and through other system roads connects to additional developed and dispersed recreation opportunities. Smith Mountain Road is an access road to the Smith Mountain Motorcycle Trail and is used for scenic driving. Kimsey Highway, White Oak Flats Road, McFarland Road, and Smith Mountain Road are all part of a known scenic driving loop. Any combination of the above mentioned roads provide the major access into the analysis area for use by private land owners, recreation access, and access for removing timber. Direct and Indirect Effects on Scenery and Recreation Resources “Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be ‘complete.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Human alterations can sometimes raise or maintain integrity. More often it is lowered depending on the degree of deviation from the character valued for its aesthetic appeal.” (USDA 1995) The Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) in this analysis area are High, Moderate, and Low. The landscape character valued in the Lost Creek analysis area for aesthetic appeal is generally defined as natural appearing. The objective of the 9.H Management Prescription is to restore or maintain plant communities predicted as most likely to occur in each ecological unit. The prescription focuses on maintaining a minimum of fifty percent of forested acres in mid-late successional forest; a minimum of twenty percent in late successional forest, and 4 to 10 percent in early successional forests.

Alternative A (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no perceivable short term direct or indirect effects. Long term direct and indirect effects from the No Action Alternative may decrease the Scenic Integrity of the area, but not below the assigned SIOs. Under the No Action Alternative the age and density of the forest could increase and could lead to fuel loading of the forest and changes to wildlife habitat. Views into the forest would not be opened up and exotic species would not be treated and may increase over time.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Shelterwood – oak plantings Comp/Stand Acres Noted Travel Scenic Integrity Objective by Routes GIS Modeling 158/7 – note 32 Kimsey Highway Low- distant middle ground part of stand Benton MacKaye view of the ridge from Kimsey is in Highway, Moderate - filtered prescription foreground view from Benton 7B MacKaye 158/9 – note 30 Hiwassee River, Low, High- distant middle part of stand Kimsey Highway, ground view on the ridge from is in Benton MacKaye Kimsey Highway. Views from prescription Hiwassee corridor also likely. 7B Moderate - distant foreground view from Benton MacKaye

94 158/23 23 Kimsey Highway Low- filtered distant middle ground views from Kimsey Highway 171/34 40 Kimsey Highway Low- filtered distant middle ground views from Kimsey Highway 171/35 40 Kimsey Highway Low- filtered distant middle ground views from Kimsey Highway 173/3 34 Little Lost Creek Low, High- foreground view 175/16 (1) 40 Kimsey Highway Low, Moderate – foreground view 175/16 (2) 40 Kimsey Highway, Low, Moderate – foreground Benton MacKaye view from Kimsey Highway, distant foreground view from Benton MacKaye 175/32 39 Kimsey Highway Low, Moderate – foreground view 176/17 40 Kimsey Highway Low, Moderate – foreground view 176/33 40 Kimsey Highway Low, Moderate – foreground view Of the stands proposed for the shelterwood with manual site preparation, oak planting, and 2nd year chemical release, four of the stands are inventoried with Low SIOs. Many of the stands have both Low and Moderate SIOs, and portions of 158/9 and 173/3 are inventoried as High and Low. Forest visitors traveling on Kimsey Highway, the Hiwassee River, or hiking along Little Lost Creek may notice some of the proposed activities. There is also a potential for views of the ridge in 158/9 and 158/7 from noted travel routes in the analysis area. Potential effects include a decrease in canopy cover, an increase in sunlight, increased visibility into the forest, visible logging debris and stumps, damaged living vegetation from logging activity, and browned or dying vegetation from the use of herbicides. There would also be noticeable changes in forest texture and color due to the open character of the stand and the exposed soil, particularly if viewed in conjunction with areas that have not been treated. Recreation users and forests visitors may also notice the sounds of logging equipment and logging trucks on area roads. Hikers on the Benton MacKaye trail are more likely to be affected by the logging sounds especially in areas where timber sales are in the same vicinity as the Benton MacKaye trail. Hikers may also be affected by trail closures due to logging, burning, or related activity. Maintaining higher basal areas along ridgelines, blending the proposed treatment with surrounding areas by feathering the edges, screening access roads/log landings, and treating slash would particularly help mitigate impacts to scenery in seen portions of treatment areas. Harvest activity would open up new views of the Lost Creek area which may allow for new views of existing and proposed management activities. Some vistas that were previously unseen many also be opened up.

95 Shelterwood- shortleaf pine planting with site preparation burn Comp/Stand Acres Noted Travel Routes Scenic Integrity Objective by and potential view GIS Modeling points 158/5 28 Kimsey Highway, Low – possibly distant middle Benton MacKaye Trail ground views from Kimsey Highway, filtered foreground view from Benton MacKaye 171/4 30 McFarland Road Low, Moderate- foreground view from McFarland 171/18 40 White Oak Flats Road Low, Moderate- foreground and Benton MacKaye from White Oak Flats Road Trail and Benton MacKaye Trail 173/13 27 Little Lost Creek Low, Moderate- foreground from Little Lost Creek 175/19 36 Kimsey Highway, Low, Moderate- foreground Benton MacKaye from Kimsey Highway and Trail, McFarland Road McFarland Road, distant foreground views from Benton MacKaye 177/10 40 Smith Mountain Road Low, Moderate- foreground from Smith Mountain Road Of the stands proposed for the shelterwood treatment with site preparation burns, short leaf pine planting, and 2nd year chemical release stand 158/5 has an SIO of Low and all other stands have an SIO of Low and Moderate. Forest visitors traveling on McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, Smith Mountain Road, Benton Mackaye Trail, or fishing Little Lost Creek may notice some of the proposed activities. Potential effects include a decrease in canopy cover, an increase in sunlight, increased visibility into the forest, visible logging debris and stumps, damaged living vegetation from logging activity, browned or dying vegetation from the use of herbicides, and blackened soil and scorched/burned vegetation from prescribed burning. There would also be noticeable changes in forest texture and color due to the open character of the stand and the exposed soil particularly if viewed in conjunction with areas that have not been treated. The ridge portion of 158/5, 158/7, and 158/9 are modeled likely visible from identified points along noted travel routes according to GIS generated terrain mapping. Recreation users and forests visitors may also notice the sounds of logging equipment and logging trucks on area roads. Hikers on the Benton MacKaye trail are more likely to be affected by the logging sounds especially in areas where timber sales are in the same vicinity as the Benton MacKaye trail. Hikers may also be affected by trail closures due to logging, burning, or related activity. Maintaining higher basal areas along ridgelines, blending the proposed treatment with surrounding areas, and screening access roads/log landings, and treating slash would particularly help mitigate impacts to scenery in seen portions of treatment areas. Harvest activity would open up new views of the Lost Creek area which may allow for new views of existing and proposed management activities. Some vistas that were previously unseen many also be opened up.

96 Forest growth over time would continue to decrease any noticeable effects of management activity. Mitigation Measures for All Shelterwood Treatments: • Limit openings along Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, and Benton MacKaye Trail to 400 linear feet. Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 35 for 1,000 linear feet between openings and 100 - 300 feet from the edge of the roadway. Favor leave trees of 12” plus dbh with well defined crowns in the 1,000 foot buffer areas. • Retain the appearance of a continuously forested ridgeline without noticeable gaps or breaks in the existing tree canopy cover. Special attention should be given to northern ridges of 158/5, 158/7, and 158/9. • Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 35 along the Benton MacKaye Trail and extend 100 feet from each side of the trail. Favor leave trees of 12” plus stems with well defined crowns along travel way. • Remove or treat slash and root wads to within an average of 4’ of ground when visible within 100 feet on either side of Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, and White Oak Flats Road. • Apply unit marking so as not to be visible within 100 feet of Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, and the Benton MacKaye Trail. • Use special road and landing design. When possible, log landings, roads and bladed skid trails are located out of view to avoid bare mineral soil observation from Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland, and White Oak Flats. • See Protection of Recreation Facilities section for other mitigation measures along the Benton MacKaye Trail. • Openings are shaped and oriented to contours and existing vegetation patterns to blend with existing landscape characteristics. Edges are shaped/feathered to blend with surrounding landscape. No geometric shapes are used. Heavily feather/shape 177/10 to shape stand to contour, blend with surrounding forest, and eliminate geometric shapes. • Involve Forest Landscape Architect in the layout of 177/10 due to likely prominent views of much of the stand and the potential for creating a vista point. • Revegetate all cut and fill slopes to the extent possible. • Leave a 100 foot no cut buffer along Big and Little Lost Creeks. • Flowering and other visually attractive trees and understory shrubs are favored when leaving vegetation. • Firewood sales are encouraged to further cleanup slash and logging debris in areas seen from travelways. • Schedule work outside of major recreation seasons where possible.

97 • Construct roads and fire lines so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. • In stands 175/16 and 171/18 use the Benton MacKaye Trail as the harvest boundary. Minimal amounts of timber are on the southeast side of the trail in 171/18 and southwest side of the trail in 175/16. The cost of trail rehabilitation may likely exceed the benefit from harvesting the timber. With the listed mitigations the proposed actions would meet the required SIOs. Seedtree With Reserves Comp/Stand Acres Noted Travel Routes Scenic Integrity Objective by GIS Modeling 169/5 40 Smith Mountain Road Low, Moderate- foreground views on both sides of Smith Mountain Road 169/15 37 Smith Mountain Road Low, Moderate- foreground views from Smith Mountain Road 177/8 29 Kimsey Highway Low- limited distant middle ground views from Kimsey Highway For the proposed vegetation management of seedtree with reserves, site preparation burn, shortleaf pine planting and 2nd year chemical release, stand 177/8 has an SIO of Low. 169/5 and 169/15 have an SIO of Moderate when viewed from Smith Mountain Road, a concern level 2 travelway. Filtered views of 169/5 and 169/15 are also likely to be seen from Kimsey Highway. To meet the assigned Moderate SIO, additional mitigations are suggested. Feathering the edges of the stand, retaining the canopy along the ridgeline, and screening log landings/temporary roads so they remain subordinate to the existing landscape would help blend the proposed seedtree harvest with the surrounding landscape. The forest openings created by this treatment would likely be noticeable to forest users visiting the travel routes identified above as well as possible middle ground views from Kimsey Highway. Potential effects include a decrease in canopy cover, an increase in sunlight, visible logging debris, stumps, roads, and skid trails, damaged living vegetation from logging activity, browned or dying vegetation from the use of herbicides, and blackened soil and scorched/burned vegetation from burning. There would also be noticeable changes in forest texture and color due to the open character of the stand and the exposed soil particularly if viewed in conjunction with areas that have not been treated. Forest visitors may hear the sounds of distant treatment activities, or see logging trucks on the roadway. Harvest activity would open up new views of the Lost Creek area which may allow for new views of existing and proposed management activities. Some vistas that were previously unseen many also be opened up. Mitigation Measures for All Seedtree with Reserve Treatments: • Limit openings along Smith Mountain Road to 400 linear feet. Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 35 for 1,000 linear feet between openings and 100 - 300 feet from edge of roadway. Favor leave trees of 12” plus dbh with well defined crowns in buffer areas.

98 • Retain the appearance of a continuously forested ridgeline without noticeable gaps or breaks in the existing tree canopy cover at the top of the ridges especially in 169/15 and 169/5. • Remove or treat slash and root wads to within an average of 4’ of ground when visible within 100 feet on either side of Smith Mountain Road. • Apply unit marking so as not to be visible within 100 feet of Smith Mountain Road. • Special road and landing design is used. When possible, log landings, roads and bladed skid trails are located out of view to avoid bare mineral soil observation from Smith Mountain Road. • Openings are shaped and oriented to contours and existing vegetation patterns to blend with existing landscape characteristics. Edges are shaped/feathered to blend with the surrounding landscape. No geometric shapes are used. Heavily feather/shape 169/15 and 169/5 to shape stand to contour, blend with surrounding forest, and eliminate geometric shapes. Careful layout of 169/15 and 16/5 is required to ensure that the SIOs would be met. • Revegetate all cut and fill slopes to the extent possible. • Flowering and other visually attractive trees and understory shrubs are favored when leaving vegetation. • Fire wood sales are encouraged to further cleanup slash and logging debris in areas seen from travelways. • Schedule work outside of major recreation seasons where possible. • Construct roads and fire lines so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. • Leave a minimum basal area of 35 on the northeast side of Smith Mountain Road in 169/5. With the listed mitigations the proposed actions would meet the required SIOs. Thinning Comp/Stand Acres Noted Travel Routes Scenic Integrity Objective GIS Generated Percentage 158/3 17 Benton MacKaye Low, High- foreground view Trail, Big Lost Creek from Benton MacKaye and Big Lost Creek 158/10 27 None Low, High- possible distant middle ground views of the ridge from Kimsey Highway 171/31 54 None Low 173/9 55 Benton MacKaye, Moderate- filtered foreground Little Lost Creek view from Benton MacKaye and Little Lost Creek 173/16 30 Little Lost Creek, Low, Moderate, and High-

99 White Oak Flats Road foreground view from Little Lost Creek and White Oak Flats Road 173/24 63 Little Lost Creek, Low, Moderate- foreground White Oak Flats Road view from White Oak Flats Road, High- Modeled foreground view from Little Lost Creek 175/1 23 McFarland Road Low, Moderate- foreground view from McFarland Road When the proposed thinning treatments are visible, forest visitors may notice a less dense stand of trees and an increased view into the understory. Maintaining higher basal areas along ridgelines, blending the proposed treatment with surrounding areas by feathering the edges, and screening access road/log landings, and treating slash would particularly help mitigate impacts to scenery in seen portions of treatment areas. Thinning activities are likely to enhance the scenic integrity over time by offering greater views further into the forest. Mitigation Measures for All Thinning Treatments: • Retain the appearance of a continuously forested ridgeline without noticeable gaps or breaks in the existing tree canopy cover. • Remove or treat slash and root wads to within an average of 4’ of ground when visible within 100 feet on either side of McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, Little Lost Creek, and Big Lost Creek. • See Protection of Recreation Facilities section for mitigation measures along the Benton MacKaye Trail. • Apply unit marking so as not to be visible within 100 feet of noted travelways. • When possible, log landings, roads and bladed skid trails are located out of view to avoid bare mineral soil observation from noted travelways. • Edges are shaped/feathered to blend with surrounding landscape. No geometric shapes are used. Revegetate all cut and fill slopes to the extent possible. • Flowering and other visually attractive trees and understory shrubs are favored when leaving vegetation. • Fire wood sales are encouraged to further cleanup slash and logging debris in areas seen from travelways. • Schedule work outside of major recreation seasons where possible. • Construct roads, skid trails, and fire lines so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. With the listed mitigations the proposed actions would meet the required SIOs. Thinning/Group Selection Comp/Stand Acres Noted Travel Routes Scenic Integrity Objective 175/27 73 McFarland, Benton Low, Moderate - foreground

100 MacKaye view from McFarland, distant foreground view from Benton MacKaye Stand 175/27is visible in the immediate foreground along sections of McFarland Road. When the proposed thinning treatments are visible, Forest visitors may notice a less dense stand of trees, and an increased view into the understory. Small cleared openings may also be visible depending on the location of the group selection. Blending the proposed treatment with surrounding areas by feathering the edges, screening access road and log landings, and treating slash would particularly help mitigate impacts to scenery in seen portions of treatment areas. This stand borders private land. Mitigation Measures for Thinning/Group Selection: • Limit actual group selection openings along McFarland road to 5 acres maximum. Limit openings along McFarland Road to 400 linear feet. Maintain a minimum average residual basal area of 50 for 1,000 linear feet between group selection openings and 100 feet from edge of roadway. Favor leave trees of 12” plus dbh with well defined crowns along travel ways. Feather/blend openings with surrounding area. • Remove or treat slash and root wads to within an average of 4’ of ground when visible within 100 feet of McFarland Road. • Apply unit marking so as not to be visible within 100 feet of McFarland Road. • When possible, log landings, roads and bladed skid trails are located out of view to avoid bare mineral soil observation from McFarland Road. • Edges are shaped/feathered to blend with surrounding landscape. No geometric shapes are used. Revegetate all cut and fill slopes to the extent possible. • Flowering and other visually attractive trees and understory shrubs are favored when leaving vegetation. • Fire wood sales are encouraged to further cleanup slash and logging debris in areas seen from travelways. • Schedule work outside of major recreation seasons where possible. • Fire lines and skid trails should be placed so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. With the listed mitigations the proposed actions would meet the required SIOs. Additional Wildlife habitat Improvements – Proposed Activities Various management activities may be used to create up to 919 acres of open pine and pine oak woodlands within compartments 169 and 171. Activities may include prescribed burning, herbicide application, and cutting of midstory vegetation with chainsaws and hand tools. Other activities used to improve wildlife habitat include plantings, controlling exotic species, creating ephemeral pools, and activities associated with maintaining wildlife openings such as mowing, fertilizing, and sowing. These activities are not likely to cause a substantial decrease in scenic quality or recreation activities. Visual effects of brown, dead, and dying vegetation

101 from treating exotic species would be minimal compared to the long term benefit. Wildlife habitat improvements are likely to improve opportunities for recreation activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. Any generated debris or slash that is visible within 100 feet of White Oak Flats Road, Smith Mountain Road, or McFarland Road would be treated to within an average of 4 feet of the ground. Prescribed Burning Prescribed burns are planned along Kimsey Highway, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, White Oak Flats Road, Benton MacKaye Trail, and Big and Little Lost Creek. Visitors to this area of the forest may notice linear fire line openings, scorched earth, dead or dying vegetation, or blackened vegetation in the burned area. The effects are likely to be temporary in nature and not likely perceived after spring re-growth. The long term effects would be a more open forest allowing views further into the forest and possibly improve scenic viewing and some recreation opportunities such as hunting. Mitigation measures include scheduling burns outside of high use recreation season, closing the trails/roads during burns, and the visual impact of constructed fire lines is blended so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, form, line, color, and texture. Herbicide Application The dead or browned vegetation resulting from herbicide use for controlling certain species may be noticeable from affected travel routes in the short term. However the benefits of restoring the landscape character would have long–lasting beneficial effects. Mitigation measures include performing the work outside of the main use times and posting signs to notify forest users of herbicide use in the area. Chainsaw and Hand Tool Use Short term effects of chainsaw and hand tool use that may be visible include disturbed soil and vegetation, dead and dying vegetation, damage to live vegetation, and changes in forest color and texture. Forest visitors may hear the sounds of treatment activities. Long term effects of restoring the landscape character would be beneficial. Any generated debris or slash that is visible within 100 feet of White Oak Flats Road, Smith Mountain Road, McFarland Road, or Kimsey Highway shall be treated to within an average of 4 feet of the ground. Road System Road construction has the highest potential to impact scenery in the long term. The recommended mitigations are intended to ensure that roads are designed to minimize these potential impacts. Screening log landings, bladed skid trails and locating roads out of view and off the ridgeline are particularly important when proposed routes are visible from travelways. Construct roads so that they remain subordinate to the existing landscape character in size, line, form, color, and texture. • Re-vegetate and restore cut and fill slopes to natural grade after temporary road and skid trails use. Of special concern are the temporary roads in 158/7, 158/9, 171/34, 171/35, 177/10, and temporary road T10 south east of 175/16. • Road 331701- Groom road to encourage vegetation encroachment and promote single track trail conditions where the right of way is shared with the Benton MacKaye Trail.

102 Protection of Recreation Facilities These measures apply to the visual corridor along the Benton MacKaye Trail.

• Affected sections of the trail would be closed Monday - Friday while logging operations are on-going. Contact Benton MacKaye Trail Association 14 days in advance of closing. • Marking paint would be faced away from the trails within 100 feet. • Where possible, no logging decks would be located within 100 feet of the trail. • Any crossings would be laid out at right angles to the trails at designated locations and closed and rehabilitated to appropriate trail character after the logging operations have been completed. • Designate "rub" trees to protect residual trees from damage during logging operations when within 100 feet of the trails. • Blaze trees would not be cut. • Recreation resource specialists would coordinate marking along the trail. • Logging debris and equipment would be removed from the trail tread each afternoon for safety. • Logging would not be allowed on Saturday and Sunday and the trail would be open for use. • Designate Kimsey Highway as an alternate route when logging or herbicide activities cause the closure of the Benton MacKaye Trail that is colacated on FR 331701. Sign both ends of the alternate route.

Mitigation measures to use after timber harvesting has been completed include:

• Due to the recent opening of the Benton MacKaye Trail this is the first vegetation management that has impacted the trail in this analysis area. During the Lost Creek analysis the trail was designated as a concern level 2 travelway. Regional scenery guidelines state that slash should be treated to within 4’ of the ground when visible within 100’ of a concern level 2 travelway. The BMT is a similar experience to the Appalachian Trail and it is recommended that similar guidelines be used. It is suggested that logging debris be removed from trail corridor (4 foot on either side of trail tread) and a 100 foot slash treatment zone be designated along the trail. Slash would be lopped to within 24 inches of the ground and root wads would be pulled back within the first 50’ feet. Slash would be treated to within 4’ of the ground for the remaining 50’. • Trail sections affected by logging or skidding operations would be rehabilitated. Possible Mitigation and Monitoring: • Consider moving the Benton MacKaye trail off of proposed permanent road 331701 to the north side of the ridge. • Monitor 177/10 and 169/15 as a possible maintained vista points.

Alternative C The direct and indirect effects of Alternative C would be similar to those listed in Alternative B with the exception that there would be no herbicide use and no treatment of exotic species. There may be a slight benefit to scenery in the short term if herbicides are not used. Without the

103 use of herbicides forest visitors would not see the effects of brown, dead, or dying vegetation. If herbicides are not used to treat exotic species they may increase overtime and could affect the scenic quality of the analysis area but not substantially in the foreseeable future. Cumulative Effects Scenery and Recreation Resources

Alternative A (No Action) The SPB outbreak that occurred from 1999-2002 impacted the scenic integrity and recreation opportunities across the CNF, especially the south end of the forest. The consequent dead and dying pine trees have either been removed or allowed to fall and remain on the ground. Many of these areas are within the immediate foreground of roads, trails, and waterways. Other past activities in the Lost Creek area include those listed on page 18. Presently, some of the affected viewsheds display stands of pine trees in various stages of recovery. Some of these views are dominated by standing dead trees while others display fallen or removed trees. In foreground views, slash and stumps created by the removal of pine trees may be visible along forest roads and trails. In middle ground views, the landscape patterns established by SPB typically reflect the naturalness of the event and blend into the surrounding landscape. SPB has opened up some new vistas along travel ways that were once blocked by living pine stands. Natural pine regeneration is becoming more visible each year. In the No Action Alternative no treatment of exotic species would occur and impacts from insects, disease, exotic species, and fuel loading could keep scenic integrity at a lower level but, no substantial cumulative impacts are likely to occur from the implementation of Alternative A. The SIOs would likely be met.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) As described for Alternative A, the past and present impacts of the SPB outbreak would have a cumulative effect with actions proposed in the Lost Creek analysis area. Overall, the sequential viewing of proposed activities in combination with previous management activities and SPB impacts would lower the existing scenic integrity in the short term. However, the actions proposed would not lower scenic integrity below assigned SIOs and would help improve scenic integrity in the long term. The recommended mitigations would limit the effects of the proposed activities to scenery. No substantial cumulative impacts are likely to occur from the implementation of Alternative B and the SIOs would likely be met.

Alternative C Any cumulative impacts in Alternative C would be similar to those in Alternative B. No substantial cumulative impacts are likely to occur from the implementation of Alternative C and the SIOs would likely be met. Existing Condition Cultural Resources Cultural resources are the non-renewable, physical remains of prehistoric and historical human activities. They are subject to damage or destruction from land disturbing activities, including those associated with vegetation manipulation and road construction. Area disturbance can damage or destroy the historical, cultural, or scientific integrity of historical or prehistoric resources. Disturbance of historical sites, such as old cabins, can reduce the ability to reconstruct

104 the recent history of settlement in the local area. Disturbance of ethnographic sites, such as traditional Native American campsites or burial grounds, can reduce the interpretive significance of the site or can infringe on religious rites. The current direction on the CNF is to protect significant cultural resources from adverse impacts that may occur as the result of land disturbing activities, and to inventory NFS lands in order to locate and evaluate all cultural resources. This policy is based on adherence to Federal and state laws and regulations. Cultural resources are closely coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In compliance with executive order 11593, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the USFS regulations (FSM 2360), a cultural resource inventory was performed to determine if potentially significant cultural resources would be affected by the project. Direct and Indirect Effects Cultural Resources

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would have no effect on cultural resources. There is limited potential for discovery of currently unknown sites.

Alternatives B and C The action alternatives would not affect cultural resources as long as site(s) that have potential eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are avoided during project implementation. If additional cultural resources were to be discovered during project implementation, the project would be halted until the resource(s) is/are evaluated Cumulative Effects Cultural Resources

All Alternatives There are no known cumulative effects. Civil Rights None of the alternatives would have disproportionate adverse health or environmental impacts to minority groups, women, or low-income populations. It is difficult to assess the degree of impact each action alternative presents to these groups due to other variables. The best information suggests that when assessing the effects of each action alternative on minority and low-income groups, the effects are minimal and not disproportionate to these groups when compared to other groups. Existing Condition Economics An analysis of the economic efficiency of the alternatives was conducted in order to provide a reliable means to contrast the relative costs and benefits of the proposed activities. The results of the analysis provide the Responsible Official with the assurance that economic efficiency was considered. It also provides some information about the potential economic impacts of the alternatives.

105 Cost and unit estimations are derived from field data, maps, and actual prices from similar projects. The economic analysis only looks at stumpage related benefits and the costs involved in preparing and implementing a timber sale. Timber harvesting activities may result in changes, both positive and negative, to other resources such as wildlife or recreation. These changes can have an associated economic value, but they are often difficult to quantify in amount or value, and are therefore not considered in this analysis. However, these items would be considered in the decision making process, along with the economics of the sale. Direct and Indirect Effects Economics

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A does not produce revenues or incur financial costs. There would be no benefits to the local economy with the No Action Alternative.

Alternatives B and C Economic effects are presented in Table 17. This table follows direction given in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18,30 (USDA 1995). Some calculations that were used to arrive at the values in the table were derived using a computer spreadsheet (Project File). Table 17. Benefit Cost Ratio ALT 2 ALT 3 REVENUES Timber $1,008,585 $1,008,585 Recreation 0 0 Wildlife 0 0 Other 0 0 Total Present Value Revenues $1,008,585 $1,008,585 FINANCIAL COSTS Harvest Administration 69,288 69,288 Sale Preparation 318,724 318,724 Analysis and Documentation 34,644 34,644 Other Resource Support 34,644 34,644 Brush Disposal (FS Component) 0 0 Road Design & Construction 198,300 198,300 Reforestation 140,214 140,213 KV Other 0 0 Silvicultural Exams 5,808 5,808 Stand Improvement 63,000 51,000 Timber & Transportation 500 500 Planning Other 0 0 Total Present Value Financial 865,121 853,121 Costs Present Net Value $143,465 $155,464

106 Cumulative Effects Economics

Alternative A (No Action) The No Action Alternative does not provide an economically efficient timber harvest.

Alternatives B and C Alternative B has a present net value of $143,465 and Alternative C has a present net value of $155,792. Alternatives B and C would produce 13,857.54 CCF (6.93 MBF) of forest products. CCF is the notation for “hundred cubic feet” and MBF is the notation for “thousand board feet”. Both action alternatives provide an economically efficient timber harvest, which benefits the local economy, provides jobs, and provides payments to local and federal governments. This timber sale would provide a positive impact on the local economy by providing high quality sawtimber and pulpwood. Both action alternatives contribute to RLRMP objectives for providing sawtimber (Objective 19.01) and pulpwood (Objective 19.02). Physical Factors ______Existing Condition Water and Soil Resource The Lost Creek analysis area is located southeast of Reliance, Tennessee in the Blue Ridge Mountains Eco-region (Griffith, Omernik, Azevedo, 1995). The analysis area is the Lost Creek watershed that is a portion of and flows directly into the Hiwassee River Basin. The watershed area of the Hiwassee River above the analysis area is approximately 1,150 square miles (736,000 acres) while the size of the Lost Creek watershed is estimated to be 18.9 square miles (12,096 acres). Approximately 94 percent of the analysis area is in national forest ownership. Most of the private ownership is consolidated in a 640 acre tract of land located in the south-central portion of the watershed. A small tract of private land (approximately 80 acres) is also located adjacent to the Hiwassee River along the mouth of Big Lost Creek. The physical character of the analysis area is greatly influenced by the geology associated with the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The affected watershed is located within the Blue Ridge Mountains-Southern Metasedimentary Mountains Ecoregion. This is a region of low mountains with local relief from 1000 to 3000 feet. The geology consists of metamorphic and sedimentary rocks of the Pre-Cambrian age: mostly siltstone, shale, conglomerate, graywacke, arkose, phyllite, slate, schist, and quartzite. In some areas in this Ecoregion, slate and phyllite of the Anakeesta Formation are present. This Formation contains iron sulfides that can locally acidify small streams, especially when bedrock outcrops, slumps or road cuts expose the sulfide materials to air and water. The diverse parent material along with other factors such as aspect, topography, climate and vegetation has resulted in a wide range of soil types within the analysis area. There are over 20 soil mapping units found within the analysis area. The primary soil series are Ashe, Brevard, Sylco, Ranger, Fletcher, Citico, Suches Evard and Tusquitee. These series are each further delineated into several soil mapping units based primarily on landform slope class. Elevation in the analysis area ranges from about 3,322 feet at Little Frog Lookout to about 760 feet at the confluence of Big Lost Creek with the Hiwassee River.

107 Climatic Conditions The analysis area has an average annual temperature of 57 degrees Fahrenheit. January is usually the coldest month with an average temperature of 37.0 degrees Fahrenheit, while July is usually the hottest month with an average temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The area averages about 57 inches of precipitation annually, which is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. March is usually the wettest month with an average of 6.4 inches of precipitation, while October is usually the driest with an average of 3.6 inches of precipitation. The length of the growing season is approximately 220 days per year. Prevailing winds in eastern Tennessee are predominantly from the southwest. Stream flow varies seasonally with rainfall and the effects of evapo-transpiration. Based on data collected at an adjacent watershed (Turtletown Creek), streams within the analysis area have an estimated, average annual discharge of 1.8 cfs per square mile of watershed. A larger amount of run-off occurs during the winter and early spring when precipitation events are frequent and long lasting, temperatures are low and evapo-transpiration rates are low. Low-flows of streams within the analysis area occur mainly during late summer and fall. The flow in many of these streams (including Big Lost Creek) can be extremely low (less than 1 cfs) during these periods. A variety of weather-related disturbance has and can occur within the analysis area. These disturbances include flooding, wildfire, ice and snowstorms and tornado or other wind events. These natural disturbances can and have affected channel conditions and riparian and upland forest canopy conditions. Water Quality Limited water quality data has been collected in streams within the analysis area. The water quality of Lost Creek and tributary streams within the assessment area can generally be characterized as low in conductivity, low in alkalinity, slightly acidic, low in nutrients, and generally free from excessive sediment. One stream within the analysis area (Sulphur Springs Branch) is characterized by low water pH due to the natural exposure of pyrite bedrock within the stream channel. Big Lost Creek and Little Lost Creek are classified as “ Trout Stream,” “Fish and Aquatic Life,” “Recreation,” “Livestock Watering and Wildlife” and “Irrigation” by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. The 2004 303d list does not contain any stream within the analysis area that does not meet or only partially meets its designated use (TDEC, 2004). Water quality of some streams in the analysis area have not been assessed at the present time, however. No instream uses are known to occur on NFS lands within the affected watersheds other than the maintenance of suitable flows for fish and aquatic life and channel maintenance. Suspended sediment and turbidity are key water quality parameters in meeting water uses. While visual observation and monitoring data indicate that suspended sediment concentrations are generally low in water bodies on National Forest lands, it can be problematic during periods of intense rainfall. Roads and trails are believed to be the primary source area for sediment from national forest lands. Land uses associated with private lands also result in localized water quality impacts such as accelerated sediment delivery. The Tennessee Eco-region Project has completed an initial effort to establish reference conditions for water quality by eco-region (TDEC, 2000). A summary of water quality statistics

108 for the Blue Ridge Eco-region represented in the analysis area is displayed in Table 18 below. The data values and statistics shown represent sites within the entire eco-region, and provide a first approximation of reference water quality. Table 18. Descriptive Statistics of Water Quality Data for Blue Ridge Eco-region

Parameter Unit # Observations Minimum Maximum Median Mean Temp ° C 153 1.01 24.72 11.60 11.67 DO Mg/l 152 7.74 16.60 10.06 10.31 Ph SU 149 3.61 9.230 7.24 7.28 Sp Cond umho 150 9.00 145.00 27.00 33.85 Sus Res Mg/l 164 5.00 49.00 5.00 5.51 Diss Res Mg/l 164 5.00 126.00 22.00 26.96 Turbidity NTU 163 0.10 15.00 0.90 1.50 Tot Alk Mg/l 162 3.00 108.00 8.00 13.16 Tot Hrd Mg/l 164 0.50 211.00 12.00 17.32 Amn N Mg/l 164 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 NO2/3 Mg/l 164 0.005 1.47 0.16 0.17 Tot N Mg/l 160 0.05 0.24 0.05 0.055 Tot Phos Mg/l 163 0.002 0.40 0.005 0.01 Arsenic Ug/l 157 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.51 Cadmium Ug/l 158 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.500 Tot Chrom Ug/l 154 0.50 4.00 0.50 0.53 Copper Ug/l 137 0.50 12.00 0.50 0.94 Iron Ug/l 153 12.50 944.00 50.00 95.12 Lead Ug/l 155 0.50 1.00 0.500 0.51 Manganese Ug/l 153 2.50 63.00 5.00 7.74 Zinc Ug/l 164 0.50 34.00 2.00 3.69 Fec Col /100 160 0.0 8400.00 8.00 122.6* ml E Coli /100 58 0.0 40.00 0.00 5.7** ml * Geometric Mean for fecal coliform is 3.6 **Geometric mean for e.coli is 0.2

Erosion Processes The Lost Creek analysis area, as is true with most of the southern Appalachian area, has been influenced and impacted by humans for hundreds and even thousands of years. Before any human intervention, an undisturbed forest condition dominated the landscape. From a hydrologic perspective, the landscape was subject to normal or geologic erosion, that represented the wearing away of land due to actions that resulted from the interplay of climate, topography, soil and vegetation. Hillside erosion in much of the undisturbed forest probably remained near zero except on rare occasions when erosion rates increased enormously due to phenomenal rain events that saturated the soil, causing overland flow and debris avalanching. Less dramatic, but of equal and probably greater significance, was the recurrent rise and fall of water level in streams due to smaller floods that scoured various amounts of sediment from channels

109 consistently throughout time. The major source of sediment in streams draining undisturbed forest is usually not hillsides, but the stream channel system. Close observation of many minimally disturbed experimental watersheds established rates of average annual sediment production on the order of 0.05 to 0.10 tons per acre per year for undisturbed forest (Patric, 1994, 1976). Change from the undisturbed condition described above has resulted from human influence over thousands of years. Before the Euro-American settlement of the region, Indians had occupied, and influenced the landscape for thousands of years. This influence was limited, however, to agricultural-related alterations of the larger alluvial river valleys, primitive settlements in these valleys, and to the use of fire that affected uplands, as well as, riparian area. Euro-American settlement in the late 1700’s through the late 1800’s was characterized by an agricultural subsistence economy similar to that which characterized the Indian lifestyle. The main difference was that agriculture and grazing extended beyond the larger river valleys to stream bottoms and coves at all elevations, slopes, and aspects (Bass, 1999). The combined effects of forest fallow farming, grazing, and uncontrolled use of fire resulted in near-universal soil erosion to much of the southern Appalachian forest ecosystem (Ashe and Ayers, 1905 and Roosevelt, 1902). These activities and effects likely occurred on at least part of the area defined by this project. During the time period from 1900 to 1930, commercial logging on a large scale occurred within the southern Appalachians. Mass removal of the forest canopy was often followed by devastating wildfires. The combination of these activities along with grazing and farming resulted in highly accelerated rates of soil erosion. Commercial logging undoubtedly occurred during this time over most of the analysis area. The Federal government acquired lands destined to become the CNF in the early part of the 20th century. The lands were protected from fire, and allowed to rehabilitate over the next 50 or more years. During this time, roads were constructed to provide access to the Forest and roads already in existence were improved. Vegetation management began with the first commercial timber sales occurring in the 1960’s. Forest Service system roads were constructed, if needed, to provide access to the sales. Several timber sales have occurred in the Lost Creek analysis area over the past 40 years. In the analysis area, most national forest lands are currently in a condition that closely mimics an undisturbed forest condition from a hydrologic perspective. Minimal erosion occurs on these lands. Legacy sediment from past human use in the analysis area is evident in some streams, however. In addition, sources of continued, accelerated erosion and sediment delivery are present. The primary source of this erosion on national forest lands is from the existing road system. There is little evidence of recent mass wasting. The primary access within the analysis area is provided by Forest System Roads 103, 1003, 1160, 1176, 23, 80, and 68. There are approximately 60 miles of Forest Service jurisdiction roads within the analysis area. Almost all of these roads are aggregate surfaced, and either insloped with ditch and culvert drainage, outsloped with drainage via dips, or a combination of these. Most of the road segments are located on ridgetop or sideslope locations, although some road segments are located in riparian areas of streams. Forest Road 23 and 103 are the primary access roads where this condition exists along some segments of the roads. Other roads do not

110 parallel stream segments, but do cross intermittent and perennial streams. As a rule, these crossings are made by the use of culverts. Approximately 33 miles of access road are gated and closed to all but administrative traffic. Lack of maintenance on forest roads has generally resulted in deteriorated travelways, however. Some roads have lost much of their cushioning material (gravel) and rock and bedrock is exposed. Drainage and surfacing improvements of the roads within the area can be improved to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to streams. These measures could range from additional culverts, or dips to improve surface drainage, gravel replacement, improved vegetation on cut and fill slopes, and other possible treatments. Most of the private land within the analysis area is forested. A relatively small amount of land is cleared for housing, gardening and other uses. Access roads have been constructed on the private land to accommodate timber harvest and other land uses. Disturbance that is associated with these land uses can result in the potential for accelerated erosion and sediment rates, especially when mitigation measures are not applied. Stream Channel/Riparian Areas/Wetlands Valley types within this analysis area exhibit moderate to steep relief, are generally stable, and have moderate to steep side slope gradients. The upper reaches of streams can be described as A or B types by the use of the classification system developed by Rosgen (Rosgen, 1994). Stream gradients are generally steep to moderately steep in the upper reaches of the watershed (5- 10% +) with low stream sinuosity. Channel materials are predominantly cobble with a mixture of boulders, gravel and sand. This stream type is generally stable. Stream channels in the analysis area are generally in good physical condition. Legacy sediment deposition from past land use, continued erosion from the existing road system and impacts associated with private land uses result in sediment deposition into streams. A proper functioning condition assessment has not been completed on forest riparian areas. Most riparian areas on national forest lands are believed to be functioning at or near their proper capability and potential. Where roads exist in riparian areas, proper functioning condition could be at-risk or non-functioning. Sufficient quantities of large woody debris, for example, may be absent in some streams due to these facilities and/or past land use practices. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps identify several small wetland areas within the analysis area. These wetlands are associated with streambed and the associated floodplain of these streams. The wetland types identified include: --R3RB1H (riverine, upper perennial, rock bottom, bedrock, permanently flooded) area located along Big Lost Creek, Chestnut Gap Branch, and Piney Flats Branch channel and floodplain.

--PFO1A (palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded) areas along reaches of the Hiwassee River and Rymer Camp Branch channel and floodplain.

It is quite likely that other small wetland areas are associated with springs and seeps within the analysis area. If so, these would be identified and protected during project implementation. The wetlands delineated through the National Wetlands Inventory are identified primarily through stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photographs based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography in accordance with Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the

111 United States (FWS/OBS - 79/31 December 1979). Field evaluation and verification is not conducted during the preparation of these delineations. To identify jurisdictional wetlands subject to Clean Water Act regulations requires field delineation and identification. The wetland areas listed above are presented as a reference and a first approximation of possible wetlands within the affected watersheds. Field delineation would be required prior to conducting any management actions near wetland areas Scope of Analysis The scope of this analysis includes the Big Lost Creek watershed that is approximately 18.9 square miles. This watershed forms a portion of the Hiwassee River watershed. The size of the Hiwassee River watershed above the analysis area is 1,150 square miles, and is considered to be too large to set the bounds for this analysis. The time-period considers the past ten years and future actions that could occur within five years. Direct and Indirect Effects Water and Soil Resource

Alternative A (No Action) The No Action Alternative provides a basis to judge changes that could result from an action alternative’s implementation. The existing condition is analogous to the conditions which would exist with the implementation of the No Action Alternative. The alternative would result in the continuation of current conditions in the analysis area. Minimal, geologic erosion would continue from undisturbed forest lands. Other than geologic erosion, accelerated erosion would continue from existing roads and from land uses associated with private lands. The No Action Alternative would result in no new actions such as timber harvest, temporary road construction, silvicultural treatments and system road reconstruction and maintenance. No effects to the soil and water resources in the analysis area would result from new management activities considered in this proposal. This alternative would forego the opportunity to provide timber sale related maintenance to 45 miles of Forest Service system roads and reconstruction improvements to 12.7 miles of system road. Improvement of these roads would enhance soil and water protection by improving drainage and hardening roadbeds with surface aggregate.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The actions proposed in this alternative are described in Chapters I and II. Scientific literature is available to make informed analysis of effects to watershed condition and water quality and quantity that could result from forest management activities such as timber harvest, prescribed burning and silvicultural treatments. To this end, a qualitative assessment would be made that addresses possible effects when particular sets of management activities are prescribed on a given land area over time. There is much research and attendant literature available (see References) which describes effects associated with forestry practices implemented in the Appalachian Mountains. There is also much information available that details mitigation of effects that can be expected when a given set of Best Management Practices is implemented in association with timber harvest, road construction or reconstruction, and site preparation.

112 This analysis would address, qualitatively, the effects that can be expected in three general areas—water yield and hydrology, soil erosion and compaction and sediment delivery, and water chemistry. Water Yield/Hydrology Changes in water yield would occur in response to timber harvest, road and skid trail development and silvicultural activities such as mechanical slashdown of vegetation. These activities would increase water yield by decreasing the interception of precipitation by trees and the loss of soil water due to transpiration. Research indicates that achieving a measurable increase in streamflow requires at least a 20% decrease in basal area Douglas and Swank, 1972; Patric, 1994). As basal area reduction increases to 100%, greater increases in streamflow take place. Any basal area left on harvested areas would tend to reduce the water yield increase. Stream flow increases do not last long in the southeastern U.S. due to the rapid regeneration of dense new stands on cut areas. Although increased yields are possible from 5 to 10 years after harvest, almost all of the increase is over after 5 years for clearcuts and within 1 to 3 years when less than 50% of the basal area is removed (Swank, Vose, Elliot, 2001). In terms of the timing of yield increases, almost all of the increased streamflow takes place during the growing season (and often during periods of low stream flow). This is because soil moisture is usually deficit during this time of the year and any increase in soil moisture due to a decrease in evapo-transpiration can move through the soil and augment streamflow. In the vegetative dormant season when little evapo-transpiration occurs, soils are usually saturated anyway. The increased water yields diminish yearly as vegetative regrowth and the resultant increase in evapo-transpiration return the water balance to precut conditions. Alternative B would regenerate twenty stands (705 acres) utilizing the seedtree with reserves and shelterwood harvest methods. After harvest, site preparation would be completed by the targeted slashdown of woody vegetation with chainsaws on 341 acres and by site preparation burning on 341 separate acres. The potential for water yield increase would exist in the harvested stands. Seedtree harvest would leave approximately 10 square feet of basal area scattered within the cut stands. Reserve areas with no treatment would also be left in the stands along streams and other areas. This basal area would remain after site preparation. Shelterwood harvest would leave 30 to 40 square feet of basal area scattered within the cut stands. Reserve areas with no treatment would also be left in the stands along streams. This basal area would remain after site preparation. Thinning would be completed on about 342 acres. This treatment would reduce the basal area to about 50 to 60 square feet. The basal area remaining after thinning would greatly reduce any water yield increase potential that would result from harvest activity on this acreage. Growing season stream flows would be increased in relation to the amount of cutting taking place in a given watershed. The following table displays the amount of harvest by cutting method in each watershed. Table 19. Timber Harvest in Affected Watersheds Watershed Watershed Seedtree Shelterwood Intermediate % With Size in Treatments* Harvest Acres Activity (Estimated) Big Lost Creek 12,096 106 599 342 8.7

113 In terms of harvest activity that would affect water yield about 5.8 percent of the Big Lost Creek watershed would be affected. Timber harvesting increases stormflows in relation to the amount of basal area removed, the number of acres of a given watershed treated, inherent watershed hydrologic response factors (such as soil depth) and the magnitude and frequency of storms following treatment. Research indicates that stormflows generally do not change during the dormant, non-growing season, but rather, tend to increase slightly during the growing season (Douglas and Swank, 1972). Research at Coweeta Hydrologic Lab indicate that timber harvest (clearcutting) with minimal forest floor disturbance and a low density of carefully located and designed roads produce only small and acceptable (about 15 %) increases in mean stormflow volumes and peak flow rates (Swank, et. al., 1988). Any increase in stormflows resulting from proposed timber harvest would be small due to the small percentage of harvest in the watershed. Approximately 6 percent of the watershed would be treated by a harvest technique that could result in water yield increase. Any augmented flow from Big Lost Creek would merge imperceptibly into Hiwassee River. Increased stormflows are not necessarily a negative effect, especially since these almost always occur during the growing season when streamflow is at or near low flow. Periodic high flows also act as a flushing mechanism to move sediments downstream through a channel system. Prescribe burning is proposed on about 8,660 acres of the analysis area. Most of this burning would be low intensity, fuel reduction burning, and would have little effect on water yield and timing. This burning would occur during the period of tree dormancy. Hydrologically, the burned area would function in the same manner as before the burn since ground cover and infiltration capacity would be maintained. Water Chemistry The chemistry of water flowing through forests changes as water passes through the canopy, soil, and subsoil and eventually into streams. In the canopy, interception of precipitation concentrates dissolved elements. Forest harvesting reduces interception losses, allowing more water to reach the soil, thereby diluting nutrient concentrations (all else equal). Timber harvest results in an increase in solar energy reaching the forest floor. The increased litter and soil temperature results in an increase in chemical and biological activity that results in an increased rate of organic breakdown. The removal of mature trees would result in a temporary decrease in the demand for nutrients. Conversely, nutrient pools locked up in the tree bole are removed from the growing site. More nutrients are available due to the increase in organic matter decomposition and are potentially free to move off site. Nutrients can be dissolved in precipitation and infiltrate into underlying mineral soil. Subsequent drainage through the soil can carry some of these nutrients to nearby streams The result can be an increase in nutrient levels such as Nitrogen, Calcium, and Magnesium in stream water. The duration of this possible effect is generally considered to be less than five years. After this time period, sprouts, seedlings and other vegetative growth reestablish shade to the cut area and effectively tie up available nutrients. Long term measurements of chemical changes in water quality at Coweeta Hydrologic Lab are summarized as follows:

114 Based on observations beginning in 1972, none of the harvested areas or other disturbances at Coweeta produced nutrient concentrations that would have an adverse impact on water quality for municipalities or downstream fisheries.

Compared to other forested regions of the U.S., increases in nutrient concentrations of streams at Coweeta were small, even for the most drastic vegetative disturbances.

Nitrate-N is a sensitive indicator of forest disturbance and although concentrations are quite low (<0.2 mg/1), elevated levels in streams draining clearcuts appear to persist for 20 years after cutting. However the increase is substantially diminished by the fifth year after cutting and appears to approach pre-logging levels (Swank and Crossley, Jr., 1988).

Any chemical changes that might occur from the project should be examined in the context of the streams natural or background chemical composition. Streams draining the affected area are low in dissolved solids and fertility. Any small infusion of fertility into these streams that are nutrient poor would have benign or possibly positive effects in terms of aquatic habitat. When viewed from the perspective of watershed size, any minor changes in chemical (nutrient) water quality that might result from the project would be diluted by the volume of water associated with the Hiwassee River. Stream temperature would not be affected by the proposed action. Riparian corridors would be left beside perennial and intermittent streams in any stand affected by timber harvest. These corridors would provide shade strips where trees would be left uncut and soil disturbance would be kept to a minimum (see mitigation section of this EA). Available research indicates that pH is not sensitive to most forest management activities. There is evidence (Sulphur Springs Branch) that acid-bearing rock is present in the affected area. If any were to be encountered during project implementation, appropriate steps (project cessation and/or mitigation) would be taken immediately to address the hazard. Alternative B proposes to use four different herbicides for vegetative treatments. These herbicides include Triclopyr, Imazapic, Glyphosate, and Clopyralid. Triclopyr could be used two years after seedtree and shelterwood harvest to release desirable species and achieve desired stand conditions. Triclopyr could also be used to help achieve open pine and pine-oak woodland conditions by reducing the sprouting of woody vegetation. Imazapic, clopyralid, and glyphosate could be used to control invasive, exotic herbaceous species along NFSRs and in wildlife spot openings. Assuming herbicides would be used on every potential area where they might be needed, an estimated 3,097 acres could receive herbicide treatment in some way. This acreage figure is misleading in that only targeted vegetation would be treated on any given area, and much of any given area would not actually be treated with herbicide. Little, or no, herbicide may be needed along roads and spot wildlife openings, for example. Herbicide would only be used on these areas if non-native invasive plants needed to be controlled. Most of the stands that would be treated also contain inclusion areas such as riparian zones where herbicide would not be used. This would also reduce the number of acres where the herbicide would actually be used. Based on herbicide use on similar projects, it is estimated that much less than 10 percent of the potential acreage would actually have herbicide applied.

115 The following table displays the total number of acres in the Big Lost Creek watershed that could be treated with herbicides for various purposes. Table 20. Herbicide Use in Lost Creek Watershed Watershed Watershed Size in Possible Acres of % of Watershed Acres Herbicide Use with Herbicide (Estimated) Use Big Lost Creek 12,096 3,097 25.6

Triclopyr would be applied to the base of target trees. The streamline or hack and squirt application method would be used. Only the individual trees or other competing vegetation, requiring treatment, would be targeted. The herbicide is absorbed through the bark and is readily moved throughout the plant. Triclopyr is not highly mobile in the soil, and is not a leaching problem under normal conditions since it binds to clay and organic matter in the soil. It may leach from sandy soils if rainfall is heavy after application. The herbicide is broken down by soil microorganisms and ultraviolet light, and persists for 30 to 90 days (46 day average) in the soil depending on soil type and weather (Extoxnet Fact Sheet, 1996). The risk characterization for aquatic organisms differs for triclopyr TEA (Garlon 3A) and triclopyr BEE (Garlon 4). For triclopyr TEA (triclopyr acid), risks to aquatic species are low over the entire range of application rates that may be used in Forest Service programs (SERA, 2003). Although triclopyr BEE is much more toxic to aquatic species than triclopyr TEA, or triclopyr acid, the projected levels of exposure are much less even for acute scenarios because of the rapid hydrolysis of triclopyr BEE to triclopyr acid, as well as, the lesser runoff of triclopyr BEE because of its lower water solubility and higher affinity for soils (SERA, 2003). Nonetheless, triclopyr BEE is projected to be somewhat more hazardous when used near bodies of water where runoff to open water may occur (SERA, 2003). For triclopyr TEA, at an application rate of 1 pound per acre, acute and chronic risks to aquatic animals, fish or invertebrates, as well as risk to aquatic plants are low (SERA, 2003). The risk of chronic exposure of triclopyr BEE to aquatic species is essentially the same as triclopyr TEA since it rapidly hydrolyzes to triclopyr acid. JLB Oil is used as an adjuvant with triclopyr formulations (Garlon 4). This is a mineral oil and Limonene or vegetable oil and Limonene mixture used as a carrier. This product has been reviewed according to the EPA hazard categories under section 311 and 312 of SARA Title III, 1986 and does not contain hazardous components that require reporting. Glyphosate, imazapic and clopyralid would be used to control and eradiate invasive, exotic plant species along road corridors and in wildlife spot openings. Approximately 1,510 acres could be treated along 57 miles of road within the analysis area, and 20 acres of wildlife spot openings could be treated. Imazapic is generally applied to targeted vegetation with sprayers, injectors or wipe-on devices. It is absorbed by the leaves and roots, and kills plants by inhibiting the production of amino acids necessary for protein synthesis and cell growth. Imazapic is moderately persistent in soils with an average half-life of 120 days and a half-life range of 31 to 233 days depending upon soil characteristics and environmental conditions. There is little lateral movement of imazapic in the soil. Horizontal mobility in the soil is limited to about 6 to 12 inches, although it can leach to depths of 18 inches in sandy soils (Tu et. al., 2004). Imazapic is degraded primarily by soil microbial activity. The extent to which imazapic is degraded by sunlight when it is applied to

116 terrestrial plants or soil is believed to be minimal (Tu et. al., 2004). It is, however, rapidly degraded by sunlight in aqueous solutions with a half-life of one or two days. Imazapic itself is of low to moderate toxicity to fish, but it rapidly degrades in water, rendering it relatively safe to aquatic animals. Aquatic animals appear to be relatively insensitive to imazapic exposure, with LC50s values of greater than 100 mg/L for both acute toxicity and reproductive effects (SERA, 2004a). Glyphosate herbicide would be used without surfactants. It is applied to foliage and rapidly moves throughout the plant. It can also be applied to cut stumps. Glyphosate is inactivated when it comes into contact with soil since it is strongly adsorbed onto soil particles. It is readily metabolized by soil bacteria and many species of soil micro-organisms can use glyphosate as a carbon source. Many field studies involving microbial activity in soil after glyphosate exposures note an increase in soil micro-organisms or microbial activity, while other studies have noted a transient decrease in soil fungi, bacteria and microbial activity (SERA TR 02-43-09-04a, 2003). There is very little information suggesting that glyphosate would be harmful to soil microorganisms under field conditions and a substantial body of information indicating that glyphosate is likely to enhance or have no effect on soil microorganisms (SERA 2003). Because of its adsorption to soil, glyphosate is not easily leached and is not likely to contaminate ground water. Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of time depending on soil texture, organic matter content and environmental conditions. The SERA risk assessment for glyphosate generally supports the conclusions reached by U.S. EPA: Based on the current data, it has been determined that effects to birds, mammals, fish and invertebrates are minimal (SERA 2003). The use of less toxic formulations results in acute hazard quotients that do not approach a level of concern for any species. Nonetheless, the use of glyphosate near bodies of water where sensitive species of fish may be found (i.e., salmonids) should be conducted with substantial care to avoid contamination of surface water. Clopyralid could be used to control nonnative, invasive plant species. The herbicide would most likely be broadcast sprayed using hand sprayers. The herbicide is absorbed by the leaves and roots of the target species and moves rapidly through the plant. It affects plant cell respiration and growth. Clopyralid should not be applied to areas where soil is permeable such as sandy soils or limestone fractured areas especially where the water table is shallow. Clopyralid is highly soluble in water and does not adsorb to soil particles readily. As a result, clopyralid can leach to ground water if applied to permeable soils overlaying shallow ground water. The risk assessment for aquatic organisms is relatively simple and unambiguous. Clopyralid appears to have a very low potential to cause any adverse effects in any aquatic species (SERA 2004). No adverse effects are anticipated in terrestrial or aquatic animals from the use of clopyralid in Forest Service programs at the typical application rate of 0.35 lb a.e per acre (SERA 2004). In general, herbicides can enter surface waters via three main routes including: 1. Movement or leaching through the soil profile to subsurface water and travel until contact is made with surface systems, 2. Absorption to a soil particle and movement to surface water systems during heavy rains and; 3. Direct contact with surface water during application. Several factors are important to consider related to the potential for surface or ground water contamination by herbicides.

117 1. Mitigation such as streamside buffer zones applied during treatment activity would greatly reduce contamination potential. Generally speaking, buffer zones of 50 feet or larger are effective in minimizing pesticide residue contamination of streamflow (Neary et. al., 1996). 2. The very small amounts of herbicide used (generally a pint or less per acre) would greatly reduce the chance of any detectable herbicide reaching ground or surface water. 3. The method of herbicide application (individual stem treatment) would minimize herbicide contact with the soil and eliminate direct application or drift to surface water. 4. Timing the herbicide application to avoid rainfall during and immediately after application reduces the risk of contamination. The herbicides that would be used in the analysis area are low-toxicity chemicals. The general application rate for triclopyr is about 1 pound of acid equivalent per acre, for glyphosate is 2 pounds of acid equivalent per acre, for imazapic is 0.15 pounds of acid equivalent per acre and for clopyralid is 0.35 pounds of acid equivalent per acre. The quantity of herbicide to be used, on-site degradation processes, the method of application, the relatively short persistence of the herbicide in the soil, in-stream dilution and degradation, and mitigation measures to be used, would result in minimal risk of surface and ground water quality impact. No herbicide would be applied within 50 feet of open water. This along with careful control over the weather conditions during which the herbicide would be applied would prevent direct contamination of surface water. Since the herbicide is generally applied directly to targeted species, very little herbicide would make ground contact. As a result, infiltration into the soil and movement via soil water (subsurface) would be minimal. The greatest hazard to surface and ground water quality would result from a possible accident during transportation, storage, mixing and disposal of the chemicals. Alternative B proposes to complete prescribe burning for site preparation on 341 acres. This type of burning would create a mosaic type effect where areas of slash accumulation could burn intensely, but most of the sites would have creeping ground fires or would not burn at all. Where slash burns intensely mineral soil would be exposed, but most of the area burned would not expose mineral soil. It is estimated that 90 percent or more of the areas burned would leave most of the organic layer and fine roots layer in place. Although prescribe burns have the potential to increase the solubility of some cations in the forest floor, there is little chance of these being transported to aquatic systems. Streamside areas would be minimally impacted by the burns since no harvest would occur in riparian corridors and logging slash would not exist. Fires would be allowed to back down into streamside areas, but typically do not carry far into these damper areas. Very little vegetation is killed in riparian areas by the low intensity fire. There may be some topkill of understory vegetation where the fire fingers into riparian areas, but most of this would resprout rapidly and prolifically. There would be limited potential to change soil infiltration and porosity as a result from the burning since only a small percentage of the areas would burn at high intensity. As a result, there would be little, if any, change in runoff from the burned areas. This alternative proposes to complete 7,400 acres of dormant season prescribe burning for fuel reduction, and possibly 919 acres of burning for pine and pine-oak open woodland creation. About 1 mile of dozer line would be needed to implement the fuel reduction burn. This type of burning would expose little mineral soil. Only a small amount of the duff (organic layer) would be consumed by the burning, leaving most of the organic layer and fine root layer in place. Low intensity prescribe burning has the potential to increase the solubility of some nutrients such as

118 nitrate, ammonium, phosphate, sulfate, calcium, and potassium in the forest floor, but there is little chance of these being transported to aquatic systems. Other than dozer or handline, there would be little, if any, mineral soil exposure resulting from the low intensity burning. Proper location and mitigation (waterbars and water turnouts) would reduce erosion potential. Erosion and Sediment As described for the No Action Alternative, geologic erosion would continue on undisturbed forest lands and from in-channel sources. Accelerated erosion would continue from existing classified and unclassified roads and from private land uses. Implementation of Alternative B would result in the potential for additional accelerated erosion. Activities that could result in accelerated erosion include: timber harvest (temporary roads, skid trails, log landings), fireline construction, and road construction and reconstruction. Research has repeatedly shown that sediment production during timber harvest may accelerate temporarily to about 0.05 to 0.50 tons per acre per year (Patric, 1976, 1994). The amount produced depends upon the topographic, soil, and climatic characteristics of the affected area along with the intensity of management practices being implemented. Mitigation measures would be employed to reduce the amount of erosion that could be possible, and to reduce the amount of off-site movement of soil into stream channels. The act of cutting trees has no direct effect on soil erosion and sediment production (Ursic and Douglas, 1978). In so far as water yields can be temporarily increased due to tree harvest, however, sediment yields into forest streams can be indirectly affected. Except for the upper soil horizon, forest soils remain wetter throughout the soil profile after tree harvest, and more soil moisture is available to stream channels. For this reason, intermittent drains can be somewhat wetter during the growing season and perennial channel systems can expand slightly upslope into coves that are usually dry before cutting takes place. This effect is temporary, usually lasting no more than 2 or 3 years before returning to a pre-cut condition. Possible water quality effects from timber harvest primarily result from soil disturbance caused by removing trees from the woods. Alternative B would lead to increased potential for soil loss and sediment yields from four main sources: skid trails, roads, log landings and dozer fire lines. In addition to soil loss and sediment yield, Alternative B would result in soil compaction. Where compaction is severe and unmitigated, soil productivity would be reduced due to loss of soil structure. Compaction is most likely to occur on those areas where heavy equipment operates repeatedly, especially when soils are wet. Areas subject to compaction include skid trails, temporary roads, and log landings. While subject to many variables, it is estimated that about 10% of a given area harvested by conventional logging equipment (chainsaws/rubber tired skidders) is impacted by skid trails, temporary roads and log landings. The potential effects of soil erosion, sediment yield, and compaction have a spatial and temporal context, and are also greatly affected by mitigation measures applied during disturbance activities. Erosion that results from timber harvest would be greatly modified through time in that disturbance would be temporary and generally a single pulse over a long period of time. Any given area to be disturbed by regeneration harvest would be cut and site prepared within a year’s time. After this, it is unlikely the area would be disturbed (barring natural disturbance) for at least 50 to 60 years. With proper mitigation applied, all effects of timber harvest on soil loss, sediment yield and compaction would return to precutting conditions within 2 to 5 years. The

119 cut areas would assume an undisturbed forest condition (in terms of hydrologic condition) until disturbed again--a period of at least 55 years and probably much longer. Perennial and intermittent streams are close to, adjacent or within stands where harvesting is proposed. Streamside management zones (riparian corridors and filter zones) would be established around these streams as specified in the RLRMP. Filter zones would be established along scoured ephemeral streams. This would be an important mitigation measure protecting water quality in the affected streams. New specified road construction, temporary roads and skid trails would be located mostly on ridge top and side slope locations, where most of the erosion that does occur would filter out in the undisturbed forest floor before reaching stream channels. Log landings would be constructed outside of stream management zones, generally on ridge top locations. Another spatial consideration is the amount of activity taking place in an affected watershed. Harvest activity would take place in 9.0 percent or less of the Big Lost Creek watershed. Actual ground disturbance in terms of temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would occur on about ten percent of the acres harvested. This means that less than one percent of the affected watersheds would actually be ground disturbed by the timber harvest. In addition to spatial and temporal factors related to proposed treatments, mitigation measures that are employed during and after timber harvest activities to reduce erosion and sediment yield potential are an important consideration. Extensive research and effectiveness monitoring have proven the value of properly applied mitigation measures in greatly reducing erosion and sediment yield potential (Patric, 1994 and Curtis et. al., 1990). Alternative B would incorporate mitigation that is based on the following principles: • Build the fewest skid trails, logging roads, and log landings as feasible. • Use broad-based dips or waterbars on all access ways on non-level slopes. • Locate all access as far as practicable from streams. • Maintain as much unbroken forest floor as possible between exposed mineral soil and streams. • Restore vegetation and litter cover on logging roads, skid trails, and log landings as soon as practicable. • Minimize disturbance in stream channels and on the forest floor in channel vicinity. Alternative B would utilize prescribed burning on up to 8,660 acres to achieve site preparation, restoration, open woodland creation and fuel reduction objectives. Ground disturbance created by firelines, particularly those constructed by bulldozers, could result in erosion and sedimentation to streams. Forest-wide management standards are designed to reduce these effects by minimizing the connectivity of firelines to streams, and completing erosion control on firelines, as necessary, to minimize erosion. Alternative B would construct 1.25 miles of system road, reconstruct approximately 12.7 miles of system road and complete maintenance on approximately 45 miles of system road. Reconstruction and maintenance of these roads would improve surface drainage, harden the road surface and establish vegetation on all or portions of these roads. This activity would reduce the road-related erosion and sediment yield that is currently taking place from these roads.

120 Floodplains and Wetlands Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 and Forest Service policy, require that the impacts of management activities on floodplains and wetlands be considered. Management actions are to be designed and implemented to minimize and mitigate impacts of the action to the natural and beneficial values associated with these areas. Alternative B would be in compliance with Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and Forest Service policy. Mitigation such as streamside management zones would protect the values associated with floodplains. Road reconstruction and maintenance actions would improve drainage features and the stability of existing roads and would lead to a long-term reduction in sediment delivery to affected streams. Any wetlands identified during project implementation would be protected by necessary mitigation such as protective buffer zones. It is not expected that the proposed actions would adversely alter the natural values of floodplains and wetlands.

Alternative C Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B except that no herbicide would be used for second year hardwood release and there would be no treatment of exotic invasive plant species. Second year release would be completed using mechanical treatments such as chainsaw slash down. Other than no herbicide use, all other treatments would be the same as those described for Alternative B. As a result, effects described for Alternative B would be similar to those that would occur for Alternative C. Since no herbicide would be used, however, any potential effects to water quality that might result from herbicide use would not take place. Manual slashdown of competing vegetation for release would have little or no effect on water quantity or quality. Cumulative Effects Water and Soil Resource

Alternative A (No Action) The Affected Environment describes conditions that would be associated with Alternative A. The project proposal would not occur on national forest lands, and no change to cumulative effects in the area defined by the scope of analysis would take place from these activities. Most of the private ownership within the Big Lost Creek watershed is consolidated in a 640 acre tract of land located in the south-central portion of the watershed. A small tract of private land (approximately 80 acres) is also located adjacent to the Hiwassee River along the mouth of Big Lost Creek. Based on visual inspection of digital photography completed during the spring of 2003, over 90 percent of the private land is forested. A small portion of the private land is in open field and home site development and associated private roads. The open land and private roads are localized sources of accelerated erosion. Water quality in the Big Lost Creek watershed is generally good. Non-point source pollution (sediment) is associated with roads and private land uses. Within the past ten years, 60 acres of timber harvest activity (Marys Branch Timber Sale) has occurred on Forest Service lands within the watershed. An additional 40 acres of harvest will

121 occur by the end of 2007 (Marys Branch Timber Sale). It is likely that small (less than one acre), salvage sales have occurred in the watershed, especially sales related to the past SPB epidemic. The primary access within the analysis area is provided by Forest System Roads 103, 1003, 1160, 1176, 23, 80, and 68. There are approximately 60 miles of Forest Service jurisdiction roads within the analysis area. In addition, there are county and private roads located within the area. Forest Service roads are generally aggregate surfaced and are generally on sideslope and ridgetop locations. The roads are, however, the main source of erosion and sediment yields from national forest lands within this watershed. Better drainage and additional road hardening with gravel would improve the condition of these roads and reduce road-related erosion. Prescribed burning for fuel reduction occurred within portions of the Big Lost Creek watershed in the past several years. The burns were low intensity, understory burns. Some forest litter and duff was removed by these burns, but most of the organic layer was left intact. The burns did not affect the forest overstory or stream riparian areas. Alternative A would not result in any new ground disturbance or other effects, but it also would not implement any improvements to roads within the affected watersheds. Road improvements through reconstruction and maintenance would improve the condition of the roads and reduce erosion and road-related sediment that is currently taking place. It is likely that Hemlock Wooly Adelgid will begin to infest hemlock trees in the watershed over the next several years. It is possible that widespread mortality of this tree species could occur, resulting in a slight potential to affect stream temperature in localized stream reaches.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Cumulative watershed effects that result from past and current conditions in the Big Lost Creek watershed are described in Alternative A. Alternative B would result in additional disturbance within the watershed from road construction and reconstruction, timber harvest activity and fireline construction. Actual ground disturbance would occur on less than one percent of the Big Lost Creek watershed and would be dispersed over the landscape. The disturbances would be effectively mitigated to greatly reduce the amount of erosion and sediment yield that could take place. Temporary increases in water yield would occur, but the spatial distribution of the increases and the relatively small amount of watershed affected would minimize this effect. Herbicide use would occur with this alternative. The herbicide, method of application and mitigation associated with herbicide use would minimize any effect to water quality. Prescribe burning could occur on about 8,660 acres of national forest lands within the affected watersheds. The burning would create a mosaic type effect where areas of slash would burn intensely, but most of the sites would have creeping ground fires or would not burn at all. There would be limited potential to change soil infiltration and porosity as a result from the burning since only a small percentage of the areas would burn at high intensity. As a result, there would be little, if any, change in runoff and water chemistry from the burned areas. Alternative B would construct 1.25 miles of system road, reconstruct approximately 12.7 miles of system road and maintain approximately 45 miles of system road. Reconstruction and maintenance of these roads would improve surface drainage, harden the road surface and establish vegetation on all or portions of these roads. This activity would reduce the long-term, road-related erosion and sediment yield that is currently taking place from these roads.

122 No other Forest Service activity that could affect the hydrologic condition of the watershed is known or planned. Private land use (as described in Alternative A) would continue, and it is possible that new activities could occur on the private land within the watershed that might influence water quality, quantity or timing. The extent and timing of any activity on private land is not known, however. Implementation of Alternative B considered together with past and reasonably foreseeable future activities is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the water resource.

Alternative C Alternative C would not use herbicide for seedling release treatments, or noxious weed control. Otherwise, the effects associated with Alternative C on water yield, water chemistry, and erosion and sediment would be the same as those described for Alternative B. There would be less potential for chemical changes to water quality, however, since herbicide use would be eliminated. Implementation of Alternative C considered together with past and reasonably foreseeable future activities is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the water resource.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Robert Lewis, Silviculturist Doug Byerly, Landscape Architect Sarah Belcher, Landscape Architect Vern Shumway, Landscape Architect, Columbia South Carolina Mary Dodson, Wildlife Biologist Janan Hay, Planning Team Leader Mark Pistrang, Botanist/Ecologist Jim Herrig, Fisheries Biologist Charlie Lewis, Engineer Mike Nicolo, Hydrologist Quentin Bass, Archeologist Seth Ellis, Forester Seth Cole, Forester Chris Bassett, Archeologist Larry Byam, Implementation Team Leader Bob Merrill, Timber Sale Administrator

123 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: McCoy, Roger, Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage Tennessee Historical Commission Barclay, Dr. Lee, USDI FWS Whitehead, David, TWRA Semingson, Rick, Tusquittee Ranger District, Nantahala NF Urban, Richard, Division of Water Pollution Control TRIBES: Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Muscogee (Creek) Nation Kialegge Tribal Town OTHERS: Arthur, Jim, Cherokee Chapter NWTF Bennett, Matt, Tennessee Forestry Association Burris, Bill, Weyerhaeuser Butler, Mike, Tennessee Conservation League Callaway, Mike, Bell and Associates Cheek, Rassiew Jr. Cherokee Forest Assoc. LLC. Corn, Charles Daniel, Patty Dunn, Larry, Cherokee Forest Voices Fields, Jerry W, East TN QU Frerichs, Terry Gregory, David Guthrie, Julie Johnson, Kirk Jones, Ken Kirkland, Gretchen Manning, Kevin Manning, William E. Medlock, Katherine, Georgia Forest Watch Murray, Catherine, Cherokee Forest Voices Pannell, Clayton, Hiwassee Hiking Club Parsons, Shirl, Wilderness Society Payne, Ray Rayburn, Earl Reister, David Rose, Jack SAFC SABP Scenic River Properties Skelton, William, Sierra Club Stewardson, Joseph Switzer, Harry Tuten, Debbie Weist, Tom Wilbanks, James Wildlaw

124 REFERENCES Ashe, William W., and Ayers, H. B. 1905. The Southern Appalachian Forests. U. S. Geological Survey. Professional Paper No. 37. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.

Barclay, Lee A. 2003. Letter of Concurrence for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.

Barclay, L. 2006. USFWS concurrence letter #06-F-0313 dated 22 September 2006.

Bass, Quentin. 1999. Draft – Human Influence and the Forest Ecology of the Cherokee National Forest in the Conasauga River Drainage. Page 18.

Bivens, Rick D., Bart Carter, and Carl E. Williams. 1995. Annual Stream Fishery Data Collection Report – Region IV, 1994. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, TN. Publication No. 95-60. 183 pp.

Carey, Jennifer H. 1994. Thermopsis mollis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 11].

Carter, Jimmy. 1977. Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands. Printed in FSM 1026—10 Amendment 37, 9/1978.

Cherokee National Forest. 1996. Habitat Types for TES Plants. Cleveland, TN.

Cherokee National Forest. 1997-99, with updates. Scenery Inventory.

Cherokee National Forest. 2001. TES List. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Cherokee National Forest. 2004. TES Database Maps. Cleveland , TN.

Cherokee National Forest. 2004-05. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, GIS-generated.

Cherokee National Forest. 2005. Scenery/Viewshed Analysis, GIS-generated.

Coladonato, Milo. 1992. Rhododendron periclymenoides. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 22].

Cowardin, Lewis M., Carter, Virginia, Golet, Francis C., and LaRoe, Edward T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.

125 Curtis, Jeffry G.; Pelren, David W.; George, Dennis B.; Adams, Dean V.; and Layzer, James B. 1990. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices in Preventing Degradation of Streams by Silvicultural Activities in Pickett State Forest, Tennessee. Center for the Management, Utilization, and Protection of Water Resources. Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville. Report for Tennessee Department of Forestry, Nashville. 193 pp.

Crum, H.A. and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America. Columbia University Press. New York.

DeGraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 688.

Dissmeyer, George. 1971. Estimating the Impact of Forest Management on Water Quality. Paper presented at Cooperative Watershed Management Workshop, U.S. Forest Service, Memphis, Tennessee.

Donaldson, J.T. 2005. Botanical Survey of the Cherokee National Forest Lost Creek Project. Polk County, TN. Contract AG-4756-C-05-0021.

Douglas, James, and Swank, Wayne. 1972. Streamflow Modification Through Management of Eastern Forests. Southeast Forest Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-94, Pages 3-5.

Dyer, Delce, Frye, Mary Hughes and Steve Hendricks. 1999. Concern Level Recommendations with Forest Examples.

Ernst, J.P. and V. Brown. 1988. Conserving Endangered Species on Southern Forested Wetlands. Pages 135-145 in D. Hook and R. Lea, eds. Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-50. Asheville, NC. 168pp.

Eschner, A. R. and Patric, J. H. 1982. Debris Avalanches in Eastern Upland Forests. Reprinted from the Journal of Forestry, Vol.80, No. 6, June, 1982.

Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.681 pp.

Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). 1996. Pesticide Information Profiles – Triclopyr. 1996. Page 1-4.

Griffith, Glenn E., Omernik, James M., Azevedo, Sandra H. 1995. Ecoregions and Subregions of Tennessee (Draft). 32 pages.

126 Gucinski, Hermann, Furniss, Michael J., Ziemer, Robert R. and Brookes, Martha H. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. June, 2000.

Hamel, P. B. 1992. Land manager's guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437pp.

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. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Herrig, Jim. 2004. A model for assessing the integrity of fish communities in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Falls Creek Falls State Park, Tn. March 2-3, 2004.

Herrig, J. 2001. Sensitive Species, Aquatic Animals, Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland Tennessee.

Hicks, M. L. 1992. Guide to the liverworts of North Carolina. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, NC. 239 pp.

Hubricht, L. 1985. The Distribution of the native land mollusks of the Eastern United States. Fieldiana: Zoology (New Series) 24. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. 1987. Further Advice on Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management. U. S. Government Printing Office: 1987-723-583/62643.

Johnston, Carol. 2003. Cherokee National Forest Fish Survey Report. Contract with Auburn University. Auburn, AL.

Kauffman. 2006. Conservation Assessment for American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.

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.

Linzey, D.W. 1995. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. 140pp.

Mitchell, L.J. 2001. Sensitive species, terrestrial animals, Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

127 Munger, Gregory T. 2005. Lygodium spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 16].

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Climatological Data Annual Summary for Tennessee, 1996, Volume 101 Number 13.

NatureServe. 2002. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe. 2002b. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, Cherokee National Forest Final Report. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Region 8 Fisheries, Wildlife, Range, Botany, and Ecology. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Neary, Daniel G., Michael, Jerry L. 1996. Herbicides—Protecting Long-Term Sustainability and Water Quality in Forest Ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 26(1/2): pages 241-264. Page 255.

Nicholson, C. P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The Univ. of Tenn. Press, Knoxville. 426pp.

Patric, James. 1994. Water, Woods, and People: A Primer. Page 47-48, 56.

Patric, James H., Evans, James O., Helvey, J. David. 1984. Summary of Sediment Yield Data from Forested Land in the United States. Reprinted from the Journal of Forestry, Vol. 82, No. 2, February, 1984.

Patric, J.H. October, 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry. Pages 671- 677.

Peterson, R.T. 2002. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. Fifth edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass. 427 pp.

Pistrang, M. 2001. Sensitive plant descriptions. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

Pistrang, M.J. 2005. An Analysis of the Effects of Prescribed Fire During the Growing Season on Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Locally Rare Plant Species Within Selected Habitats on the Cherokee National Forest. Unpublished report.

128 Pistrang, M.J. 2006. Botanical Report for Compartments 158 & 171, Lost Creek. Cherokee National Forest, unpublished project report.

Pyne, Milo and Andrea Shea. 1994. Guide to Rare Plants – Tennessee Forestry District 1. Tennessee Division of Forestry Stewardship Program. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1902. A Report of the Secretary of Agriculture in Relation to the Forests, Rivers, and Mountains of the Southern Appalachian Region. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Roosevelt, Theodore. 1902. A Report of the Secretary of Agriculture in Relation to the Forests, Rivers, and Mountains of the Southern Appalachian Region. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Rosgen, Dave L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22. Pages 169-199

SAMAB. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version6.2.2006, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Strange, R. J. and J. W. Habera. 1993. Wild Trout Project: 1992 Annual Report. Cooperators: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Publication No. R11-2216-76-001-93. 134 pp.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Inc. 1999. Imazapyr (Aresenal, Chopper, and Stalker Formulations) Final Report. Task No. 14. SERA TR 98-21-14-01b.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2003. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 9. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a. Page 4-2.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2004a. Imazapic - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 17. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2004b. Clopyralid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 17. SERA TR 04-43-17-03c.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2004c. Triclopyr - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 13. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b.

Swank, Wayne and Crossley, D. A. Jr. 1988. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag, New York. Page 356.

Swank, W.T., Vose, J.M., and Elliot, K.J. 2001. Long-Term Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses Following Commercial Clearcutting of Mixed Hardwoods on a Southern Appalachian Catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143, pages 163-178.

129

Swank, W. T., Swift, L. W. and Douglass, J. E. 1988. Streamflow Changes Associated with Forest Cutting, Species Conversion, and Natural Disturbances. Ecological Studies, Vol. 66: Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag, New York. Page 312.

Swank, Wayne T. 1985. Effects of Clearcutting on Nutrient Losses in Appalachian Forests- Summary.

Swift, Lloyd W. and Messer, James B. 1971. Forest Cuttings Raise Temperatures of Small Streams in the Southern Appalachians. Reprinted from the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, May-June 1971, Volume 26, Number 3.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Water Pollution Control. 2004. State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards, Chapter 1200-4-3 and 1200-4-4.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. December, 2000. Tennessee Ecoregion Project 1994-1999.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. 2000. Tennessee Ecoregion Project 1994-1999. Page 57.

Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Geology. 1966. Geologic Map of Tennessee-East Sheet

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2003. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare vertebrates list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2000. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare invertebrates list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1999. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare plant list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage. 2003. Tennessee Natural Heritage Rare Species Databases. Available: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/nh.

The University of Tennessee Herbarium and the Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University. 1997-2002. Atlas of Tennessee Vascular Plants. Available: http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/herbarium/vascular/atlas.html

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.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2003. Big Game Harvest Report 2001-2002. Technical Report No. 03-1. Nashville, TN. 248pp.

130

Tirmenstein, D. A. 1991. Acer saccharum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 14].

Tu et.al. 2004. Imazapic. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. Chapter 7, G: Imazapic. The Nature Conservancy. USDA Agriculture Handbook 701. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. pp. 2-1&2.

USDA. Forest Service. Cherokee National Forest, Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger District Land Records, Benton, TN.

USDA. Forest Service. FSM 2360.

USDA. Forest Service. 1995. FSH 2409.18.30

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region, R8-FR62.

USDA Forest Service, Region 8. 2001. Regional Forester letter, subject: Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List Update. Dated 8/7/2001. Atlanta, GA.

USDA Forest Service. FSM supplement R8-2600-2002-2. 2002. Supplement to Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Aquatic biological resources. White paper developed by Region 8, USDA Forest Service. Atlanta, Ga. 86pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service Manual 2670 as amended.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 463 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 535 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Appendixes for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 380 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Cherokee National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2004. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

131

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Cherokee National Forest, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Suppresion EA, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Southern Region “Scenic Treatments Guide Southern National Forests”.

USDA Forest Service 2006. Aquatic database for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

USDA. Forest Service. 2006. Cherokee National Forest FSVEG Database. Cleveland, TN

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

US Geological Survey. Multiple Years. Water Resources Data for Tennessee.

Ursic, Stanley J. and Douglass, James E. 1978. The Effects of Forestry Practices on Water Resources. Reprinted from the W. Kelley Mosley Environmental Forum, Proceedings. Auburn University Press. Pages 33-49.

Weakley, A.S. 2002 Draft. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC. 874 pp.

Weakley, A.S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Working Draft of March 17, 2004. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Webster, W.D, J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.

Williams, Gary G. 1997. Hiwassee Watershed 1993-1996 Index Biotic Integrity (IBIs) Tennessee Sample Sites. TVA, Norris TN.

Whitaker, Jr., J.O. and W.J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 583pp.

Wofford, B.E. 1989. Guide to the Vascular Plants of the Blue Ridge. Univ. of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 384pp.

Wofford, B.E. and E.W. Chester. 2002. Guide to the Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Tennessee. Univ. of Tenn, Press, Knoxville, TN. 286pp.

132

APPENDIX B MITIGATIONS

Wildlife Mitigations

FW-34: The following points apply to roost tree retention for Indiana bat: GENERAL. For Indiana bat, snags with exfoliating bark are not intentionally felled unless needed to provide for immediate safety of the public, employees, or contractors. Exceptions may be made for small-scale projects such as insect and disease control, salvage harvesting, and facility construction.

FOREST REGENERATION TREATMENTS > 10 ACRES. When implementing regeneration treatments in hardwood-dominated forest types, a minimum average basal area of 15 square feet per acre is retained throughout the rotation. In some portion of the treatment area, residual basal area should be clumped or left in travel corridors. All snags and all shagbark hickory over 6 inches DBH are retained except those that are immediate hazards. If additional trees are needed to meet the basal area requirements, priority should be given to hollow/den trees or trees that exhibit, or are likely to develop, characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats. Snags do not count toward the leave basal area. Borders of clearcut units will be irregularly shaped.

FOREST REGENERATION TREATMENTS < 10 ACRES. No residual retention basal area (live trees) is required. All snags will be retained unless they are immediate hazards. Shagbark hickory greater than 6 inches DBH is retained.

FW-35: During all silvicultural treatments in hardwood forest types, retention priority is given to the largest available trees that exhibit characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats.

FW-36: To avoid injury to non-volant young Indiana bats, prescribed burning of potential maternity roosting habitat between May 1 and August 15 is prohibited except where site-specific inventories coordinated with USFWS indicate Indiana bats are not likely to be present, unless otherwise determined by project-level consultation with USFWS.

FW-40: Known black bear den sites will be protected for as long as they remain suitable by prohibiting vegetation management and ground-disturbing activities within a minimum 100 feet around the den.

FW-41: Potential black bear den trees will be retained during all vegetation management treatments. Potential den trees are those that are greater than 20” DBH and are hollow with broken tops.

FW-53: Retain soft mast-producing species (dogwood, black gum, hawthorn, grapes, serviceberry, etc.) during vegetation cutting treatments to the extent possible, within constraints of meeting treatment objectives.

FW-67: When seeding temporary openings such as temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings, use only native or non-persistent nonnative species.

FW-97: Dormant season burns have a cutoff date of May 1st or the break of dormancy, as recommended by multi-disciplinary review and TWRA with decision by line officer.

Aquatic Mitigations

FW-3: The following streamside filter zone will be used between new areas of significant ground disturbance such as roads, skid trails, log landings and perennial and intermittent streams, and other bodies of water.

TABLE 2-1. STREAMSIDE FILTER ZONE – SLOPE DISTANCE WIDTH IN FEET BETWEEN MAJOR DISTURBANCE AND PERENNIAL, INTERMITTENT STREAMS, LAKES AND OTHER WATER BODIES

Slope (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Width 40 75 102 146 183 224 274 (Feet) Note: Roads, trails, bladed firelines are examples of significant disturbance. These may be allowed where designated crossings are unavoidable.

FW-6: The width of the channeled ephemeral stream filter zone will be 25 feet on either side of these stream types.

FW-7: Locate and construct roads, trails and other disturbed sites in a manner that minimizes sediment discharge from the disturbance into streams, lakes, channeled ephemerals and wetlands.

FW-9: Within the channeled ephemeral stream zone, a minimum of 15-20 square feet of basal area will be left following removal activities.

FW-10: The removal of large woody debris from within the channeled ephemeral stream zone is allowed only if the woody debris poses a significant risk to stream flow or water quality, degrades habitat for riparian-dependent species, or poses a threat to private property or forest service infrastructure (i.e. bridges). The need for removal is determined on a case-by-case basis.

FW-14: Soil active herbicides are not broadcast within channeled ephemeral stream zones. Selective treatments with aquatic labeled herbicides may occur within this zone following site- specific analysis. Stream zones are identified before treatment, so applicators can easily avoid them.

FW-15: No herbicide is aerially applied within 200 horizontal feet, nor ground applied within 30 horizontal feet, of lakes, wetlands, or perennial intermittent springs and streams. No herbicide is applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Selective treatments (which require added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic labeled herbicides) may occur within these buffers only to prevent environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Appendix B - Mitigation 2

FW-16: Pesticide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas are not located within the channeled ephemeral stream zone.

RX11-1: The removal of LWD (pieces greater than four feet long and four inches in diameter on the small end) is allowed only if it poses a risk to water quality, degrades habitat for riparian- dependent species, or when it poses a threat to private property, public safety, or Forest Service infrastructures (i.e., bridges). The need for removal must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

RX11-8: Tree removals may only take place if needed to enhance the recovery of the diversity and complexity of vegetation, rehabilitate both natural and human-caused disturbances, provide habitat improvements for PETS or riparian dependent species, reduce fuel buildup, provide for visitor safety, to accommodate appropriate recreational uses or for approved facility construction/renovation.

RX11-29: Where risks of resource damage are high, each road segment will be constructed and stabilized prior to starting another segment. High-risk areas include landslide prone areas, steep slopes and highly erosive soils. High-risk streams include streams containing sensitive aquatic species such as trout and mussels, or any threatened or endangered species.

RX11-30: To minimize the length of streamside disturbance, ensure that approach sections are aligned with the stream channel at as near a right angle as possible. Locate riparian corridor crossings to minimize the amount of fill material needed and minimize channel impacts.

RX11-31: If culverts are removed, stream banks and channels must be restored to a natural size and shape. All disturbed soil must be stabilized.

RX11-32: All new stream crossings will be constructed so that they do not adversely impact the passage of aquatic organisms. Exceptions may be allowed in order to prevent the upstream migration of undesired species.

Vegetation Mitigations

FW-50: The maximum size of an opening created by even-aged or two-aged regeneration treatments is 40 acres. Exceptions to these acreage limitations may be permitted following review by the regional forester. These acreage limits do not apply to areas treated as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect or disease attack, or windstorm. Areas managed as permanent openings (e.g., meadows, pastures, food plots, rights-of-way, woodlands, savannas, and grasslands) are not subject to these standards and are not included in calculations of opening size, even when within or adjacent to created openings.

FW-51: Openings created by even-aged and two-aged regeneration treatments will be separated by a minimum distance of 330 feet. such openings may be clustered closer than 330 feet as long as their combined acreage does not exceed the maximum opening size. An even-aged regeneration area will no longer be considered an opening when the certified reestablished stand has reached an age of 5 years.

Appendix B - Mitigation 3 FW-52: Regeneration and salvage harvests on lands suitable for timber production must be done under a regeneration harvest method where adequate stocking of desirable species is expected to occur within 5 years after the final harvest cut. (five years after final harvest means five years after clearcutting, five years after final overstory removal in shelterwood cutting, five years after the seed tree removal cut in seed tree cutting, or five years after selection cutting). The new stand must meet the minimum stocking levels as described in “vegetation and forest health table 2-5 below. These standards apply to both artificial and natural regeneration methods. Where natural means are used and stand reestablishment has not been accomplished within 3 years after committing the stand to regeneration, the stand is re-examined for further treatment needs.

Table 2-5. Vegetation and forest health minimum stocking guides for forest:

Management type Minimum number of seedlings for adequate stocking

Loblolly pine 200 per acre Shortleaf pine/pitch pine 200 per acre White pine (will occur in mixed stand with other pines or hardwoods……. Suggest a min level of 100 per acre) Hardwoods 100 desirable trees, free to grow, per acre Table mountain pine 100 per acre Mixed stands (hardwood/pine or 100 trees per acre in a mixture Pine/hardwood)

Fw-53: Retain soft mast-producing species (dogwood, black gum, hawthorn, grapes, serviceberry, etc.) during vegetation cutting treatments to the extent possible, within constraints of meeting treatment objectives.

FW-54: When regenerating forest stands, regenerate to native species that commonly occur naturally on similar sites within that LTA.

FW-60: Forests dominated by eastern hemlock will not be subject to regeneration harvest. Hemlock will be retained as patches (a minimum of 0.25 acres) during all silvicultural treatments.

FW-61: Use artificial or natural regeneration methods to establish native communities appropriate to LTA.

FW-66: Where table-mountain pine is a minor component of the canopy, vegetation management will ensure its regeneration in order to maintain future restoration opportunities.

FW-67: When seeding temporary openings such as temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings, use only native or non-persistent nonnative species.

Appendix B - Mitigation 4 FW-73: Herbicides are applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human (NRC 1983) and wildlife health (EPA 1986a). Application rate and work time must not exceed levels that pose an unacceptable level of risk to human or wildlife health. If the rate or exposure time being evaluated causes the margin of safety or the hazard quotient computed for a proposed treatment to fail to achieve the current forest service R-8 standard for acceptability (acceptability requires a mos > 100 or, using the sera risk assessments found on the forest service website, a hq of < 1.0) Additional risk management must be undertaken to reduce unacceptable risks to acceptable levels or an alternative method of treatment must be used.

FW-75: Weather is monitored and the project is suspended if temperature, humidity, or wind become unfavorable as follows:

Table 2-6. Unfavorable conditions to suspend project:

Temperatures Humidity Wind (at target) Higher than Less than Greater than Ground: Hand (cut surface) N.A N.A N.A Hand (other) 98 20% 15 mph Mechanical: Liquid 95 30% 10 mph Granular N.A. N.A. 10 mph Aerial: Liquid 90 50% 5 mph Granular N.A. N.A. 8 mph

FW-76: Nozzles that produce large droplets (mean droplet size of 50 microns or larger) or streams of herbicide are used. Nozzles that produce fine droplets are used only for hand treatment where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed 8 feet.

FW-77: A certified pesticide applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains crew members in personal safety, proper handling and application of herbicides, and proper disposal of empty containers.

FW-79: With the exception of permittee treatment of right-of-way corridors that are continuous into or out of private land and through forest service managed areas, no herbicide is broadcast within 100 feet of private land or 300 feet of private residence, unless the landowner agrees to closer treatment. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

FW-80: No herbicide is aerially applied within 200 horizontal feet of an open road or a designated trail. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Appendix B - Mitigation 5 FW-82: Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes worn during treatment, and skin are not cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers.

FW-83: No herbicide is broadcast on rock outcrops or sinkholes except for management of TES species, for example, ruth’s golden aster Pityopsis ruthii. No soil-active herbicide with a half-life longer than 3 months is broadcast on slopes over 45 percent, erodable soils, or aquifer recharge zones. Such areas are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

FW-84: Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or other sensitive areas.

FW-87: No herbicide is aerially applied within 300 feet, nor ground-applied within 60 feet, of any known threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant, except for selective applications to control vegetation within this buffer designed to protect TES plants from encroachment by invasive plants or by over-topping native species and when a non-soil-active herbicide is used. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Heritage Resources Mitigations

FW-114: Projects are designed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate negative effects on potentially significant heritage resources. In-place protection of identified sites is the minimum requirement until site significance is determined.

FW-115: If cultural resources are encountered, regardless of whether the area has been previously disturbed, halt activities until the site significance is determined through coordination with consulting parties.

Soil and Water Mitigations

The widths in Table 3-3 [page 164] shall be used to define the riparian corridor if the corridor is not site-specifically determined.

TABLE 3-3. Riparian Corridor Widths for Perennial Streams, Lakes, Ponds, or Wetlands and for Intermittent Streams (in Feet) Perennial Intermittent 100 50

FW-2: Resource management activities that may affect soil and/or water quality will implement Tennessee Best Management Practices (BMPs) as a minimum to achieve soil and water quality objectives. When standards exceed BMPs, standards shall take precedence over Tennessee BMPs.

Appendix B - Mitigation 6 FW-4: Water control structures such as water bars and dips needed to control surface water movement from newly disturbed sites will be constructed during the activity.

FW-5: Disturbed areas requiring re-vegetation and/or mulching for erosion control will be treated on an ongoing basis during the activity.

FW-8: Motorized vehicles are restricted in the channeled ephemeral stream zone to designated crossings. Motorized vehicles may be allowed in the channeled ephemeral stream zone outside of designated crossings on a case-by-case basis, when motorized vehicle entry would create less ground disturbance than cable winching. FW-18: When preparing for prescribed fire, use wet lines, black lines or hand lines within the channeled ephemeral stream zone and across ephemeral channels to minimize soil disturbance. Use water diversions to keep sediment out of the stream channel. Removal of litter and debris from the channel is permissible. Do no construct firelines in channels, but they may be used as natural firebreaks.

FW-19: Do not plow firelines with heavy mechanized equipments (e.g. bulldozers and tractors) in channeled ephemeral zones when preparing for prescribed fire.

RX11-13: Construction of firelines for prescribed fire with heavy mechanized equipment (e.g., bulldozers) in wetlands, SMZ [stream management zone] and riparian corridors is minimized.

RX11-14: Hand lines are used to create firelines near streams to minimize soil disturbance. Water diversions are used to keep sediment out of streams. Firelines are not constructed in stream channels but streams may be used a firelines.

Appendix B - Mitigation 7 APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Lost Creek Compartments 158, 169, 171-178 USDA FOREST SERVICE, SOUTHERN REGION

CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST OCOEE RANGER DISTRICT

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to document any potential effects of the project on threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) species or their habitat, and to ensure land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. The objectives of this evaluation are to:

1) Ensure Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any plant or animal species or cause a trend toward federal listing of any 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 TES species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. 4) Meet requirements of FS Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002 which provides direction for the preparation of site-specific BEs, including when to conduct an inventory for PETS plant and animal species

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The Ocoee Ranger District of the Cherokee National Forest proposes vegetation management (Table 1), woodland creation, prescribed burning, wildlife opening maintenance, oak planting, herbicide use on invasive species (Table 2), ephemeral pool creation, and road construction and reconstruction. Each alternative is described below. Alternative B Proposed Action

Table 1. Vegetation Management

Compartment Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation /Stand 158/3 17 Thinning 158/5 28 Shelterwood Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 158/7 32 Shelterwood Manual site prep, plant white oak, 2nd year chemical release 158/9 30 Shelterwood Manual site prep, plant white oak, 2nd year chemical release 158/10 27 Thinning 158/23 23 Shelterwood Natural Regeneration 169/5 40 Seedtree w/ Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd Reserves year chemical release

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation

Compartment Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation /Stand 169/15 37 Seedtree w/ Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd Reserves year chemical release 171/4 30 Shelterwood Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 171/18 40 Shelterwood Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 171/31 54 Thinning 171/34 40 Shelterwood Manual site prep, plant white oak, 2nd year chemical release 171/35 40 Shelterwood Manual site prep, plant white oak, 2nd year chemical release 173/3 34 Shelterwood Site prep burn, natural regeneration 173/9 55 Thinning 173/13 27 Shelterwood Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 173/16 30 Thinning 173/24 63 Thinning 175/1 23 Thinning 175/16 (1) 40 Shelterwood 30 residual BA, plant northern red oak, 2nd year chemical release 175/16 (2) 40 Shelterwood 30 residual BA, plant northern red oak, 2nd year chemical release 175/19 36 Shelterwood Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 175/27 73 Thinning/Group selection 175/32 39 Shelterwood 30 residual BA, plant northern red oak, 2nd year chemical release 176/17 40 Shelterwood 30 residual BA, plant northern red oak, 2nd year chemical release 176/33 40 Seedtree 10 residual BA of hardwood, site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 177/8 29 Seedtree w/ Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd Reserves year chemical release 177/10 40 Shelterwood Site prep burn, plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release TOTAL 1047

1) Create up to 919 acres of open pine and pine-oak woodlands on sites that would naturally support these communities. Treatments associated with creating woodland conditions may include prescribed burning on a rotation suitable to reduce woody vegetation in the understory and encourage establishment

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 2 of desired herbaceous vegetation; herbicide application to reduce sprouting of woody vegetation; and cutting of understory and midstory vegetation with chainsaws or other hand tools to expose the forest floor to additional sunlight. Activities would occur on the following sites: • Compartment 169 between FDR 80, FDR 5030, Chestnut Gap Branch and Chestnut Gap (370 acres); and within Compartment 171 between Bearpen Branch and FDR 11727 (99 acres).

2) Reduce stand densities and increase herbaceous cover remainder of Compartment 169 between FDR 1176, FDR 117701, Chestnut Branch, and FDR 80 (450 acres) on a 3-7 year rotation through prescribed burning. 3) Maintain approximately 70 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings. Maintenance activities typically include, but are not limited to, mowing, fertilizing, sowing, day-lighting, and rehabilitation. 4) Enhance hard mast production by planting oak within 3-5 acre inclusions in Compartment 158 stand 5, Compartment 173 stand 13, Compartment 177 stand 8, and Compartment 177 stand 10. Total of 12-20 acres in four stands. 5) Control invasive exotic herbaceous species using the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate. Species can include, but are not limited to, kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, fescue and mimosa. The sites for possible treatment are the area 100 feet on either side of National Forest System Roads (NFSR) listed below (Table 2) and 20 acres of wildlife spot openings.

Table 2. Forest Roads for Herbicide Use

NFSR Miles NFSR Miles NFSR Miles 1003 2.67 1160 3.76 117601 .34 103 &103A 7.3 80 6.31 117605 .36 5032 1.81 11692 .53 23 3.72 11732 .34 11727 1.76 331701 1.04 1173 1.73 1173-1 1.63 331801 .62 11581 .54 117401 .49 5030 1.6 11582 .5 117501 .29 5031 1.23 1176 2.32 117502 .31 68 7.73 1176-1 5.56 117701 1.3 68A .85

6) Create ephemeral pools for amphibians and bats in temporary roads and log landings. Approximately 10-30 pools (up to .25 acre each).

Fuel Reduction – Proposed Activities 1) Complete fuels reduction burns on approximately 7,400 acres within portions of burn units 0-25 (Little Lost Creek), 0-26 (Piney Flats), 0-27 (Mary Branch), and 0-29 (Rymer Camp).

Transportation System – Proposed Activities

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 3 1) Construct 1.25 miles of new system roads on Deep Gap Knob (NFSR 331701) and Boring Branch Spur (11582) to provide future access to the north end of Brock Mountain and TVA powerline. 2) Reconstruct 12.7 miles of existing system roads to bring them up to haul standards. Work primarily consists of widening curves, upgrading culverts, replacing gates, and improving overall drainage. (See Transportation Analysis for details by road) 3) Construct 3.9 miles of temporary roads to access various treatment units.

Alternative C The proposal is similar in scope to Alternative B with the exception that no herbicides would be used for second-year hardwood release and there would be no treatment of exotic invasive plant species. Seedling release would be achieved through the use of mechanical treatments. All other activities are the same as those described above for Alternative B.

Mitigation common to action alternatives:

FW-3, FW-6, FW-7 FW-9, and FW-10: Filter strips would be used between ground disturbance and streams.

FW-14, FW-15, and FW-16: Herbicides would be used during timber stand improvement and site preparation activities following these standards.

FW-28 Protect individuals and locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species, and individuals and locations of other species needed to maintain their viability within the planning area. Site specific analysis of proposed management actions will identify any protective measures.

• Sensitive plants found in: o Compartment 177 Stand 8 Carex roanensis o Compartment 175 Stand 32 Fothergilla major o Compartment 169 Stand 15, Compartment 171 Stand 4, Compartment 173 Stand 9, Compartment 176 Stand 17, Compartment 176 Stand 33, Compartment 177 Stand 10 Megaceros aenigmaticus o Compartment 175 Stand 1, Compartment 178 Stand 28 Monotropsis odorata o Compartment 175 Stand 1, Compartment 175 Stand 16 units 1 and 2, Compartment 175 Stand 19, Compartment 175 Stand 32 Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia o Compartment 175 Stand 16 unit 1, Compartment 176 Stand 17 Trillium simile

FW-34: The following points apply to roost tree retention for Indiana bat: GENERAL. For Indiana bat, snags with exfoliating bark are not intentionally felled unless needed to provide for immediate safety of the public, employees, or contractors. Exceptions may be made for small-scale projects such as insect and disease control, salvage harvesting, and facility construction.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 4 FOREST REGENERATION TREATMENTS > 10 ACRES. When implementing regeneration treatments in hardwood-dominated forest types, a minimum average basal area of 15 square feet per acre is retained throughout the rotation. In some portion of the treatment area, residual basal area should be clumped or left in travel corridors. All snags and all shagbark hickory over 6 inches DBH are retained except those that are immediate hazards. If additional trees are needed to meet the basal area requirements, priority should be given to hollow/den trees or trees that exhibit, or are likely to develop, characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats. Snags do not count toward the leave basal area. Borders of clearcut units will be irregularly shaped.

FOREST REGENERATION TREATMENTS < 10 ACRES. No residual retention basal area (live trees) is required. All snags will be retained unless they are immediate hazards. Shagbark hickory greater than 6 inches DBH is retained.

FW-35: During all silvicultural treatments in hardwood forest types, retention priority is given to the largest available trees that exhibit characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats.

FW-36: To avoid injury to non-volant young Indiana bats, prescribed burning of potential maternity roosting habitat between May 1 and August 15 is prohibited except where site-specific inventories coordinated with USFWS indicate Indiana bats are not likely to be present, unless otherwise determined by project-level consultation with USFWS.

FW-40: Known black bear den sites will be protected for as long as they remain suitable by prohibiting vegetation management and ground-disturbing activities within a minimum 100 feet around the den.

FW-41: Potential black bear den trees will be retained during all vegetation management treatments. Potential den trees are those that are greater than 20” DBH and are hollow with broken tops.

FW-53: Retain soft mast-producing species (dogwood, black gum, hawthorn, grapes, serviceberry, etc.) during vegetation cutting treatments to the extent possible, within constraints of meeting treatment objectives.

FW-60: Forests dominated by Eastern hemlock will not be subject to regeneration harvest. Hemlock will be retained as patches (a minimum of 0.25 acres) during all silvicultural treatments.

FW-67: When seeding temporary openings such as temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings, use only native or non-persistent nonnative species.

FW-97: Dormant season burns have a cutoff date of May 1st or the break of dormancy, as recommended by multi-disciplinary review and TWRA with decision by line officer.

Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11-29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32: Vegetation Management within defined riparian corridors will emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 5 AFFECTED AREA The project area encompasses approximately 10,900-acre area within the Hiwassee River watershed. The area varies widely in topography, from sloping hills and flatter areas around the streams to steeper slopes on ridges in the area. Elevations are from around 800 feet to 3,000 feet ASL. Dry upland sites occupied by yellow pine, upland hardwood, and mixed stands are characteristic of the overall area; cove sites are also present and include yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock as predominant overstory species. Common shrub zone species including mountain laurel, blueberry, huckleberry, and greenbriar are present. Common herbaceous species include galax, poison ivy, ferns, trillium, and smilax. Approximately 71% of the compartments are greater then 70 years of age at this time. There are currently 394 acres within the 0-10 year age class (base year 2006) of the total forested acres in compartments 158, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and 178.

Perennial water sources are readily accessible from all parts of the compartments. Openland, grassy wildlife openings within the ten compartments include approximately 22 miles of linear wildlife openings and 20 acres of spot openings.

The Lost Creek project can be found on the McFarland, and Ducktown quadrangle maps south of Hiwassee River. No special habitat features including caves, talus, boulders, spray cliffs and waterfalls, or seeps and springs have been located in the activity areas.

SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED Using information from project area habitat conditions, species habitat requirements, and species distributions and limiting factors, the entire 2001 Cherokee National Forest TES list was reviewed along with the species habitat list to determine if any TES species were likely to occur in or near the project area. The TES Database Maps (both State Natural Heritage and Cherokee’s GIS) were examined to locate any records of TES species present in the project area.

The need to conduct site-specific inventories of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species for this project was assessed using direction in Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2. Snail, salamander, and butterfly surveys were completed in 2004. Botanical surveys were completed from May 2005 through August 2005. Botanical resources in relation to burning were also assessed by Pistrang (2005). Bat surveys were completed in June 2004. Forest-wide surveys used for this analysis include bat surveys (Cochran et al. 1999, Cochran et al. 2000, Gumbert unpublished data, Harvey et al. 1991, Kiser and Kiser 1999, Libby 2004, Libby 2005, 3-D International 1998), small mammal surveys (Harvey et al. 1991), snail surveys (Brian Cole unpublished data, Caldwell 2004, Gumbert unpublished data), and bird surveys (Bartlett and Buehler 1994, Buehler and Bartlett 1995, Buehler and Klaus 1996, Buehler and Klaus 1997, Buehler and Klaus 1998, R8 Bird, and ongoing surveys).

Carex roanensis, Fothergilla major, Megaceros aenigmaticus, Monotropsis odorata, Scutellaria saxatilis, Thermopsis fraxinifolia, and Trillium simile have been found within the project area. Some species were not found during surveys but habitat is available in the burn areas. Thus they were given a review code of 4a and are analyzed. Phoxinus tennesseensis and Cheumatopsyche helma have been found downstream of the project area. The aquatic species would be protected

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 6 by the riparian mitigation and thus there would be no effects to them. They are not further evaluated here.

Attachment A is the Project Review Form for BE’s. Each species was evaluated and given a Project Review Code (PRC) on the Form based on the Project Review Code Key (Attachment B).

Table 3 lists the species requiring further analysis and a determination of effects based on the analysis in the Project Review Form.

Table 3. Species Requiring Further Analysis

Scientific Name Common Name Insects Speyeria diana Diana fritillary Mammals Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Snails Fumonelix archeri Ocoee culvert Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo Non-vascular Plants Ditrichum ambiguum A moss Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp's homaliadelphus Megaceros aenigmaticus A hornwort Vascular Plants Aster georgianus Georgia aster Berberis canadensis American barberry Botrychium jenmanii Dixie grapefern Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush Carex roanensis Roan sedge Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur Diervilla rivularis Riverbank bush-honeysuckle Fothergilla major Large witchalder Gentiana austromontana Appalachian gentian Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's yellow loosestrife Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap Penstemon smallii Small's beardtongue Pycnanthemum beadlei Beadle's mountain mint Scutellaria saxatilis Rock skullcap Thaspium pinnatifidum Cutleaved meadow parsnip Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia Ashleaf goldenbanner

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 7 Scientific Name Common Name Trillium simile Sweet white trillium Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock

HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS This section of the BE describes relationships between species and their habitats. Species do not occur at random, but are related to specific habitat types.

Speyaria diana Diana fritillary The original range of this species was possibly as far north as western Pennsylvania; presently it ranges to the Virginias. To the west, its range was formerly mostly through the Ohio Valley to Illinois, and south to northern Louisiana and north Georgia, though distribution has been somewhat spotty. Diana fritillary is currently very rare outside of Appalachia. This species has been found recently primarily in the mountains from central Virginia and West Virginia through the western Carolinas and eastern Tennessee into extreme northern Georgia and adjacent Alabama (NatureServe 2001). Habitat for this species includes glades and other open areas within rich, moist mountain forests (Glassberg 1999). The Diana fritillary routinely lays eggs near violets, the larvae’s host food. The caterpillars hatch, hibernate over the winter as pupae, and then crawl to nearby violets in the springtime (P. Lambdin personal communication). Adults are present from late June to September with males emerging before females. One brood is produced per year. The adult’s food consists of dung and flower nectar from plants including common and swamp milkweeds, ironweed, red clover, and butterflybush (Butterflies and Moths of North America http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ accessed 2006).

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat This species ranges widely over the southern states from Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois south to the Gulf of Mexico; west to Louisiana, Oklahoma, and eastern Texas. It inhabits forested regions. Hibernation in the north and in mountainous regions most often occurs in caves or similar sites; small caves are selected, and the bats stay near the entrance (often within 30 m) and are thought to move about in winter. Winter habitat in the south is poorly known. Summer roosts often are in hollow trees, occasionally under loose bark, or in abandoned buildings in or near wooded areas, instead of being restricted to caves (NatureServe 2001).

Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat This species is found in rocky mountainous areas from Quebec southwest along the Southern Appalachians to northern Georgia, and west to Oklahoma. Abundance is extremely difficult to assess, and populations and occurrences are relatively scattered and small throughout its range. Several bachelor colonies and two maternity colonies have been observed in bridges, mines and rock crevices during the period 2000-2003 (G. Libby, Personal communication). Summer roosts include rock outcrops and cliffs, rock faults and crevices, bridge expansion joints, and abandoned mines and buildings. Rocky areas or bridges with sun exposure in a forested landscape may be important maternity site features. These bats hibernate singly or in small groups in caves, mines and buildings and are often found under talus and rocks on cave floors or wedged into cracks and crevices. Known threats include direct human disturbance of roosts, and landscape changes that alter habitat parameters of roosts or hibernacula. Snag retention is important.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 8

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat The distribution of Indiana bats is generally associated with limestone caves in the eastern U.S. Within this range, the bats occupy two distinct types of habitat. During summer months, maternity colonies roost under sloughing bark of dead and partially-dead trees of many species, often in forested settings (Callahan et al. 1997). Reproductive females require multiple alternate roost trees to fulfill summer habitat needs. Adults forage on winged insects within three miles of the occupied maternity roost. Swarming of both males and females and subsequent mating activity occurs at cave entrances prior to hibernation. During this autumn period, bats roost under sloughing bark and in cracks of dead, partially-dead and live trees.

Fumonelix archeri Ocoee covert This snail has been found in Polk County in leaf litter under rock ledges in ravines.

Paravitrea placentula glossy supercoil The range of this species is Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. Its habitat is under leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines.

Vertigo bollesiana delicate vertigo This species is found in leaf litter on wooded hillsides and marshes (Hubricht 1985). The range of delicate vertigo is scattered from Maine west to Minnesota, and south to Tennessee and North Carolina (NatureServe 2004). Two records of delicate vertigo on the CNF occur in Monroe County and one record in Johnson County.

Vertigo clappi cupped vertigo This snail is found on steep, often north facing slopes with mixed woodlands, boulders and rock outcrops (Cole unpublished data). Its range includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (NatureServe 2005). There are 5 known occurrences on the Cherokee in Monroe County.

Ditrichum ambiguum a moss Ditrichum ambiguum is a moss species that is known from scattered locations in eastern North America, through Canada to California and disjunct to India. In the east, the species is known to occur on bare soil of moist banks of roads or streams in wooded, upland, or montane habitats (Crum and Anderson 1981). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp's homaliadelphus Homaliadelphus sharpii is currently known from only three counties in Tennessee and one county each from Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia. It is also known from Mexico, Japan, and Vietnam (Crum and Anderson 1981) In Tennessee, the known sites are in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province; however, it is also known to occur in the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Habitat is described as vertical surfaces and ledges of calcareous cliffs and boulders. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 9 management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Megaceros aenigmaticus a hornwort Megaceros aenigmaticus is a rare endemic, confined to the southwest corner of North Carolina and adjacent Tennessee (Hicks 1992). Habitat includes shaded rocks in small streams and springs, or waterfall spray zones. This species is apparently very sensitive to changes in water quality such as sedimentation and increased water temperatures due to canopy removal in adjacent forests (NatureServe 2006). Megaceros aenigmaticus is previously known from approximately twenty five locations on the Forest. The species was found within 6 stands proposed for treatments (169/15, 171/4, 173/9, 176/17, 176/33, & 177/10) and within two additional stands that were later dropped from the project (177/14, & 178/14). The forest wide viability analysis (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest, 2004) indicates that this species’ viability is at moderate to moderately high risk based upon the habitats it is associated with.

Aster georgianus Georgia aster This species is known to occur from central North Carolina, south to central Georgia and Alabama. Disjunct populations occur in Florida. This species is not currently known to occur on the Cherokee National Forest, but is possible in southeastern Tennessee. Habitats are described as dry, rocky, open woods and roadsides in areas that probably had a previous history of periodic fire. This species is considered to be associated with historic post oak and blackjack oak woodlands (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2005) states that there are approximately 60 known extant populations for this species, most of which are small, consisting of stands of only 10-100 stems. “Many populations are vulnerable to accidental destruction from road maintenance activities such as herbicide application, and from road expansion. Other populations are threatened by residential development and/or encroachment of invasive exotic plants. This species has also suffered from fire suppression” (NatureServe 2005). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Berberis canadensis American barberry American barberry ranges from Pennsylvania south to Alabama and Georgia and west as far as Missouri. Considered rare south of Virginia, this species is a broad southern Appalachian Ozarkian endemic. American barberry is generally known from open rocky woods, openings, and streambanks, usually over mafic or calcareous rock. (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2005) states that “Berberis canadensis occurs in open woods, on bluffs and cliffs and along river banks in the eastern and central United States. Formerly an inhabitant of savannas and open woodlands, fire suppression has significantly restricted its habitat to sites with shallow soil (such as glades and cliffs) or areas with mowing or other canopy-clearing activities (such as powerline corridors, railroad/road right-of-ways and riverbanks). Berberis canadensis is found in 19 mountain counties in southwest Virginia. Occupied habitat includes dry, open woodlands over limestone, dolomite, richer sandstone or shale substrates, rocky and cliffy areas and open areas and glades with naturally thin soil. In Georgia, occupied habitat is described as dry, hard soil on upper, west-facing slopes and dry, rocky woods.” (NatureServe 2005). No locations for this plant are currently recorded for the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 10 surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Botrychium jenmanii dixie grapefern This plant ranges from Virginia south to Florida through Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana. Like most other Botrychiums, specific habitat is difficult to categorize, and may include dry to moist forests and disturbed areas. NatureServe (2005) states that this species is moderately widespread across the southeast. It occurs in a variety of habitats including hardwoods, pine woods, open grassy places, and disturbed areas and is rare across most of its range. No locations for this plant are currently recorded for the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Buckleya distichophylla piratebush and Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock These are both southern Appalachian endemics that often occur together on open, dry, rocky bluffs. Piratebush is only known to occur at a few, widely scattered locations in the mountains of southern Virginia, western North Carolina, and northeastern Tennessee (Weakley 2004). There are currently 14 known sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. Carolina hemlock is known from over 50 locations on the Forest and ranges from Virginia, south through Tennessee and North Carolina, to northern portions of Georgia and South Carolina (Weakley 2004). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Carex roanensis Roan sedge This species is known from Virginia, south through North Carolina and Tennessee, and possibly into Kentucky (Weakley 2004). Unlike many sedges that are restricted to specific wetland habitas, Roan Mountain sedge is known to occur in a variety of mesic forested habitats. Roan sedge is previously known from at least twenty five locations on the Forest, though many of these locations may better be characterized as occurrences within larger meta-populations. This species is locally abundant in certain northern portions of the Cherokee National Forest, but was not previously known from Polk County. One small population was encountered within the northwest corner of stand 177/8 on a small saddle in a mixed hardwood forest (Donaldson 2005). The forest wide viability analysis (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest 2004) indicates a moderately high risk level for this species, though that was based upon only eight known occurrences at that time.

Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur This larkspur is known to occur primarily west of the Blue Ridge Mountains from southwest Pennsylvania and Ohio, to Missouri, then east to eastern Tennessee, the mountains of southern Virginia, and the mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina. The species occurs in dry to moist habitats over calcareous or mafic rock, usually in full or partial sun, often on forest edges or within grassy balds (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2005) states that this species’ habitats include rich woods (and edges of woods), rocky slopes, semi-open woodlands, glades and prairie openings. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 11

Diervilla rivularis riverbank bush-honeysuckle Riverbank bush-honeysuckle is a southern Appalachian endemic, currently known to occur in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina. This species usually occurs on bluffs, rock outcrops, or riverbanks, from moderate to high elevations. (Weakley 2004), but is also found in our area along the Ocoee River at approximately 1,000' elevation. There are currently 12 known sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Fothergilla major large witchalder This species ranges from Arkansas east to Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas. It is typically found in dry, ridgetop forests of moderate elevations especially along the Blue Ridge escarpment (Weakley 2004). Fothergilla major is previously known from only three locations on the Forest. A large population of three separate colonies (estimated at > 800 stems) was found during the botanical surveys within and around stand 175/32. Two colonies were marked within the stand and a third is located just outside the stand boundary (Donaldson 2005). The forest wide viability analysis, (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest, 2004), indicates moderately high to high risk levels for this species depending upon the habitat type populations are associated with.

Gentiana austromontana Appalachian gentian This is a southern Appalachian endemic known from West Virginia and Virginia, south to the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. Plants are typically found at high elevations in open forests, or grassy balds (Weakley 2004). There are currently 70 known locations on the Cherokee National Forest, many of which occur along forest roads and trails. This is a species of forest openings and edges and is likely suppressed under a closed canopy. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Small whorled pogonia is a federally Threatened species that has an historic range that includes most of the eastern United States, however, it is extremely rare throughout its range. According to NatureServe (2005) this is “a widely distributed species with one hundred four extant sites known, sixty-six centered around the Appalachian Mountains of New England and coastal Massachusetts, eighteen centered around the southern Appalachians, thirteen in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey, and seven widely scattered outlying sites, including one in Ontario, Canada which was last seen in 1987. Populations are typically very small and the total number of individuals is estimated to be less than 3000.” This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Lysimachia fraseri Fraser’s yellow loosestrife This species is a regional endemic, occurring in eastern Tennessee, the Carolinas, Alabama, and Georgia with disjunct populations in southern Illinois and northwestern Tennessee. Known from hardwood forests, forest edges, roadbanks, and thin soils near rock outcrops. Flowering seems dependent upon treefall gaps or other openings in the canopy (Weakley 2004). This

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 12 species is known from a variety of habitats and often inhabits sites maintained by some type of disturbance, including periodic flooding, fire, and even roadside maintenance. While this species seems to need disturbance to maintain it’s somewhat open habitat, it is critical that these disturbance mechanisms occur during times of appropriate plant phenology. The greatest threats to this species are considered to be shading and competition from successional growth, and, changes in disturbance regimes that may affect reproductive success or damage mature plants. There are currently 10 known locations for this species on the Cherokee National Forest (1 on the northern half, 9 on the southern). It is given a global ranking of G2 indicating there are an estimated 6-20 populations of this species in the world (Pistrang 2001). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata has a range from Maryland and West Virginia south to Georgia and Alabama, though it seems to be centered in the Appalachians (Weakley 2004). It typically inhabits dry to mesic pine and mixed pine-hardwood woodlands. The species is micotrophic (deriving it’s nutrition from another vascular plant via fungal hyphae) thus 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 it has a wide distribution and fairly non- specific habitat requirements, it remains an extremely rare plant throughout its range. Monotropsis odorata is previously known from at least eight locations on the Forest with many additional sites likely. Many known sites are on, or adjacent to, old roadbeds, trails, and other disturbed areas. During the botanical surveys two new populations were found; one in stand 175/1 (approximately 160 stems) and another small clump (16 stems) was found in stand 178/28, however this stand was later dropped from the project. The forest wide viability analysis (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest, 2004) indicates moderate to moderately high risk levels for this species depending upon the habitat type populations are associated with.

Penstemon smallii Small’s beardtongue This species is a southern Appalachian endemic that occurs in woodlands, cliffs, glades, and roadsides from northwest North Carolina and northeast Tennessee, south to northwest South Carolina and northern Georgia (Weakley 2004). There are currently no records of this species on the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Pycnanthemum beadlei Beadle's mountain mint Beadle's mountain mint is a southern Appalachian endemic that is known to occur in forests and woodland borders from southwest Virginia south through east Tennessee to southwest North Carolina and northwest South Carolina. There are currently no documented sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest though there is a report (James T. Donaldson personal communication 2000) that this species occurs in Carter County, Tennessee. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 13

Scutellaria saxatilis rock skullcap Scutellaria saxatilis is known from Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. Habitat includes rocky, dry to mesic forests, coves, and open areas. Most known sites on the Cherokee National Forest occur in fairly rich cove forests. This species is previously known from forty three locations on the Forest. One new site for this species was found within stand 178/14 where it is scattered and locally abundant (> 1,000 clumps) (Donaldson 2005) within a rich cove forest community that spans the eastern two drainages in the unit. This stand was later dropped from the project. The forest wide viability analysis (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest, 2004) indicates moderate risk levels for this species.

Thaspium pinnatifidum cutleaved meadow parsnip This species is known from Kentucky and Ohio, south to western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama where it occurs in forests and woodlands over calcareous rock (Weakley 2004). There is currently one documented site for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia ashleaf goldenbanner Thermopsis fraxinifolia is a southern Appalachian endemic that is known from North Carolina and Tennessee, south to northern portions of Georgia and South Carolina. Habitat includes forest openings in dry woodlands and along ridges. Many of the locations on the Cherokee National Forest are associated with roads and trails. The species is previously known from twenty eight locations on the Forest. Five new populations (perhaps representing one large meta-population, see Donaldson 2005) were found during the botanical surveys, within stands 175/1, 175/16-1, 175/16-2, 175/19, and 175/32. The forest wide viability analysis (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest, 2004) indicates moderate risk levels for this species.

Trillium simile jeweled trillium Trillium simile is a southern Appalachian endemic that is known from western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, northwestern South Carolina, and northern Georgia and is often locally abundant where it occurs. Habitats include rich cove forests over mafic or calcareous rock, often in or near seepage areas (Weakley 2004). Trillium simile is known to be locally common within portions of the Lost Creek watershed, though individual site records have not been entered into the Forest database. Three new populations were recorded during the botanical surveys in stands 175/16-1, 176/17, and 178/14. Stand 178/14 was later dropped from the project. The forest wide viability analysis (Appdx. E, FEIS - Cherokee National Forest, 2004) indicates that this species’ viability is at moderate risk.

Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock This southern Appalachian endemic ranges from Virginia, south through Tennessee and North Carolina, to northern portions of Georgia and South Carolina. This tree occurs on ridge tops, rocky bluffs, and open forests, generally on drier, rockier sites than Tsuga canadensis, though the two species have been found intermixed in humid gorges (Weakley 2004). This plant was not

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 14 found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action With the no action alternative, the forest would continue to age with natural succession occurring. Trees would die, fall from the canopy and leave more debris and logs on the ground. Canopy gaps would become more common, followed by successional growth of maples, black gum, white pine, and sourwood. In the short-term, this may create grassy habitat utilized by Speyaria diana. The increase in fallen logs may be beneficial to the snails by providing more cover. Plant species that are less shade tolerant may benefit from the canopy gaps. The other TES species will not be affected.

In areas of the forest in early to mid successional stages, plants that benefit from increased sunlight on the ground may lose vigor as the forest ages and canopies close. These species include Aster georgianus, Berberis canadensis, Botrychium jenmanii, Delphinium exaltatum, Penstemon smallii, Pycnanthemum beadlei, and Scutellaria saxatilis. The decrease in sunlight may benefit other plants, including most of the mosses and liverworts. Other TES species will not be impacted.

Alternatives B and C: The effects from eight different activities associated with the proposed action will be analyzed for impacts to the above listed species. These are the effects of the ground disturbance created during the timber removal, planting, construction of fire lines, prescribed burning from August 15-May 1, maintenance of wildlife openings, herbicide use, creation of ephemeral pools, and road construction and reconstruction.

Speyaria diana If any butterfly caterpillars are present during ground disturbing activities, those individuals would likely be destroyed. Prescribed burning may increase habitat, especially in the woodland restoration areas, by increasing grassy areas favored by the butterflies. Given this species preference for moist habitats which would be less likely to be impacted and the short-term disturbance, few individuals would be directly negatively affected by the burning. Maintenance of wildlife openings would benefit the species by providing grassy openings. Herbicide use would not directly affect the caterpillars; indirect beneficial effects may result from a decrease in exotic plants and an increase of native plants. Native plants are host food to caterpillars. The other proposed actions would not affect the species. The project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Corynorhinus rafinesquii and Myotis leibii Suitable roosting and foraging habitat occurs within the affected areas for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and suitable foraging habitat occurs within the affected areas for Eastern small-footed bat. No suitable hibernacula (caves, mines, old buildings) are known to occur within or near the areas. If any bats are in the areas during ground disturbance, individuals utilizing snags may be

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 15 dislodged. This would result in movement from the area, but mortality is not likely. Indirect effects would include potential changes in forage availability and snag availability due to canopy removal. However, the RLRMP standards aimed at protecting Indiana bat including provisions for snag retention (FW-34) and prescribed burning (FW-36) would also benefit these species. Herbicide use, planting, and maintenance of wildlife openings would not affect the bats. Creation of ephemeral pools would benefit the bats by providing water sources. Long-term population changes are not expected due to the small impact area and scale of the projects. Suitable habitat would remain around the affected areas. The project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Myotis sodalis The proposed action is consistent with the Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2004). The RLRMP established standards aimed at protecting Indiana bat including provisions for snag retention (FW-34) and prescribed burning (FW-36). Ephemeral pools are being created in part for the benefit of Indiana bats. Alternatives B and C are not likely to adversely affect the Myotis sodalis, because the project is consistent with the protective measures for Indiana bat set forth in the RLRMP. The USFWS concurs with this finding (2006).

Snails Areas of suitable habitat for the Ocoee covert, glossy supercoil, delicate vertigo and cupped vertigo may occur within the affected areas. Because these species occur within leaf litter, some individual losses could occur as a result of any ground disturbance. Where burning takes place, habitat conditions would be altered as available leaf litter is reduced. Protective cover would be lost making individuals more susceptible to predation resulting in movements to more favorable habitat (unburned areas). Not all suitable habitat would be impacted within an area. The prescribed burn should not impact moist ravines, coves, springs and seepage areas, and rock outcrops. Individuals at these sites would not be impacted, allowing populations to persist in the area. Any impacts from the burns should be short-term and habitat suitability would increase towards previous levels as leaf litter accumulates over time. Herbicide use, planting, and maintenance of wildlife openings would not affect the snails.

Plants

Non-vascular plants: Ditrichum ambiguum, Homaliadelphus sharpii These species were not found during botanical surveys in stands or bulldozer lines. Ditrichum ambiguum and Homaliadelphus sharpii are mosses that have been included in this analysis based upon their published habitat descriptions which are sufficiently vague to possibly include the areas considered for prescribed burning. If present within prescribed burn areas, these species would be found associated either with mesic microsites or rock outcrops within the more xeric habitats. These areas are not likely to burn. Some individuals may be impacted, but affects would be minimal. The use of prescribed fire will not negatively impact rare plant populations that naturally occur on these sites. The use of prescribed fire during the growing season is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and will likely have a long-term beneficial effect on rare plant species and other organisms that are associated with xeric woodlands.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 16

Megaceros aenigmaticus This species was found during surveys. Due to habitat requirements, all locations of this species occur within streams that are protected by the unmapped riparian prescription. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Riparian standards would minimize potential negative effects from all harvest activities.

Potential effects to Megaceros aenigmaticus from harvest activities would be eliminated with the strict adherence to riparian standards. It is expected that all populations would persist after harvest activities. Proposed fuel reduction burns and prescribed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions are designed to avoid riparian areas and would have no effect on this species. Herbicides would be used in Alternative B to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Megaceros aenigmaticus. Other proposed actions would have no effect. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B or C will have no effect on the species.

Vascular plants: Aster georgianus, Berberis canadensis, Botrychium jenmanii, Buckleya distichophylla, Delphinium exaltatum Diervilla rivularis, Gentiana austromontana, Isotria medeoloides, Lysimachia fraseri, Penstemon smallii, Pycnanthemum beadlei, Thaspium pinnatifidum and Tsuga caroliniana None of these species have been found in the vegetation management stands, bulldozer line, roads or wildlife openings. They are evaluated here for effects of prescribed burning. Aster georgianus is considered to be associated with historic post oak and blackjack oak woodlands (Weakley 2004). It tends to respond favorably to fire in their habitat as documented in current literature (Pistrang 2005). Proposed fire lines generally tie into existing roads or other natural fire breaks (riparian area), and do not impact habitats for the non-vascular species. The proposed burns would likely be dormant season burns that are designed to consume small fuels, but not affect large down wood or mature trees. These fires generally will not carry through moist habitats or areas without adequate small fuels. Some burns may take place during the growing season, especially in site preparation burns or in areas designated as woodland restoration areas. Habitats for the non-vascular and the vascular species that occupy moist habitats including seeps, streams, moist rock, rotten wood, and humid areas may occur within a large burn block but would not be affected by the burns. Similarly, the timing and intensity of the fires would protect vascular plant species and their habitats from negative effects.

The use of prescribed fire during the growing season is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and will likely have a long-term beneficial effect on rare plant species and other organisms that are associated with xeric woodlands. Some individuals could be damaged, but roots should remain intact. Dormant season burning would not affect the plants.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 17 Carex roanensis Only five of the twenty five previously known sites of Carex roanensis occur within prescription allocations (4A, 4K, 9F) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Although the majority of previously known sites occur outside of prescription allocations that are designed to be protective at the programmatic level, Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the Cherokee National Forest will be protected. This species is well distributed within a limited geographic area on the northern half of the Cherokee National Forest, and this occurrence is not critical to the continued viability of the species on the Forest. However, since this occurrence does represent a range extension and county record, efforts should be made to protect the site. Roan Mountain sedge is known to occur in both shaded (forested) and open environments (road-sides) on the Cherokee National Forest, thus simply limiting ground disturbance (no skid trails) within the boundaries of the occurrence should be sufficient to maintain the species on site.

Potential effects to Carex roanensis from harvest activities would be minimized with the implementation of the mitigation described above. It is possible that individual culms may be damaged during harvest activities but it is expected that the population would persist after project completion. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have no effects to Carex roanensis if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. This activity would not be conducted within habitats typically associated with this species. Additonal effects from growing season burns on species viability is described in Pistrang 2005. In Alternative B herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Carex roanensis. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Carex roanensis in the future. Other activities in the proposed action would not affect this plant. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B or C may affect individuals but will not lead toward a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species.

Fothergilla major large witchalder Previously known locations of this species fall under the RLRMP (2004) mapped prescription allocation 4F (Scenic Areas). This prescription does not programmatically protect known sites of sensitive species, however Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. This site represents only the fourth occurrence for this species on the Cherokee National Forest and the first documented on the southern portion of the Cherokee. Fothergilla major often occurs on sites with open conditions and thus may benefit from some canopy removal. However, care must be taken to ensure that ground disturbance within the colonies is minimized. Based upon this, directional felling and “no- skid zone” protective buffers shall be delineated to protect the site (see additional information under Thermopsis fraxinifolia below).

Potential effects to Fothergilla major from harvest activities would be minimized with the implementation of the mitigation described above. It is possible that some individuals may be damaged during harvest activities but expected that the population would persist after project

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 18 completion. Fothergilla major typically occurs in dry, ridgetop forests (Weakly 2004) where natural fire historically played a role in shaping plant communities. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have very limited effects to Fothergilla major if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. 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 (Pistrang 2005). In Alternative B herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides woul be used in the vicinity of the known population of Fothergilla major. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Fothergilla major in the future. Other activities in the proposed action would not affect this plant. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B and C may affect individuals but will not lead toward a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species.

Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap Two of the eight known sites occur within prescription allocations (7A, 7B) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Two more sites located within Prescription 9H could benefit from activities that could improve habitat conditions.

One of the two stands in which Monotropsis odorata was found in this affected area was later dropped from the project and will not be affected by harvest activities. Most known sites on the forest occur in areas that have been previously managed. A small monitoring study was initiated in the Rymer Camp area in the mid 1990’s in which a small population of Monotropsis odorata was subjected to regeneration timber harvest. That site currently supports hundreds of stems, indicating that the species is capable of withstanding this level of disturbance. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season, however this species is known to emerge as early as February. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. 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 if present in the burn area (Pistrang 2005). The species has been observed doing well in recently burned areas (Pistrang Personal communication). Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Monotropsis odorata. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Monotropsis odorata in the future. Other activities in the proposed action would not affect this plant. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B and C may affect individuals but will not lead toward a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species.

Scutellaria saxatilis rock skullcap

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 19 Eleven of the forty three known sites occur within prescription allocations (2B3, 4A, 7B, 9F) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Of those, prescription 9F includes specific provisions to maintain and enhance habitats for rare species. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. The population found in unit 178/14 would not be affected as this stand was dropped form the project.

The stand including the newly discovered site of Scutellaria saxatilis was dropped from the project and would not be affected by harvest activities. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not be implemented within rich cove forest habitats and thus would have no effect on Scutellaria saxatilis. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides will be used in the vicinity of the known population of Scutellaria saxatilis. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Scutellaria saxatilis in the future. Other activities in the proposed action would not affect this plant. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B or C would have no effect on Scutellaria saxatilis.

Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia ashleaf goldenbanner Ten of the twenty eight known sites occur within prescription allocations (1A, 1B, 12A) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Prescription 9H may also include activities that could improve habitat conditions for this species. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Five stands that include newly discovered sites of Thermopsis fraxinifolia are proposed for harvest treatments. According to the botanical report, these five locations are linked and form a larger meta-population (Donaldson 2005) of which many of the plants occur just outside the unit boundaries where they are associated with existing road banks and adjacent forested communities. The largest patches of plants found within forested areas are within unit 175/32, and there are associated with old logging roads and skid trails as well as within a mature forest community. The most robust, reproductive individuals occur within the mature forest in the vicinity of a colony of another sensitive species Fothergilla major. Both species typically occur in relatively xeric forest types with open canopies and will benefit from similar management regimes. Protective buffers prescribed for Fothergilla major will likely benefit Thermopsis fraxinifolia as well. It is recommended that the Forest Botanist assist with the sale layout within this unit to ensure adequate protective areas for both species within unit 175/32. Many of the existing individuals of Thermopsis fraxinifolia occur just outside unit boundaries along road cut-banks and are not subject to impacts from this project.

Potential effects to Thermopsis fraxinifolia from harvest activities within unit 175/32 would be minimized with the implementation of the mitigation described above. It is possible that some individuals may be damaged during harvest activities but expected that the population would persist after project completion. Thermopsis fraxinifolia typically occurs in forest openings and dry woodlands along ridges where natural fire historically played a role in shaping plant communities. Proposed fuel reduction burns would be implemented during the dormant season and thus would have very limited effects to Thermopsis fraxinifolia if it were present in the burn area. Prescribed fire may also be used during the growing season to promote creation of

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 20 woodland habitat conditions. 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 (Pistrang 2005). A related species, Thermopsis mollis, is known to be top-killed by fire, but re- sprout from rhizomes and seed after fire (Carey 1994). Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides will be used in the vicinity of the known population of Thermopsis fraxinifolia. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Thermopsis fraxinifolia in the future. Other activities in the proposed action would not affect this plant. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B or C may affect individuals but will not lead toward a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species.

Trillium simile jeweled trillium Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Many sites for Trillium simile in the Lost Creek watershed occur in areas that would be protected by adherence to riparian standards. The new site found within unit 178/14 is estimated to contain at least a few hundred plants, potentially greater than 500 (Donaldson 2005) and will not be affected. Stand 175/16-1 is estimated to contain 50-75 plants, at least some of which are in the riparian zone of a tributary to Puncheon Camp Branch. Stand 176/17 contains greater than 100 plants also with some individuals occurring within areas that will be protected by adherence to riparian standards (Donaldson 2005).

Trillium simile is locally abundant in portions of the Lost Creek watershed. The largest of the newly discovered populations (Stand 178/14) would not be affected by this project and portions of the two other newly discovered populations would be protected by riparian buffers. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not be implemented within rich cove forest habitats and thus will have no effect on Trillium simile. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species and to release desired tree species within this alternative. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Trillium simile. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species will occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Trillium simile in the future. Other activities in the proposed action would not affect this plant. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B or C may affect individuals but will not lead toward a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects analysis is based on the activities in Table 4 in addition to the proposed action.

Table 4. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Lost Creek Project Area

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Mary Branch Timber Sale (61 Mary Branch Timber Sale (40 Impacts from Hemlock Wooly

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 21 acres) acres) Adelgid Smith Mountain Timber Sale Restoration of areas Impacted Restoration of areas Impacted from Southern Pine Beetle (52 from Southern Pine Beetle acres) Prescribed Burns Recreational Uses/Lost Creek Recreational Uses/Lost Creek Campground Campground Construction of the Benton Private land (Section 16) Private land (Section 16) MacKaye Trail changes in land use? Recreational Uses/Lost Creek Utility ROW’s Utility ROW’s Campground Impacts from Southern Pine New trail heads (Forest Trails Beetle Strategy) Utility ROW’s

Alternative A: No action There would be no cumulative effects by non-action.

Alternatives B and C: Speyaria diana, Bats Snails Given the short term impacts, dispersed locations, and small impacted area of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the Lost Creek project area no cumulative impacts are expected. Any areas impacted by hemlock wooly adelgid are not likely to be in the same areas as the activities of the proposed actions.

Plants Plants included in the BE due to prescribed burning would have no cumulative effect from the proposed action and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. The activities are short term, in widely dispersed locations, and/or have a small impact area. Impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid are unknown at this time, however effects are not imminent. Any areas impacted by hemlock wooly adelgid are not likely to be in the same areas as the activities of the proposed actions. In addition, Eastern hemlock is to be retained according to Forestwide Standard 60, thus retaining the community in this proposal.

The following plants were found in the affected area and are discussed separately from the plants considered for burning.

Carex roanensis is locally abundant within a localized geographical area on the northern half of the Cherokee National Forest. The one location found for this species within the Lost Creek project area represents a range extension for the species and will be protected. This species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest and no negative cumulative effects are expected.

Fothergilla major was previously known from only three locations on the Cherokee National Forest, all on the northern half of the Forest. The one location found for this species within the Lost Creek project area represents a new occurrence for the species and would be protected. This species will continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest and no negative cumulative effects are expected.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 22

Megaceros aenigmaticus is a rare endemic, restricted to a small geographic range, yet is often locally abundant where it is found. Eight new locations were found for this species during the botanical surveys and all would be protected through the adherence to riparian standards. This species will continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest and no negative cumulative effects are expected.

Monotropsis odorata is rare throughout its wide geographical range, yet it occupies habitats that often have a history of disturbance. Based upon existing habitat conditions at known sites, it appears to be somewhat tolerant to canopy disturbance and fire. One of the two new populations found for this species within the Lost Creek project area occurs in a timber stand that was dropped from the proposed action. This species will continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Scutellaria saxatilis is previously known from 43 locations on the Cherokee National Forest. The new location found for this species within the Lost Creek project area would not be affected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Thermopsis fraxinifolia is previously known from 28 locations on the Cherokee National Forest. Effects to new locations found for this species within the Lost Creek project area would be mitigated and this species would continue to have viable populations within the project area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Trillium simile is known to be locally common in the Lost Creek watershed. Three new locations were found for this species within the Lost Creek project area and while timber harvest activities may impact some individuals, effects would be mitigated and this species would continue to have viable populations within the project area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT Table 5 summarizes the determinations of effect for each species.

Table 5. Determinations of Effect Scientific Determination of Effect- Determination of Effect- Determination of Effect- Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C No effect. No activities would occur; May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely Plethodon no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a aureolus listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Negative effects Negative effects short term. short term. No effect. No activities would occur; May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely Plethodon no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a teyahalee listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Negative effects Negative effects short term. short term. May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely No effect: No activities would likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a Speyeria diana occur; no habitat would be affected. listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Negative effects Negative effects short term. short term. Corynorhinus No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 23 rafinesquii occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Negative effects Negative effects short term. short term. May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely No effect: No activities would likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a Myotis leibii occur; no habitat would be affected. listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Negative effects Negative effects short term. short term. Alternative B is not likely to Alternative C is not likely to adversely affect the Myotis adversely affect the Myotis sodalis. No effect: No activities would Myotis sodalis sodalis. The proposed action is The proposed action is consistent with occur; no habitat would be affected. consistent with the Cherokee the Cherokee National Forest National Forest RLRMP. RLRMP. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely Fumonelix occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a archeri listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely Paravitrea occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a placentula listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely Vertigo occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a bollesiana listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Vertigo clappi No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not May impact individuals, but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend to federal to cause a trend to federal listing or a listing or a loss of viability. loss of viability. Ditrichum No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely ambiguum occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Homaliadelphus No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely sharpii occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Megaceros No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely aenigmaticus occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Aster georgianus federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Berberis federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts canadensis Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Botrychium occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing jenmanii federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Buckleya federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts distichophylla Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term probably Long-term probably beneficial. beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Carex roanensis occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Delphinium occur; no habitat would be affected likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing exaltatum federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 24 No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Diervilla rivularis occur; no habitat would be affected likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Fothergilla major occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Gentiana federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts austromontana Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would Not likely to adversely effect Not likely to adversely effect (pers. Isotria occur; no habitat would be affected. (pers. comm. Jim Widlak comm. Jim Widlak 4/25/05) medeoloides 4/25/05)

No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Lysimachia federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts fraseri Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Monotropsis federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Benefit from odorata Benefit from opening understory, opening understory, negative impacts negative impacts are short term. are short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Penstemon occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing smallii federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Pycnanthemum occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing beadlei federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Scutellaria occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing saxatilis federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Thaspium federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts pinnatifidum Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term beneficial. Long-term beneficial. Thermopsis No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely mollis var. occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing fraxinifolia federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely Trillium simile occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not May impact individuals but not likely occur; no habitat would be affected. likely to cause a trend toward to cause a trend toward federal listing Tsuga federal listing or loss of viability. or loss of viability. Negative impacts caroliniana Negative impacts are short-term. are short-term. Long-term probably Long-term probably beneficial. beneficial.

Alternatives A, B and C will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Endangered Myotis grisescens. Alternative A will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Endangered Isotria medeoloides or Myotis sodalis. Alternatives B and C are not likely to

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 25 adversely affect the Isotria medeoloides or Myotis sodalis. The USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with these findings.

The implementation of the proposed activities may affect individuals of Sensitive species, however, this would not likely lead to a loss in rangewide viability or trend toward federal listing. No other Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species that occur on the Cherokee National Forest will be affected. Formal consultation with the USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.

REFERENCES

Barclay, L. 2006. Letter FWS #06-F-0313 dated September 22, 2006.

Bartlett, J.G. and D.A. Buehler. 1994. 1993 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of breeding songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 14pp.

Buehler, D.A. and J.G. Bartlett. 1995. 1994 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 15pp.

Buehler, D.A. and N.A. Klaus. 1996. 1995 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 15pp.

Buehler, D.A. and N.A. Klaus. 1997. 1996 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 15pp.

Buehler, D.A. and N.A. Klaus. 1998. 1997 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 6pp.

Butterflies and Moths of North America http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ accessed 2006. Big Sky Institute at Montana State University and the NBII Mountain Prairie Information Node. Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, ad R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (MYOTIS SODALIS) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78:818-825.

Cherokee National Forest Habitat Types for TES Plants. 1996.

Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. 2004. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Cherokee National Forest TES List. 2001. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 26

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.

Crum, H.A. and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America, Vols. I & II. Columbia University Press. New York, NY.

Donaldson, J. 2005. Botanical survey of the Cherokee National Forest Lost Creek Project, Polk County, Tennessee. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Eager, D. C. and R. M. Hatcher. 1980. Tennessee's rare wildlife volume I: the vertebrates. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and Tennessee Department of Conservation, Nashville

Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The East. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Eastern North America.

Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

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.

Herrig, J. 2001. Sensitive aquatic TES species descriptions. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Herrig, J. 2006. Lost Creek Aquatic Analysis. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

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.

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.

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 27 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.

Mitchell, L.J. 2001. Sensitive species, terrestrial animals, Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6 . Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: August 28, 2002 ).

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2002. Version 1.5. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: October 31, 2002).

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Version 4.3. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (Accessed: March & April, 2005 ).

Pistrang, M. 2001. Sensitive plant descriptions. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Pistrang, M. 2005. An analysis of the effects of prescribed fire during the growing season on threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare plant species within selected habitats on the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Pistrang, M. 2006. Botanical report for Compartments 158 and 171, Lost Creek. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Pyne, M. and A. Shea. 1994. Guide to rare plants: Tennessee Forestry District 2. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Ecological Services Division.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bull. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 1183 pp.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2004. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare animals list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2004. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare plant list.

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.

University of Tennessee Herbarium Database of Tennessee Vascular Plants. 2002. http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 28

USDA Forest Service, Region 8. 2001. Regional Forester letter, subject: Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List Update. Dated 8/7/2001. Atlanta, GA.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114B. Atlanta GA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114A. Atlanta GA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Appendices for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114F. Atlanta GA

Weakley, A.S. 1999 Working Draft. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, NC.

Weakley, A.S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of March 17, 2004. University of North Carolina Herbarium, NC Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC.

Widlak, J.C. 1997. Biological opinion on the impacts of forest management and other activities to the Indiana Bat on the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, TN.

Wofford, B.E. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Univ. of Ga. Press, Athens. 384 pp.

MARY M. DODSON South Zone Wildlife Biologist

Appendix C –Biological Evaluation 29 Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Amphibians Seeps, springs, headwater streams, NC & TN; Doe River Common in Carter, wet rock faces at lower elevations; Desmognathus Carolina Mountain 1a Valley SW to Pigeon River Unicoi, Greene, Cocke, more terrestrial at higher elevations; v. S G4 carolinensis Dusky Salamander Valley Washington Counties common in spruce/fir & northern hardwood forests; 900-6600 ft NC & TN; Unicoi, Great Mid-high elevation seeps, stream Desmognathus Santeetlah dusky Smoky, &Great Balsam 4 records; Monroe Co. & 1a headwaters, rock faces; 640-1805 m, S G3Q santeetlah salamander Mtns. Monroe to Cocke SW Cocke Co. primarily > 3200 ft Co. 8 Monroe Co. records Tellico, Bald & North Large streams with sand-gravel Rivers, Citico & W NC & SW TN; Sevier substrate, large rocks & adjacent 2a Eurycea junaluska Junaluska salamander Slickrock Creeks; S G3Q Co. & Monroe Co., TN riparian forests. Low elevation, 1100- potentially Hiwassee 2000 ft. River drainage; total 17 streams rangewide Unicoi Mtns & adjacent Hardwood and pine-hardwood forest; valleys of TN and NC, 1 Monroe Co. record; 6a Plethodon aureolus Tellico salamander terrestrial breeder in leaf litter S G2G3Q between Little TN & also in Polk Co. humus/rotting logs Hiwassee Rivers TN, NC, SC, GA; W of Southern Appalachian French Broad in Cocke Co. Polk, Monroe, Cocke Deciduous, mesic forest; terrestrial 6a Plethodon teyahalee S G2G3Q salamander to Unicoi Mtns in Polk & Cos. breeders (underground); <5000 ft. Monroe Co. 10 TDEC records; Spruce-fir, birch-hemlock and other SW VA to NE TN & NW Johnson, Carter, Unicoi mesic, rocky forests; boulderfields; 1a Plethodon welleri Weller's salamander NC; Johnson, Carter & S G3 Cos. (3 new records grassy open areas; terrestrial breeder- Unicoi Co. submitted) moss mats & rotting logs; > 2200 ft. 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. Birds 2 TDEC records; hacking Nests at ledges of vertical rocky cliffs. Big Bald 1987-89. 1a Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon US and CAN Feeds in fields, lakeshores, and river S G4 Carter, Greene, Unicoi mouths. Cos. 1 TDEC record; hacking S. Holston Lake 1991- Nests in large "supercanopy" trees Haliaeetus 94; recent nests Tellico along lake & river shores. Prefers 1a Bald eagle US and CAN T G4 leucocephalus Lake. Carter, Johnson, roosts in conifers & protected areas Unicoi, Sullivan, Monroe along open water in winter. Washington, Cos. ME to MN south, from GA O TDEC records; occurs Low elevation crop & grasslands and Lanius ludovicianus Migrant loggerhead 1a to AR; OK, TX; CAN: PE thruout E. Tennessee; old fields with scattered trees, shrubs, S G5T3Q migrans shrike to MB Greene Co. near Forest posts Fish Cool and cold water rivers and streams to headwater springs. Rare in 4 occ. Laurel Creek, 2 Streams over 15m wide. Utilize 1a Cottus baileyi Black sculpin SH occ. Beaverdam Creek, S G4Q riffles,runs, and pools with gravel, Doe Creek, stone, and boulder substrates. Mod. To high gradient. Large streams, small to medium-sized 2 occ. Conasauga & 1a Cyprinella caerulea C rivers, moderate gradient, low T G2 Blue shiner Jack’s Rivers elevation 0 occ. on CNF; Large streams, moderate gradient, low 1a Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub LT,FB,SH Experimental pop. being T G2 elevation introduced into Tellico R. Large creeks to medium rivers, 1a Etheostoma acuticeps Sharphead darter N 1 occ. Nolichucky R. S G2G3 moderate gradient, cool warm water Etheostoma 2 occ. Conasauga & Large streams to medium rivers, 1a Holiday Darter C S G2 brevirostrum Jack’s Rivers moderate gradient, low elevation

1

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank 1 occ. Citico Creek; Large creeks & small-med rivers 10- 1a Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail darter LT Experimental pop. being E G1 80 m wide; moderate gradient, warm introduced into Tellico R. Etheostoma Small to large rivers, low to moderate 1a Wounded darter LT, FB (extirpated) 1 occ. Citico Creek S G3 vulneratum gradient, low to moderate elevations 3 occ. Hiwassee R . #4 Mountain brook Small streams to small upland rivers, 2a Ichthyomyzon greeleyi H,O, LT, FB, N, W & #5; Spring Cr.; poss in S G3 lamprey moderate to high gradient many other streams 1 occ. Citico Creek; Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Noturus baileyi Smoky madtom LT Experimental pop. being E G1 elevation. introduced into Tellico R. 1 occ. Citico Creek; Large streams to large rivers, low 1a Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom LT Experimental pop. being T G1 gradient, low elevation introduced into Tellico R. Conasauga River < 5 Large streams and small rivers, low 1a Percina antesella Amber darter C E G1 miles from Forest Bdy. gradient, low elevation 2 occ. Spring Cr. & Large streams to small rivers, 2a Percina burtoni Blotchside logperch H, SH (extirpated) S G2 Hiwassee R. moderate gradient, low elevation 1 occ. Conasauga River; Medium river, moderate gradient, low 1a Percina jenkinsi Conasauga logperch C E G1 possibly in Jack’s R. elevation Watauga & South Holton Large streams to medium rivers, 1a Percina macrocephala Longhead darter SH, W R. <5 miles from the moderate gradient, low to moderate S G3 Forest Bdy. elevations. 2 occ. Conasauga & Small to medium rivers, moderate 1a Percina palmaris Bronze darter C S G3 Jack’s Rivers gradient, low elevation. 1 occ. Hiwassee R. #4; Small to medium rivers, moderate to 2a Percina squamata Olive darter H, FB, N, W poss in French Broad, S G2 high gradient, moderate elevations Nolichucky & Watauga 1 occ. Hiwassee R.; Ocoee River < 5 miles Large streams to medium rivers, low 2a Percina tanasi Snail darter O, H, LT from Forest Bdy. LT T G2 to moderate gradient, low elevation. habitat destroyed by Tellico Res. 1 occ. Nolichucky R.; Large streams to medium rivers, Phenacobius poss French Broad, 1a Fatlips minnow P, FB, N, W, SH moderate to high gradient, moderate S G3 crassilabrum Nolichucky, Watauga, & elevation South Holston R. 28 occ. O=8; H=15; 1st order spring-fed streams (1-2 m O, H, LT, N, W, SH; LT=3; SH=1; poss wide) of R&V region & mountain 2a Phoxinus tennesseensis Tennessee dace Ridge & Valley of upper S G2G3 Nolichucky & Watauga fringes; low to moderate gradients, TN system in VA in TN tribs. low to moderate elevation Insects Cheumatopsyche Helma's net-spinning 1 occ. Big Lost Cr Large streams, low gradient, low 2a PA, KY, TN, AL S G1G3 helma caddisfly (Hiwassee) elevation VA, TN, Laurel Fork 1 occ., Holston Mtn near 1a Dixioria fowleri A millipede Leaf litter, deciduous forests S G2 drainage in Virginia Backbone Rock 0 TDEC records; known Small, spring-fed streams, mod to 2a Gomphus consanguis Cherokee clubtail VA to AL from Polk and Sullivan S G2G3 high gradient Counties 1 TWRA record; 2a Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail Ontario to AL Chestoa, Nolichucky R. Small-large rivers, moderate gradient S G3 2001 Small streams to large rivers, rocky 2a Macromia margarita Mountain river cruiser VA to GA 0 records S G2G3 with silt deposits 0 TDEC records; known Megaleuctra William's giant Springs and seeps at high elevations 1a VA, TN, NC, SC from Mt. Rogers & S G2 williamsae stonefly (>4000 feet). GSMNP 0 TDEC records; known Ophiogomphus 2a Allegheny Snaketail WV, VA, TN, AL from Polk Co. & Spring-fed Piedmont streams S G3Q alleghaniensis GSMNP Ophiogomphus Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Edmund's snaketail TN, NC, GA 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G1 edmundo elevation Ophiogomphus Conasauga River < 5 2a Appalachian snaketail PA, TN, NC, GA Small streams, low gradient S G3 incurvatus miles from CNF

2

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank 3 TDEC records (Carter & Monroe Co); also in Mature mesic forests, edges & grassy 4a Speyeria diana Diana fritillary WV to AL Greene, Cocke, Johnson, S G3 openings; caterpillar host is Viola sp. Sullivan, Unicoi Cos. (7 new records submitted) Mammals Caves & mine portals; summer roosts Corynorhinus Rafinesque's big-eared OH to MO, south to FL and in hollow trees, under loose bark, & 4a 1 record; Cocke Co. S G3G4 rafinesquii bat LA; OK, TX abandoned buildings; forages primarily in mature forest 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 0 TDEC records; likely Cool, damp coniferous and mixed Microtus chrotorrhinus Mountains of MD, NC, 1a Southern rock vole Monroe, Carter, Unicoi forest; moist/mossy talus and logs at S G4T3 carolinensis TN, VA, WV Cos. higher elevations Uses caves year round; forages along VA to KS south, from TN 4 TDEC records; Cocke, 2a Myotis grisescens Gray bat riparian areas/shorelines with forest E G3 to OK; SC to FL, AL Greene, Sullivan Cos. cover ME to OH south, from SC 8 TDEC records; Bridges, cliffs, mine portals, Eastern small-footed 4a Myotis leibii to AL; AR, MO, OK; Monroe, Cocke, Greene, buildings; summer roosts buildings, S G3 bat CAN: ON, QC Carter Cos. hollow trees, loose bark Hibernates limestone caves; maternity 1 TDEC record; Monroe VT to MI south, to SC, AL; roosts primarily hollow trees or trees 4a Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Co; addtl. ANABAT E G2 IA to AR, OK with loose bark; forages riparian areas records Monroe Co. and upland water holes Swift rocky streams in northern & Sorex palustris Mountains of MD, NC, PA, 4 TDEC records Monroe cove hardwoods; often hemlock, 2a Southern water shrew S G5T3 punctulatus TN, VA, WV Co. mossy rocks, rhododendron; riparian dependent Mussels Alasmidonta Small to medium rivers, moderate 1a Appalachian elktoe N 1 occ. Nolichucky R. E G1 raveneliana gradient, moderate elevation Epioblasma florentina 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Small to large rivers, low gradient, 2a 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 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Small to medium rivers, moderate to 2a Fusconaia barnesiana Tennessee pigtoe H, LT, N, FB, W, SH #5; LT habitat is S G2G3 high gradient, low elevation inundated by Tellico Res. 1 occ. Conasauga R. last Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Lampsilis altilis Finelined pocketbook C T G2 obs 1999 to moderate gradient, low elevation Hiwassee and French Small streams to small rivers, low to 2a Lasmigona holstonia Tennessee Heelsplitter H, FB Broad tribs. < 5 miles S G3 moderate gradient, low elevation from the Forest Bdy. Watauga R. <5 miles Large streams to small rivers, low 1a Lasmigona subviridis W from the Forest Bdy S G3 Green floater gradient, low elevation (only location in TN). Small streams to large rivers, Lexingtonia 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & 2a Slabside pearlymussel H moderate to high gradient, low S{C} G2 dolabelloides #5 elevation Medionidus Alabama Large streams, low gradient, low 1a C O occ Critical Habitat T G1 acutissimus moccasinshell elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Medionidus parvulus Coosa moccasinshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1 elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Pleurobema decisum Southern clubshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1G2 to moderate gradient, low elevation Pleurobema Southern pigtoe Medium rivers, moderate gradient, 1a C 1 occ. Conasauga R. E G1 georgianum mussel low elevation

3

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Small streams to large rivers, Pleurobema Conasauga River < 5 1a Georgia pigtoe C moderate to high gradient, low S{C} GHQ hanleyianum miles from Forest Bdy. elevation 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Large streams, low gradient, low 2a Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell H S G3 #5 elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1 elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Ptychobranchus greenii Triangular kidneyshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1 elevation Strophitus Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Alabama creekmussel C 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G3 connasaugaensis elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Villosa nebulosa Alabama rainbow C 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G3 elevation Cumberland bean 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Large streams and small rivers, low 2a Villosa trabalis H E G1G2 pearly mussel #5 gradient, low elevation Villosa vanuxemensis Small and large streams, low gradient, 1a Coosa combshell C 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G4T2 umbrans low elevation Reptiles South Holston R. tribs Slow, shallow, mucky rivulets of Local: SH; US: MA south 1a Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle with bogs; < 5 miles sphagnum bogs, seeps, wet cow S G3 to GA, TN from Forest, Johnson Co. pastures, & shrub swamps Snails

4a Fumonelix archeri Ocoee culvert Polk County, TN Polk County Leaf litter under rock ledges in ravines S G1

0 TDEC records; Field Spruce fir and mesic forests with 1a Pallifera hemphilli Black mantleslug MI, NC, TN, VA Museum records Polk moist litter, downed wood and rock S G3 (2), Carter (4) Cos. cover; high elevation 0 TDEC records; Field VA, TN, NC, KY Leaf litter of deciduous forests and Museum & CNF records 4a Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil Off-forest Cocke Co.; unk streamside forests with moist litter, S G3 Polk(2), Monroe(2), location Sullivan Co. downed wood & rock cover. Carter(2), Unicoi(1) Cos. NC, TN, KY, VA Field Museum & Forest Off-CNF & unk locations Mesic deciduous forest, mid-high 1a Ventridens coelaxis Bidentate dome records; Carter (5) and S G3 Carter, Johnson, Sullivan elevation Johnson (3) Cos. Cos. 2 records Monroe Co.; 1 Rich coves, acidic coves, other 4a Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo ME south to TN, NC Field Museum record S G3 deciduous forests with downed wood Johnson County leaf litter and debris on steep wooded 4a Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo KY, TN, VA, WV 5 records Monroe Co. slopes with boulders and rotting S G1G2 timber Non-vascular Plants On rock in moist ravines, spray cliffs, Mountains of NC, TN, SC, cascading streams, and spruce/fir 1a Acrobolbus ciliatus A liverwort GA. AK, Japan, Taiwan, 1 Record S G3? forests; Riparian dependent except and India. Monroe Co. when in the spruce/fir forest zone. Humus or gravelly soil at base of wet Aneura maxima (=A. Mountains of VT, south to 2a A liverwort 0 Records outcrops, along streams, and S G1G2 sharpii) NC and TN waterfalls. Mostly riparian dependent Aspiromitus Undocumented records On rock in streams. Riparian 2a A hornwort TN, NC, SC S G1 appalachianus have been reported. dependent. Wet, acidic rock in the mtns, Macon & Jackson O Records. Known from especially road cuts. Also on spray 2a Bartramidula wilsonii Dwarf apple moss Counties, NC and Monroe Monroe County however S G3? cliffs and in humid gorges. Mostly County, TN site is undocumented. riparian dependent. On rock and bark of Abies fraseri, Mountains of VA, TN, and 2 locations; Roan Picea rubens, Betula lutea, Prunus 2a Bazzania nudicaulis A liverwort S G2G3 NC Mountain pennsylvanica, and Sorbus americana in spruce/fir forests. Moist, shady, acidic rock, especially Brachydontium Europe, Mount Rainier, Unknown # on Roan 2a Peak moss sandstone; rocky seepage along S G2 trichodes NH, NC, and TN Mountain mountain trails.

4

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Swampy areas; habitats occupied by Nova Scotia, MA, NY, MI, Nowellia, Lophocolea, and Tetraphis; 1a Buxbaumia minakatae Hump-backed Elves 0 Records S G2G3 VT, VA, NC and Japan rotten logs or stumps; found on elm, ash and yellow birch logs. Cephalozia On soil in rock crevices along 2a macrostachya ssp A liverwort NC to MS 0 Records S G4T1 streams. Riparian dependent. australis Cephaloziella Rock crevices and soil above 5,500'. 1a A liverwort Europe, VT, TN, and NC 0 Records S G2G3 massalongi Often with copper or sulphur deposits. On tree bark in humid gorges. Variety of mesic to dry-mesic hardwoods including Quercus spp., Liriodendron NC, SC, AL, and TN. tulipifera, Nyssa sylvatica, Carya 1a Cheilolejeunea evansii A liverwort 1 Record S G1 Monroe Co. spp., Liqyuidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus spp., and Ilex opaca. The moss Fissidens subbasilaris is nearly a constant associate. Chiloscyphus KY, NC, SC, and TN. On wet rock, usually near cascades or 1a A liverwort 1 Record S G1G2 appalachianus Monroe Co. waterfalls. Riparian dependent. On moist soil or rocks at moderate to NC, TN high elevations. Diplophyllum Diplophyllum The variety taxifolioides is collected below 3,000 feet is likely to 1a apiculatum var A liverwort known from several 0 Records. be D. apiculatum (Hicks 1992). The S G5T1Q taxifoliodes locations in NC and from variety is thought to be a hybrid of D. Mt. Leconte in TN. apiculatum and D. taxifolioides (Shuster 1974). In crevices of rock outcrops in spruce/fir forests; >5,500 ft. Always Diplophyllum Newfoundland, MN, associated with damp, shaded rocks. 1a A liverwort 0 Records. S G2? obtusatum mountains of NC & TN It is also known to occur within mixed mesophytic forest in NC (Shuster 1974). On bare soil of moist banks of roads CA, MT, NC, NH, NY, 4a Ditrichum ambiguum A moss 0 Records. or streams in wooded, upland, or S G3? OR, VT, WA; BC, QC, SK montane habitats. Also acidic coves. On rock and the bark of trees and shrubs along streams, mixed mesophytic forest, and in humid Drepanolejeunea Mountains of VA, TN, NC, 4 Records. gorges. Most often found on Kalmia 1a A liverwort S G2? appalachiana SC, and GA; PR Rhododendron, Clethra, and Ilex. Substrates for the CNF pops include rock, Quercus alba, and Betula allegheniensis. 2a Entodon concinnus Lime entodon NC, TN; AB, BC, NS 0 Records. On moist calcareous rock. S G4G5 In rock crevices submerged in swift Fissidens Appalachian pocket 2a NC and TN. Monroe Co. 1 Record. running, shallow water. Riparian S G2G3 appalachensis moss dependent. Usually on the bark of hardwoods (Acer spicatum, Betula allegheniensis, Sorbus americana) above 3,500 ft. in Mountains of TN, NC, GA, 1a Frullania appalachiana A liverwort 0 Records. spruce/fir zone. Also known from S G1? and SC mesic forests and escarpment gorges on the bark of Castanea dentata and Liriodendron tulipifera. Northern Europe, Japan, 1a Frullania oakesiana A liverwort and Mountains of VT to 0 Records. Tree bark in spruce/fir forests. S G3? NC and TN 1 Record, Roan High elevation rocky summits and 1a Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen TN, NC, SC, GA E G2 Mountain rock outcrops. Vertical surfaces and ledges of Homaliadelphus Sharp's Japan, Vietnam, Mex; MO, 4a 0 Records. calcareous cliffs and boulders. Dry S G3 sharpii homaliadelphus VA, NC, and TN mafic or calcareous rocks in gorges. CA to MT and Canada; On rock substrates in clear, cold 2a Hydrothyria venosa An aquatic lichen Appalachians from Canada 1 Record mountain streams. Riparian S G3 to TN & NC. Monroe Co. dependent.

5

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Rock and bark in humid gorges, and Mountains of NC, TN, and 2a Lejeunea blomquistii A liverwort 2 Records. dead trees or vertical rock faces of S G1G2 GA. Monroe Co. spray cliffs. 1 possible Record, Monroe County. This Lejeunea The Caribbean; coastal On bark of trees in the outer coastal 2a A liverwort has proven to be S G2G3 dimorphophylla plain of FL and NC plain. Riparian dependent. Lejeunea ulicina ssp. bullata. Leptodontium Grandfather Mountain Unkown # on Roan Bark of trees in high elevation, 1a VA, TN, NC, and GA S G2 excelsum leptodontium Mountain spruce/fir forests. On shaded, moist or wet rock (often Leptohymenium cliffs and waterfalls) and within 1a Mount Leconte moss TN, NC, and SC 0 Records. S G1 sharpii hemlock/hardwood cove forests. Elevation ranged from 1900- 5400’. Lophocolea see Chiloscyphus 1a A liverwort See Chiloscyphus appalachianus S G1G2? appalachiana appalachianus Moist rocks in humid gorges, waterfall spray zones, wet rock & Marsupella emarginata 1a A liverwort Range unknown 0 Records. seeps along streams, or humid S G5T1T2 var. latiloba microclimates at high elevation. Riparian dependent. 25+ Records (often Shaded rocks in small streams and Megaceros NC, TN, and GA. Monroe 7b A hornwort abundant in areas where springs, or spray cliffs. Riparian S G2G3 aenigmaticus and Cocke Co’s. found). dependent. Rock and bark of trees from spruce/fir Metzgeria fruticulosa Asia, Europe; PNW US; 1 Record, Roan 1a A Liverwort zone to hemlock/hardwood forests S G2Q (= M. temperata) VA, NC, and TN Mountain above 3000’. Metzgeria furcata var. In humid gorges or on damp, shaded 1a A liverwort NC and SC, possibly TN 0 Records. S G4T1 setigera rocks in spruce/fir forests. PR; SE coast to mountains 1a Metzgeria uncigera A liverwort 0 Records. On Rhododendron bark in mountains. S G3 of NC Low elevations in mountains, on peaty VA, WV, KY, TN, NC, 2a Nardia lescurii A liverwort 3 Records soil over rock near shaded streams. S G3? SC, and GA. Monroe Co. Riparian dependent. Permanently damp or wet sites and MN, NC, SC, TN, and GA. 2a Pellia appalachiana A liverwort 3 Records. moist outcrops, usually near S G1? Monroe and Polk Co’s. waterfalls. Mostly riparian dependent On shaded, moist rock outcrops in the 2a Plagiochila austinii A liverwort NH and VT to NC and TN 0 Records. S G3 mountains Mountains of TN, NC, SC, Damp, shaded rock faces, usually and GA. Monroe Co. along streams in mountain gorges and 2a Plagiochila caduciloba A liverwort 2 Records. S G2 (Historic record from on spray cliffs; 1000-4900 ft. Greene County) Riparian dependent. Damp, shaded rock faces and crevices Mountains of TN, NC, and in mountain gorges, above cascades 1a Plagiochila echinata A liverwort SC. Monroe and Polk 4 Records. S G2 and near waterfalls. Riparian Co’s. dependent. Shaded, moist rocks in humid gorges. 1a Plagiochila sharpii Sharp's leafy liverwort TN, NC, SC, and GA 0 Records. S G2G3 Riparian dependent. Moist, shaded rock outcrops, under Mountains of VA, WV, Plagiochila sullivantii cliff ledges, and in rock crevices; 1a A liverwort NC, SC, and TN. Monroe 1 Record. S G2T1 var spinigera spray cliffs and spruce/fir forests; > Co. 2500 ft. Mountains of VA, WV, Moist, shaded rock outcrops, cliff Plagiochila sullivantii Sullivant's leafy 1a KY, TN, NC, SC, and GA. 1 Record. ledges and rock crevices; spray cliffs S G2T2 var sullivantii liverwort Monroe Co. and spruce/fir forests; > 2500 ft. On moist rock near waterfalls; humid Plagiochila virginica 2 Records, no varietal gorges, and rocky banks of shaded 2a A liverwort VA, NC, SC, and TN S G3T2 var caroliniana info. streams. Riparian dependent. Generally at lower elevations. On shaded rock along streams and Plagiochila virginica WV, to NC, SC, TN, GA, 2 Records, no varietal moist rock faces, especially limestone. 2a A liverwort S G3T3 var virginica and MS info. Riparian dependent. Generally at lower elevations.

6

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Moist, granitic or humus covered rock, especially on cliff ledges near Plagiomnium 2a Carolina plagiomnium TN, NC, SC, and GA 0 Records. streams or waterfalls; rocks or S G3 carolinianum streambanks in humid gorges. Riparian dependent. Attached to acidic rock in running Platyhypnidium Mexico, AZ; NC, SC, and water, permanent seeps, or spray cliffs 2a A moss 0 Records. S G2 pringlei suspected in TN of waterfalls in hemlock/hardwood forests. Riparian dependent. Polytrichum Appalachian haircap High elevation rocky summits, rock 1a TN and NC 0 Records. S G3 appalachianum moss outcrops, and shrub balds. Rock faces in humid gorges & wet KY, TN, NC, and SC. 2a Porella wataugensis Watauga porella 2 Records rock near small streams above S G2 Monroe Co. inundation. Riparian dependent. Shaded rock outcrops near streams Mountains of NC, SC, TN, 2a Radula sullivantii A liverwort 0 Records. and waterfalls in mountain gorges. S G2 and GA Riparian dependent. Europe, South America; Shady rock faces in spray areas 1a Radula voluta A liverwort mountains of NC and TN. 1 Record around waterfalls. Riparian S G3 Monroe Co. dependent. Mountains of NC and TN. On moist wood and humus in mesic 1a Riccardia jugata A liverwort 3 Records. S G1G2 Monroe and Polk Co’s. areas and humid gorges. Europe, Africa, Asia, On rock and bark of Abies fraseri, Sphenolobopsis Atlantic and Pacific Roan Mountain Picea rubens, Prunus pennsylvanica, 1a A liverwort S G2 pearsonii Islands, Pacific NW; NC (Undocumented) and Sorbus americana in spruce/fir and TN forests. Canada to CA; mountains Bark of hardwoods in high elevation 1a Sticta limbata A foliose lichen 0 Records. S G3G4 of NC and TN northern hardwood forests Soil, humus, or bark in wet, swampy Asia; MD to FL, NC, and 1a Taxiphyllum alternans Japanese yew-moss 0 Records. areas; on limestone in the spray area S G3? LA of waterfalls. Riparian dependent. . Cliff overhangs and crevices with 1a Tortula ammonsiana Ammons' tortula Africa; WV, NC, and TN 0 Records. seepage in rich hardwood forests. S G2? Riparian dependent. Vascular Plants Rich forest habitats on seepage slopes, South and central Trailing white boulderfields, streambanks, and coves 1a Aconitum reclinatum mountains of NC, PA, TN, 1 Record. S G3 monkshood at high elevations, associated with VA, WV. Carter Co. mafic rock. Dry, rocky, open woods and roadsides AL, FL, GA, NC. in areas with a history of frequent fire; 4a Aster georgianus Georgia aster 0 Records S G2G3 Suspected in SE TN Likely associated with historic post or blackjack oak woodlands. PA to IL, south to AL, GA; Open rocky woods, openings, and IL, MO. Monroe, Johnson, streambanks, usually over mafic or 4a Berberis canadensis American barberry Sullivan, Washington, 0 Records S G3 calcareous rock; occurring in thin soil. Carter, and several ridge Historic habitats were fire maintained. and valley counties. MD to FL; TN, AL, MS, Dry to moist forests; open, grassy 4a Botrychium jenmanii Dixie grapefern LA. Monroe, Hamblen, 0 Records S G3G4 areas; and disturbed areas. Putnum Co’s. Mountains of NC, TN, VA. Open, dry, rocky woods and bluffs, Buckleya Carter, Cocke, Greene, typically calcareous-shaley soils; 4a Piratebush 14 Records. S G2 distichophylla Sullivan, Unicoi, Known sites occur between 1900- Washington Co’s. 3300 ft. Mountains of NC, TN. High elevation rocky summits and 1a Calamagrostis cainii Cain's reed grass 0 Records S G1 Sevier Co. disturbed areas 4000-6000 ft. Mountains of AL, NC, SC, Wet, rocky areas; springs, seeps, and Small mountain TN, VA. Carter, Johnson, 1a Cardamine clematitis 13 Records streambanks; moss or moist soil; > S G2G3 bittercress Unicoi, Washington, 3,500’; Mostly riparian dependent. Monroe, Sevier Cos. Mountains of GA, NC, TN. Medium to high elevation cliffs, balds 1a Carex misera Wretched sedge Blount, Sevier, Carter, 4 Records S G3 and rocky areas Unicoi

7

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank GA, KY, NC, TN, VA. Mesic forests; often associated with 7b Carex roanensis Roan sedge Carter, Johnson, Unicoi, 25 Records S G1 birch and beech at high elevations. Cocke, Sullivan AL, IL, IN, KY, TN. River bluffs, ravines, and rich cove Monroe, Sullivan, & forests over talus and rocky 1a Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane several Ridge and Valley 0 Records S G3 calcareous soils; typically north facing cos.; Primary Cumberland slopes; 800-1500 ft. Plateau in TN. MD to GA; OH, KY, TN. Monroe, McMinn, Blount, Rich forests in moist coves to dry oak 1a Collinsonia verticillata Stoneroot 0 Records S G3 Sevier, Johnson, and forests over mafic or calcareous rock. several counties to west. Rich, moist cove and slope forests Mountains of GA, NC, SC, 1a Coreopsis latifolia Broadleaf tickseed 6 Records 1,500 to 4,500 ft. Flowering triggered S G3 TN. Polk, Carter, Greene by canopy gaps. GA, NC, NJ, SC, TN. Seeps around rock outcrops in the 2a Danthonia epilis Bog oat-grass 0 Records S G3? Cocke mountains. Riparian dependent. OH, PA south to TN, NC; Dry to moist habitats over mafic rock, AL, MO, ME. Mostly usually in full or partial sun (grassy Ridge and Valley Co’s, but balds or forest edges). Also rich 4a Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur 0 Records; S G3 reported from Cocke Co.; woods (and edges of woods), rocky Known from the Blue slopes, semi-open woodlands, glades Ridge in NC. and prairie openings. Mountains of AL, GA, NC, Riverbank bush- TN. Unicoi, Washington, 4a Diervilla rivularis 12 Records Bluffs, rock outcrops, and riverbanks S G3 honeysuckle Polk, and some Ridge and Valley Co’s. AL, AR, GA, NC, SC, TN. Dry ridge top and bluff forests of 7b Fothergilla major Large witchalder Polk, Sevier, Greene, and 3 Records S G3 moderate elevations. some west of Blue Ridge Mountains of NC, TN, VA, Gentiana WV. Carter, Greene, High elevations in open forests, grassy 4a Appalachian gentian 70 Records S G3 austromontana Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi, balds, and along roads and trails. Washington Cos. High elevation peaks, seeps, wet Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Geum geniculatum Bent avens 5 Records boulderfield forests, grassy balds, cliff S G2 Carter Co. bases, and stream banks. 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’. Moist to soggy ground at higher Great Smoky Mountains of NC, TN. elevations, especially seepage areas 1a Glyceria nubigena 0 Records S G2 Mountain mannagrass Sevier. on heath balds and high ridges and miry places in spruce-fir forests 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. AL, NC, SC, TN. Carter, Mesic forests and woodlands at Helianthus 1a Whiteleaf sunflower Greene, Johnson, Unicoi 12 Records medium elevations. Flowering S G3 glaucophyllus Cos. associated with increased light. Range for H. longiflora is AL, KY, NC, OH, TN, VA, Moist ravines and rich cove forests, Heuchera longiflora 1a Maple-leaf alumroot WV. No published range 9 Records especially over mafic or calcareous S G4T2Q var. aceroides info for variety. Cocke, rock. Greene Cos. Humid gorges, moist ceilings of rock Hymenophyllum NC, SC, TN, GA. Sevier, 2a Taylor's filmy fern 0 Records grottoes and spray cliffs. Riparian S G1G2 tayloriae Fentress, Overton. dependent. Mountains of NC, TN. Mountain St. High elevation grassy balds and forest 1a Hypericum graveolens Sevier, Unicoi, Carter, 3 Records S G3 Johnswort openings. Johnson. Mountains of NC, TN, VA, Hypericum Blue Ridge St. WV. Unicoi, Carter, Grassy balds, seeps, and forest 1a 12 Records S G3 mitchellianum Johnswort Cocke, Greene, Johnson, openings. Sevier, Blount, Monroe.

8

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Wetlands, seeps, or streambanks >2,000 ft often in association with Tsuga canadensis, Betula lenta, Ilex NC, VA, WV. Suspected 1a Ilex collina Longstalked holly 0 Records montana, Picea rubens, and S G3 in TN Rhododendron maximum. Also moist, rocky slopes in northern hardwood or mixed spruce/hardwood forests. ME to GA; Midwestern US Open deciduous, or mixed pine- Small whorled 4a Isotria medeoloides and CAN. Washington, 0 Records deciduous forests, often on dry to T G2G3 pogonia Hamilton. moist leaf litter. Central and eastern US and southeastern CAN. All Moist, rich forests especially along 2a Juglans cinerea Butternut 11 Records S G3G4 Blue Ridge counties and rivers in bottomlands and floodplains. scattered throughout TN. Bogs, seeps, grassy balds, moist forest Mountains of NC, TN, VA. 2a Lilium grayi Gray's lily 8 Records edges, and wet meadows at medium to S G3 Carter and Johnson Co’s. high elevations. Forest edges, road banks, Along Regional endemic of AL, streams and rivers, and thin soil near GA, NC, SC, TN; KY, IL. Fraser's yellow rock outcrops. Locally abundant in the 4a Lysimachia fraseri Polk, Sevier, Cocke, 10 Records S G2 loosestrife Ocoee River Gorge. Dependent upon Hamilton, and a few cyclical natural disturbances to counties in west TN. maintain open conditions. Regional endemic Wet ditches, meadows, seeps, streams 2a Minuartia godfreyi Godfrey's stitchwort AL, AR, FL, NC, SC, TN. 3 Records banks, and springs; associated with S G1 Carter, Johnson. calcareous soils. Riparian dependent. DE to FL, AL, KY, TN, WV; Centered in Appalachians. Polk, Dry to mesic pine and mixed 7b Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap 8 Records S G3 Monroe, Blount, Sevier, pine/hardwood forests. Cocke, Greene, and a few counties west. Mountains of AL, GA, NC, SC, TN. Polk, Cocke, Woodlands, cliffs, glades, and 4a Penstemon smallii Small's beardtongue Greene, Washington, 0 Records S G3 roadsides. Unicoi, Carter, and several counties west. Crevices in phyllite & graywacke 1a Pityopsis ruthii Ruth's golden aster Southeast TN 12 Records; Polk Co. boulders in historical flood zone E G1 Ocoee & Hiwassee Rivers. Forested wetlands with open or semi- open canopy. Wet, flat, boggy areas at the head of streams or seepage VA to GA, KY to AL, MS. slopes. Often found in association White fringeless Polk, Monroe and several 2a Platanthera integrilabia 2 Records with Sphagnum and Osmunda S G2G3 orchid Cumberland Plateau cinnamonea, Woodwardia areolata, counties and Thelyptris novaboracensis, in acidic muck or sand, and in partially, but not fully shaded areas. OH, PA, TN, VA, WV. Potamogeton Slow moving streams and rivers. 2a Tennessee pondweed Polk, Monroe, Blount and 1 Record S G2 tennesseensis Riparian dependent. counties west Mountains of NC, TN, VA. Roan Mountain High elevation rich woods, grassy 1a Prenanthes roanensis Polk, Sevier, Greene, 48 Records S G3 rattlesnake root balds, and forest openings. Unicoi, Carter, Johnson Beadle's mountain Mountains of southwest 4a Pycnanthemum beadlei 0 Records Forests and woodland borders. S G2G4 mint VA to GA, TN. Carter 0 Records; not tracked by Listed by TN Natural Heritage (1999) TDEC; NY Botanical as a rare endemic, known from Garden Database lists wooded slopes and riverbanks. Taken Appalachian Valley TN endemic. Only known one record (1897) in off after Rare Plant Advisory 1a Rosa obtusiuscula S G1G3Q rose collection from Cocke Co. Cocke County near Committee meeting (1999) until French Broad River taxonomic issues are resolved. It between Paint Rock and could be Rosa palustris. At this point Del Rio. it is considered to be “State Historic”.

9

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Rugel's Indian Mountains of NC, TN. Spruce/fir and northern hardwood 1a Rugelia nudicaulis 0 Records S G3 plantain Cocke, Sevier, Blount forest openings Moist rock outcrops and cliffs; wet soil at the base of rocks; cool, shaded, Mountains of GA, NC, TN, rocky woods. Almost always in steep 2a Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage VA, WV. Carter, Cocke, 4 Records terrain and often in areas misted by S G2 Johnson Cos. spray from nearby waterfalls or in areas where water trickles down the rocky slopes. GA, KY, NC, TN, VA. High to mid elevation forests and 2a Scutellaria arguta Hairy skullcap 0 Records S G2?Q Unicoi moist talus slopes CT to IN, south to AL, GA, SC, AR. Polk, Blount, Rocky, dry to mesic forests and open 7b Scutellaria saxatilis Rock skullcap 43 Records S G3 Unicoi, Carter, Johnson, areas Cocke, Greene 9 Records all restricted to 1a Sedum nevii Nevius' stonecrop AL, GA, TN. Polk Shaded, rocky bluffs and cliffs S G3 the Ocoee River Gorge. KY, MD, OH, PA, TN, VA, IN, MI, Ontario. 1a Sida hermaphrodita Virginia fanpetals 0 Records Sandy or rocky riverbanks S G2 Cocke, Washington, Claiborne AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, KY, Mid elevations over mafic or MS, NC, SC, TN, VA. 1a Silene ovata Blue Ridge catchfly 4 Records calcareous soils. Rich cove and S G2G3 Polk, Sevier, Cocke, oak/hickory forests. Greene, Unicoi and west. 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, OH, 1a Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea extant; Unicoi Co., thickets; rocky areas susceptible to T G2 PA, TN, VA, WV Nolichucky River flood scour. Riparian dependent. AL, IN, MD, NC, SC, TN, Rich boulderfields, cove, northern Clingman's hedge- 1a Stachys clingmanii WV. Monroe, Sevier, 7 Records hardwood, and spruce/fir forests, and S G2Q nettle Blount, Cocke, Unicoi clearings at high elevations. AL, GA, KY, NC, OH, TN, Cutleaved meadow Forests and woodlands over 4a Thaspium pinnatifidum VA. Greene, Cocke, 1 Record S G3? parsnip calcareous rock Hamilton Mountains of GA, NC, SC, Thermopsis mollis var. Openings and ridges in dry 7b Ashleaf goldenbanner TN; AL. Polk, Monroe, 28 Records S G4? T3? fraxinifolia woodlands. Often on road banks. Blount, Greene Mtns & Piedmont of AL, GA, NC, SC, TN. Carter, Southern nodding Rich forests and coves often over 2a Trillium rugelii Cocke, Unicoi, 6 Records S G3 trillium mafic or calcareous substrates. Washington, Polk, Blount, Sevier Mountains of GA, NC, SC, Several Records, not in Rich soils of slopes or coves over 7b Trillium simile Sweet white trillium TN. Polk, Monroe, Sevier, S G3 database. mafic or calcareous rock. Blount, Cocke Mountains of GA, NC, SC, TN, VA. Carter, Johnson, Ridge tops, rocky bluffs and open 4a Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock 51 Records S G3 Sullivan, Unicoi, forests. Generally dry conditions. Washington

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

10

Attachment B Process for complying with FSM 2600 Supplement R8-2600-2002-2 Key for determining the Project Review Code (PRC) for each TES Species Last changed 10/29/04 msc

T&E Species Sensitive Species

1. Does the species have potential to occur in the area affected by the project, based on range and habitat information? a. No, project is located out of species known range or suitable habitat does not exist in the project area…No affect No impact b. Yes, project is within species known range and suitable habitat may exist within the project area……………………………………...…………..……2

2. Is the project expected to have no effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project? a. Yes, all requisite habitat has been identified and excluded from disturbance associated with the project………………………………………………. No affect No Impact b. No or unsure of effects...... …...... 3

3. Is the project expected to have totally beneficial effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project? a. Yes, the project is being implemented for the for the benefit of this species………………....……...May affect, not likely Beneficial to adversely affect affect b. No or unsure of effects...... …...... 4

4. Would information on number and location of individuals improve design and/or application of mitigation to reduce adverse effects, or allow better assessment of effects to viability of the population? a. No, assume species is present .…………………. Make the appropriate Determination of Effect and document the reasoning b. Yes, or unsure………….…...... 5

5. Is the species already covered by a current site specific inventory for the project area? a. No, or unsure…………………………………………………………………………………………….6 b. Yes, additional site specific inventory is not necessary; use existing inventory information…………………………………………………………..7

6. Are inventory methods feasible and effective for providing substantial information on number and location of individuals? a. No (i.e. requires DNA analysis for identification to species level)……………………………...... May affect, not likely May impact individuals, to adversely affect but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability b. Yes, site-specific inventory is needed; conduct inventory....………………………………………………………………………………….…………...7

7. An adequate inventory was conducted. a. Species was not found; document……..………...... No affect No impact b. Species found; analyze affects………..…………….. Make the appropriate Determination of Effect and document the reasoning

1