BIOLOGICAL EVALUTATION FOR THE

CRAWLEY BRANCH SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE RESTORATION PROJECT

PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST GRANDFATHER RANGER DISTRICT CALDWELL COUNTY, NC

Contact Person:

Christopher L. Williams Pisgah Zone Wildlife Biologist Grandfather RD Nebo, NC 28761

(828) 652-2144 email: [email protected]

July 10, 2017

ABSTRACT: Based on the findings contained within this biological evaluation, the Crawley Branch southern yellow pine restoration project proposal will not affect any proposed, threatened, or endangered, aquatic, botanical, or terrestrial wildlife species, or habitat. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Biological Evaluation/Assessment

As a result of a recent court decision, Forest Plan Amendment #14 and the Region 8 Supplement to Forest Service Manual 2670 are no longer in effect. This Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Crawley Branch southern yellow pine restoration project follows the process used to decide when to inventory for federally proposed, threatened, endangered, or Regional Forester’s sensitive species (PETS) that is consistent with the requirement found in the Vegetation Management EIS for the Appalachian Mountains.

B. Purpose and Format

The purpose of this BE is to provide the decision maker with relevant biological information as to the possible effects and impacts this proposal may have to PETS.

This BE documents the possible biological effects and impacts of the proposed action activities known as the Crawley Branch southern yellow pine restoration project. A detailed description of the proposal is disclosed in the Decision Memo. A list of project design features and monitoring is disclosed in the Decision Memo as well. A list of definitions, including analysis areas is located at the end of this BE.

C. Location

The proposed activities are located in Caldwell County, near the community of Collettsville, NC. Detailed maps can be found in the project record.

D. Proposed Action

The Grandfather Ranger District proposes to:

Treatment 1. Non-commercially thin approximately 77 acres to improve health and vigor of existing Southern Yellow Pine trees and improve species composition and structure.

Treatment 2. Intermediate thinning of approximately 67 acres of mature forests impacted by SPB or at risk to SPB attack. Commercial thinning and controlled burning will improve these stands by improving species composition and health and vigor of existing SYP trees, but more so improve the structure of these forest to facilitate frequent fire.

Treatment 3. Selection thinning of approximately 135 acres of mature forests impacted by SPB or at risk to SPB attack. Commercial thinning and controlled burning will improve these stands by improving species composition, structure, and health and vigor of existing SYP trees.

Treatment 4. Seed Tree with Reserves of approximately 167 acres of potential Southern Yellow pine forests to restore SYP forest types through commercial two-aged regeneration harvest, planting, site preparation, and controlled burning. Regeneration and species conversion will provide sustainable populations of southern yellow pines, contribute to the health and vigor of these forests at a landscape-level, and provide for structure. Regular fire disturbance can maintain key ecosystem components, control competition, and ensure successful establishment of southern pine in these stands where SYP is underrepresented.

Treatment 5. Prescribed burning of approximately 384 acres of southern pine forest types to restore structure and key ecosystem components and move species composition toward the desired condition.

Table 1. Proposed actions by compartment and stand

Forest Stand Basal Proposed Prescribed Additional Acres/ Location Access Type Age Area Action Burning Information Size

Regenerate/ White Pine- Site Commercial Stand 058- Selection 1,044 ft. of Upland 82 99 Preparation* Harvest/Herbicide/ 124** 02 Thin, plant, temporary road Hardwood Mechanical Release release

Forest Stand Basal Proposed Prescribed Additional Acres/ Location Access Type Age Area Action Burning Information Size

Chestnut Commercial Stands Oak-Black Regenerate, Site 1,1063 ft. . of 70 118 Harvest/Herbicide/ 13 058-04 Oak-Scarlet plant, release Preparation* temporary road Mechanical Release Oak

Stand 058- Virginia Stand Broadcast 24 105 Chain Saw 19 N/A 12 pine Improvement Burn

Stand 058- Selection Broadcast 1,042 ft.*** . of Pitch pine 86 113 Commercial Thin 49 13 Thin, Plant Burn temporary road

Stand 058- Selection Broadcast 304 ft. . of Pitch pine 67 136 Commercial Thin 20 18 Thin, plant Burn* temporary road Regenerate/ Mixed Commercial Stand 058- Selection Site 970 ft. . of Upland 87 139 Harvest/Herbicide/ 40 25 Thin, plant, Preparation* temporary road Hardwoods Mechanical Release release White Pine- Stand 058- Stand Broadcast N. Red 41 58 Chain Saw 30 N/A 29 Improvement Burn* Oak-W. Ash Yellow Stand 058- Poplar- Stand Broadcast 58 82 Chain Saw 28 N/A 30 White Oak- Improvement Burn* N. Red Oak

Stand 062- Selection Broadcast 1,042 ft.*** . of White Pine 57 153 Commercial Thin 35 05 Thin, plant Burn temporary road

White Pine- Stand 062- Prescribed Broadcast N. Red 75 99 Chain Saw 29 N/A 06 Burning Burn Oak-W. Ash

Forest Stand Basal Proposed Prescribed Additional Acres/ Location Access Type Age Area Action Burning Information Size

White Pine- Stand 062- Prescribed Broadcast N. Red 78 138 Chain Saw 41 N/A 07 Burning Burn Oak-W. Ash Comp 58 and 62 Prescribed Broadcast 384 N/A (various Burning Burn Stands) Chestnut Designate Stand 062- oak/pine Small Patch N/A N/A 67 N/A 10 oak heath Old Growth *Broadcast burning as a part of the Crawley Branch burn unit, under the Grandfather Restoration Burns Environmental Analysis.

** These stands will be treated with a combination of regeneration harvesting and selection thinning to achieve the desired stand conditions without exceeding the 40-acre Forest Plan limit on regeneration unit size.

*** Temporary road will access both Stand 62-05 and Stand 58-13

II. METHOD OF EVALUATION AND SURVEYS

Potentially affected/impacted PETS species and habitat were identified from the following sources (sensitive species list dated January 28, 2016) in accordance with the 1994 Forest Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Amendment 5) and the 1989 Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment:

1) Information on PETS species and their habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) occurrence records. 2) Surveys completed for this analysis, past surveys, and analysis for projects within or near the analysis areas. 3) Individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its biota.

The results from the above sources yielded seven PETS or FC species potentially occurring in the analyis areas (see Tables 2, 3, 5, and 6); this includes two PETS or FC plant species, one PETS or FC aquatic specie, and two PETS or FC wildlife species.

All other PETS species for the Nantahala and Pisgah NF were not carried forward in this analysis since they are not expected to occur within the biologic analysis or activity areas due to lack of habitat or records. Therefore, this proposal would not affect/impact these species.

III. SURVEY INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

A. Botanical Surveys

Information Sources & Species Considered

Federally Listed Species All federally threatened or endangered plant species that occur or could occur on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests were initially considered in this analysis. An official species list was requested from the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office and includes species and critical habitat that should be considered under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. (US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2017). Plant species with formal listing status (Threatened or Endangered) and current record status are listed below in Table 1. There is no critical habitat in the project area for plant species. Species with a designation of “Federal Species of Concern” (an informal term) may be discussed in the section of this report that considers Sensitive and Forest Concern plant species.

Table 1. Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Known from Caldwell County Considered for Analysis on the CBSYPR Project Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Description & CBSYPR Project Group Status1 Pisgah NF Area Analysis2 Occurrences Vascular Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered T Rich, deciduous wood 3: No suitable Plant Heartleaf bluffs habitat present (No known occurrences on the Pisgah NF) Vascular Liatris helleri Heller’s Blazing Star T High Elevation Rocky 3: No suitable Plant Summit, Montane habitat Acidic Cliff (Documented on the Pisgah NF) Vascular Hedyotis purpurea var. Roan Mountain Bluet E High Elevation Rocky 3: No suitable Plant montana Summit, Grassy Bald habitat (Documented on the Pisgah NF) 1Federal Status (T=Threatened; E=Endangered) 2CBSYPR Project Area Analysis 1. Requires further analysis, known occurrences and suitable habitat for the species occurs in the proposed action area. 2. Requires further analysis; suitable habitat occurs in the analysis area (but no known occurrences). 3. Dropped, the analysis area is within range of species, but there is no suitable habitat within the proposed activity area. 4. Dropped; historic record, plant is likely extirpated.

The CBSYPR project area does not contain suitable habitat or known occurrences for any of the three federally listed species in Table 1 that occur in Caldwell County. The project will have a determination of “no effect” on these species, and determinations are included in the summary in Table . Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is not required.

Region 8 Sensitive and Forest Concern Species All Region 8 Sensitive and Forest Concern plant species that occur or could occur on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests were also initially considered in this analysis. These species were compiled by reviewing: (1) North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence (EO) records (NC Biotics-NHDE, 2017), and (2) U.S. Forest Service rare plant inventory records.

The initial list included 36 sensitive and forest concern plants known from Caldwell County (Appendix A). Suitable habitat and known occurrences for all these species were reviewed to determine the likelihood of impacts from the proposed CBSYPR treatments. As such, some species were excluded from further analysis because proper habitat did not occur within the proposed activity area. Natural Communities/Habitats in the project area include Acidic Cove, Shortleaf Pine, Pine-Oak Heath, Dry Oak, and Dry-Mesic Oak, and Xeric Upland Forest.

Table 2 lists species that occur in Caldwell County, NC and are found in habitats like those found in the CBSYPR Project Area. Three of these plants were historic occurrences and will not be carried forth in this analysis. The historic records were over 80 years old and the plants had been found in significantly different areas (Grandfather Mountain/High Elevation). Table 2. Sensitive and Forest Concern Plant Species Known from Caldwell County Considered for Analysis on the CBSYPR Project Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Description & CBSYPR Project Group Status1 Pisgah NF Area Analysis2 Occurrences Vascular Hexastylis contracta Mountain Heartleaf S Acidic Cove Forest, 1: Suitable Habitat Plant Dry-Mesic Oak and Known Occurrences Vascular Malaxis bayardii Appalachian Adder's- S/FSC Xeric Upland Forests 4: Historic Plant mouth Occurrence Vascular Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap S Rich Cove Forest, 2: Suitable habitat Plant Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Oak-Hickory, Dry- Mesic Oak Forest, Pine- Oak/Heath Forest Vascular Thermopsis mollis Appalachian Golden- FC Dry Oak-Hickory 2: Suitable habitat Plant banner Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine- Oak/Heath, Shortleaf Pine Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Moss Brachythecium populeum Matted Feather Moss FC Acidic Cove Forest 4: Historic Moss Brachythecium Rota's Feather Moss FC Acidic Cove Forest 4: Historic rotaeanum 1Federal Status (S=Region 8 Sensitive; FC=NFs in NC Forest Concern; FSC=Federal Species of Concern – informal title from USFWS Official Species List) 2CBSYPR Project Area Analysis 1. Requires further analysis, known occurrences and suitable habitat for the species occurs in the proposed action area. 2. Requires further analysis; suitable habitat occurs in the analysis area (but no known occurrences). 3. Dropped, the analysis area is within range of species, but there is no suitable habitat within the proposed activity area. 4. Dropped; historic record, plant is likely extirpated.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Because plants are rooted species that must be present in proposed activity areas to experience effects, potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects are all evaluated within a botanical analysis area for all categories of rare species that is equal to the project area, specifically where treatments are proposed. For this project, the botanical analysis area is 941 acres. Any predictable effects to vegetation would remain within the botanical analysis area. The time frame considered for future effects is 15 years after implementation. By the end of this time period, the predicted effects to rare plant occurrences and habitats would be in progress and observable. Actions that have occurred prior to the project are illustrated in the existing condition, however known past activities are displayed where they overlap known sensitive plant occurrences.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Surveys were completed for all proposed treatment stands by botanists G. Kauffman and C. Stoehrel of the National Forests in North Carolina and J. Kelley of MountainTrue during the summer and fall of 2016. Information about rare species is gleaned from survey notes as well as from known element occurrences as recorded by NC Biotics and other GIS data collected in project areas that may overlap with other projects. In addition, field surveys for rare plant species were conducted in this area on August 15, 1991 by Steve Croy and August 22, 1991 by Steve Croy and Steve Simon for the Guys Creek Timber Sale Environmental Analysis Project. The data is sufficient for project analysis. Affected Environment The CBSYPR Project is located on National Forests lands on the Pisgah National Forest, Grandfather Ranger District in Caldwell County. It includes Shortleaf Pine, Acidic Cove, Dry Oak, Mesic Oak, Dry-Mesic Oak, Rich Cove and Floodplain habitat types (Schafale, 2012). Treatments are only proposed in Shortleaf Pine, Acidic Cove and Dry-Mesic and Mesic Oak Habitats, and all stream corridors are buffered and treatments will not occur within 100’ of a stream.

Desired Condition The desired condition, derived from overarching national law and policy, is to ensure that management actions do not contribute to a loss of population viability for any rare plant species. Management practices are to be implemented to ensure the viability of native and desired non- native plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands.

Existing Condition Thirty-six sensitive and forest concern plant species (12 non-vascular plants, and 24 vascular plants) were screened for potentially occurring in the CBSYPR Project area (Appendix A). One species (Hexastylis contracta – Mountain Heartleaf) has known occurrences and suitable habitat (Analysis Code 1) in the CBSYPR Project area, and an additional 5 have no known occurrences, but suitable habitat (Analysis Code 2) in the CBSYPR Treatment Project area. These species are carried forth in the analysis. Thirty species were dropped from further consideration, discussion and analysis because there is no appropriate habitat in the proposed action area (Analysis Code 3). The project will have a determination of “no impact” on these species, and effects to these species will not be discussed further. Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – RFSS & FC Abundance Measure 1 is the abundance of sensitive species in the project area. The measure for this indicator is whether there will be positive, negative or no change in the abundance of existing plant populations in the project area. The one species of rare plant with known populations occurring in potential CBSYPR Project treatment areas is:

Vascular Plants Hexastylis contracta – mountain heartleaf (S)

This species will be further described (biology, life history, distribution, and habitat associations) in the effects section.

Resource Indicator and Measure 2 – Suitable Habitat Measure 2 is the amount of suitable habitat of sensitive and forest concern species in the project area. The measure for this indicator is whether there will be no change, an increase, or a decrease in the amount or quality of suitable habitats. Table 3 provides amounts of suitable habitat by type for the project area. Acreages are based on existing vegetation codes in the potential natural vegetation GIS model developed by Steve Simon. The project area is dominated by forested areas that will be encouraged to move toward quality, pine-beetle resistant Shortleaf Pine Forest.

Table 3. Natural Community Types in the CBSYPR Project Area Habitat Type Project Area Current Condition (Acres) Shortleaf Pine 652 Acidic Cove 182 Mesic Oak 61 Dry-Mesic Oak 31 Rich Cove 11 Floodplain 1 Dry Oak 3 Total Acres 941 Resource Indicator and Measure 3 – Project Determinations Measure 3 is the species viability of sensitive and forest concern species in the project area. The measure for this indicator is the determination category of the species following the analysis in this Biological Evaluation and will be summarized in Table 10. None of the species analyzed are known to be in a downward trend within the project area.

B. Wildlife Surveys

The field surveys were conducted by point count and a meander search pattern to survey varying aspects, elevations, and forest types. Focused attention was given during the surveys to habitats within the units that may be associated with terrestrial wildlife PETS, and FC species, i.e., rock outcrops, seeps, high elevations, etc. The intensity of the coverage varied depending on the extent of any likely PETS, and FC species habitat, complexity of vegetation, and/or presence of indicator species. Although the search was focused on the possibility of occurrences of the PETS, and FC terrestrial wildlife listed on Table 5; all PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species were searched for during the survey. The survey was conducted so that PETS, and FC terrestrial wildlife species would not be overlooked due to time of the year that the species could reasonably be detected. All terrestrial wildlife PETS and FC species listed in the Pisgah/ Nantahala National Forest were considered.

The terrestrial wildlife analysis area (AA) or “boundary of effects” used for this proposal is defined as: the proposed activity areas and areas within 1/2 mile of the activity areas. The terrestrial wildlife AA consists of approximately 2,700 acres. All potential effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) to terrestrial wildlife resources in the terrestrial wildlife AA were analyzed using this “boundary”. The terrestrial wildlife AA definition was selected because it is analogous to the Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy’s terrestrial wildlife delimitation guidelines of element occurrences. Other resource disciplines may employ different definitions to analyze this proposal.

The proposed activity areas were surveyed by Christopher L. Williams, Pisgah NF Wildlife Biologist, in the spring and summer of 2016. Additionally acoustic bat data was collected and analyzed by Indiana State University in 2016, while a survey of herpitiles and amphibians was completed by WildSouth during the fall of 2016. No unique or rare species were noted during surveys. Specific results are found in the planning record for this project.

The Natural Heritage Database was queried for elements of occurrences (EOs) within Caldwell County and within the Crawley Branch area. Only one rare and unique terrestrial wildlife species, Neotoma magister, Appalachian woodrat (Forest Concern), is located within the analysis area. The element occurrence is outside of the project area, but within the terrestrial wildlife analysis area. Surveys were conducted for Appalachian woodrat in 2016, yielding no occurrences.

There are 16 rare and unique terrestrial wildlife species that are known to occur in Caldwell County (per USFS, USFWS, and NC Heritage Program records). Of those, 11 have suitable habitat within the project and analysis area. With the exception of Appalachian woodrat, surveys determined that they do not occur within the analysis area. Therefore, these four species have been eliminated from further analysis. Table 5 summarizes these species and the reasoning behind elimination.

Table 5. Possible PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species within the Analysis Area Species Description Status Occurrence Virginia big-eared Mammal Endangered Not known to occur bat (Corynorhinus within analysis area townsendii virginianus Northern long-eared Mammal Threatened Not known to occur bat (Myotis within analysis area septentrionalis) Eastern small-footed Mammal Sensitive May occur within myotis (Myotis analysis area leibii) Northern pigmy Amphibian Forest Concern Not known to occur salamander within analysis area (Desmognathus organi)

Southern pigmy Amphibian Forest Concern Not known to occur salamander within analysis area (Desmognathus wright) Coal skink Amphibian Forest Concern Not known to occur (Eumeces within analysis area anthracinus) Giant swallowtail Butterfly Forest Concern Not known to occur (Papilio within analysis area cresphontes) Diana fritillary Butterfly Forest Concern Not known to occur (Speyeria diana) within analysis area Appalachian Mammal Forest Concern Known to occur woodrat within analysis area (Neotoma magister) Black-billed cuckoo Bird Forest Concern Not known to occur (Coccyzus within the analysis erythropthalmus) area Warbling vireo Bird Forest Concern Not known to occur (Vireo gilvus) within the analysis area

C. Existing Aquatic Resources

Existing Aquatic Condition

The Crawley Farm Bill Project lies in the LRMP watershed 60 or the Johns River Watershed. This watershed is characteristic of a transitional (cool) water riverine system on the Atlantic Slope. There’s a diverse population of non-game fish and freshwater mussels.

Stream Name Project Area Analysis Area Crawley Branch 5.78 miles 5.78 miles Guys Creek 1.4 miles 2.87 miles Carroll Mill Creek 0.66 miles 2.13 miles Johns River 0 miles 11.94 all on private

Aquatic Surveys

The Natural Heritage Database was queried for elements of occurrences (EOs) within Caldwell County and within the Johns River and Crawley Branch area. There are no element of occurrences within the project area of Crawley Branch and unnamed tributaries to Crawley, Carroll Mill Creek or Guys Creek. There is one aquatic EO- Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Alasmidonta varicosa (brook floater) within the aquatic analysis area of the Johns River. Surveys conducted by the NCWRC in 2008-2009, 2011 and 2016 indicate that there’s a dense population of Alasmodonta varicosa below the confluence of Crawley Branch and the Johns River but the species exists further up in the watershed (between Mullberry Creek and Crawley Branch confluence 0. The fish data for the Johns River includes many cool and warm water species but none listed as rare for the National Forests in NC.

There are four other rare aquatic species in Caldwell County (National Forests in NC rare species list) including Regional Forester’s sensitive species Macromia margarita, Ophiogomphus Edmundo and Ophiogomphus incurvatus. Element of occurrences exist for Caldwell county but they are NOT in the Crawley Farm Bill Project aquatic analysis area. Therefore these three species have been eliminated from further analysis.

Table 6. Aquatic PETS and FC occurring in the aquatic project area and/or the aquatic analysis area. Species Description Status Occurrence Brook floater Freshwater mussel Sensitive Exist within the Johns River of the aquatic analysis area (Alasmidonta varicosa)

Botanical Resources

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Since no management activities are proposed under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on plant species or habitats in the CBSYPR Project Area. Previously approved activities in the project area would still be implemented (prescribed burning, road maintenance, dispersed recreation, trail use and maintenance, and suppression of wildfires. Control of non-native invasive plant species (NNIS) under direction of the NPNF guidelines set forth from the 2009 Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Environmental Assessment would be permitted to continue (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Natural processes, such as tree mortality and resulting wind throw from forest insects and diseases would continue.

Changes in stand structure would be expected through time, some of which would alter habitats that are suitable for some sensitive plant species. In some forest types, succession would continue to progress, resulting in a decline in size and frequency of small openings and forest gaps. Existing native vegetation conditions would not appreciably change over the short-term (0-5 years) from current conditions. In the long-term (5-15 years), early successional habitat would incrementally transition toward late-seral conditions. Alternatively, if there is an outbreak of Southern Yellow Pine Beetle, the project area may experience more standing dead trees and more light gaps in the forest floor. The community types would likely not change, but they may regress to an earlier seral stage.

The increased severity of wildfire is possible due to the increased fuel build up in areas of past fire exclusion. Such an event would favor early seral species, while reducing or eliminating habitat for late seral species.

For measure 1 (abundance of known sensitive species in the project area.), the no action alternative would have no impact on the abundance of the known occurrence of Hexastylis contracta. For measure 2 (the amount of suitable habitat of sensitive species), taking no action would have no effect on the amount of forest community types (though the seral stages may change over time). We do not expect actual conversion of forest types. For measure 3 (species viability), the no action alternative would have no impact to individuals or habitat for the rare plant species with known occurrences/suitable habitat present.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Proposed actions for the CBSYPR Project include prescribed burning, non-commercial and commercial thinning, and regeneration harvesting with related site prep and planting activities. Maps of these locations are available in the project record.

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures for Botanical Resources In addition to the standards and guidelines found in the Forest Plan, there are additional design criteria and mitigation measures for rare species that would apply to the proposed actions. Effects are disclosed under the assumption that these measures would be implemented. If additional rare species locations are identified, measures would be applied at that time. These measures are intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts on these species.

The following design criteria are developed for the project to protect all known and undiscovered rare botanical, wildlife and aquatic resources within the project area: 1. Known sites of Hexastylis contracta within the Guys Creek Rare Plant Site (Units 58-12, 58-13, and 62-05 will be located and flagged prior to thinning, harvest, and temporary road construction activity. Directional felling will be used to avoid impacts to Regional Forester Sensitive Specie Hexastylis contracta. Identification of Hexastylis contracta locations must be done during the flowering period (May).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicator 1 – RFSS Abundance Known occurrences of Hexastylis contracta (mountain heartleaf) are in the project area; 7 details the known populations by project unit and proposed activity.

Table 7: Known Hexastylis contracta populations in CBSYPR Project Area Compartment & Hexastylis contracta population Proposed Action Acres of Stand information Overlap with Proposed Action 58-16 New populations found by G. Kauffman None 0 acres in 2016; scattered throughout upper slopes 58-12 Known EO #24980 Non-Commercial Thin 6 acres 58-13 Known EO #24980 Selection Thin 13 acres 58-13/62-05 Known EO #24980 Temporary Road to Access 770 feet 62-05 and 58-13. 62-05 Known EO #24980 Intermediate/Selection Thin 5 acres 62-06 New populations found by G. Kauffman Prescribed Burn 29 acres in 2016; scattered throughout, but especially in steeper slopes 62-07 New populations found by G. Kauffman Prescribed Burn 41 acres in 2016; scattered throughout, but especially in steeper slopes Possible Hexastylis contracta locations– unable to identify with certainty because of timing of survey 58-02 Hexastylis sp. identified throughout unit Seed Tree with Reserves 3 waypoints by J. Kelly in October 2016 Compartment & Hexastylis contracta population Proposed Action Acres of Stand information Overlap with Proposed Action 58-25 Hexastylis sp. identified throughout unit Regenerate/Selection Thin 1 waypoint by J. Kelly in October 2016

MOUNTAIN HEARTLEAF (Hexastylis contracta)

Mountain heartleaf is an evergreen, perennial forb with round/heart-shaped leaves. Urn-shaped flowers tapered above the middle emerge close to the ground in spring, and are usually hidden beneath leaves. Identification of the genus is possible through the year. Primary taxonomic traits delimiting species are largely differences in flower morphology. Thus, flowering specimens are generally required for positive identification. The plant is found in deciduous forests on acidic soils, typically occurring with great laurel (Rhododendron maximum) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) (eFloras, 2008). Mountain heartleaf occurs in Acidic Cove Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest community types on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Hexastylis species (and presumably Hexastylis contracta) are associated with mature forest conditions. The biological slow growth rate (one leaf per year per stem) and ant dispersed seeds are consistent with a species that favors mature forest condition. However, Hexastylis contracta and other species of Hexastylis were observed to have vigorous populations on early success along roadsides. Indeed, the most vigorous subpopulations of Hexastlis contracta within the Boone Folk population were directly associated with current or old road banks. The biological limiting factors for Hexastylis contracta are unknown. Most of the known Forest populations occur in second growth Acidic Cove Forest. This is an abundant natural community within the project area and throughout the Forest (Danley, 2007).

Globally this species is vulnerable (G3) and is considered critically imperiled (S1) in North Carolina (NatureServe, 2017). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests, there are three forest populations – Guys Creek, Boone Fork, and Mitchell Branch (NC Biotics- NHDE, 2017). Endemic to the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, the North Carolina mountain heartleaf populations, along with a few in Virginia, are considered disjunct populations (Weakley, 2015). The mountain heartleaf is known from Buncombe, Caldwell and Henderson Counties in North Carolina (NCNHP, 2016).

The Guys Creek population comprises approximately 35.5 acres across three sub-populations, the largest of which is in the project area boundary and within treatment units. The two other known populations of Hexastylis contracta on the forest beyond Guys Creek include the Boone Fork population and the Michael Creek population. All of these populations were mapped by botanist James Padgett during his 2007 Caldwell County botanical survey work for the North Carolina Natural Heritage Department. He mapped the Mitchell Creek populations to be 42.6 acres in 3 sub populations and the Boone Fork as 197.2 acres in 5 sub populations additional Boone Folk populations were found in the Deep Cove drainage (about 40 acres). Hexastylis contracta individuals are not evenly dispersed within these subpopulations but are clumped with few to no individuals found between clumps. No population census was attempted; however, thousands of individuals could be estimated in all populations (Danley, 2007). The CBSYPR Project area has high potential for this species to occur, based on close proximity to known locations and suitable habitat present in the project area. Surveys for Hexastylis contracta were conducted during the spring of 2016 and new individuals were identified in the project area. Surveys were also conducted in October 2016, which is not an appropriate time for positive identification based on timing of flower emergence for Hexastylis contracta. Several Hexastylis spp. leaves were located throughout the project area in various units, but surveyors were unable to confirm species. Past surveys were conducted in August, 1991.

Direct and Indirect Effects Thinning, Harvest, Temporary Road Construction: Direct effects to the Hexastylis contracta where these proposed activities overlap with known occurrences may include crushing, trampling or uprooting, resulting in death of individual plants. Mitigation measures recommended above would reduce or eliminate these effects to known occurrences. The habitat throughout the entire project area is quite similar, and it is possible that the Hexastylis found in units 58-02 and 58-05 are also Hexastylis contracta, though we are not able to confirm this, as surveys were conducted too late in the season. If they are Hexastylis contracta, then the population is much larger that we expect overall, so the impacts of project activities would be a smaller percent of the known occurrences. Additionally, a percent of Units 58-02 and 03 will be buffered from drainages (where we would typically find greater abundance of Hexastylis contracta), so it is likely that some of these occurrences would be safe from treatment activities. Additionally, there are several units in the project area where there are no proposed actions, and if the population is larger, there would likely be individuals in units where no action is proposed for treatment, retaining additional individuals for future recolonization.

Prescribed Burning: The prescribed burning window is in the winter or early spring. This plant is evergreen, and flowers early, so reproductive success for burn years may be diminished based on the intensity and timing of the burn. Topkill may result from the burn, but it is likely that some of the roots would survive, based on the plant’s general tendency to live under Rhododendron shrubs, where moisture is higher and burn intensities are lower.

Indirect Effects: These may include additional light reaching the forest floor from overstory tree removal and decreasing the amount of moisture and increasing the temperature of the immediate surroundings for the plant. Because Hexastylis contracta is found on both roadside conditions as well as in drainages under rhododendron, it is not clear if this would be entirely a negative effect. It is also possible that actions related to burning or thinning may spread of non-native invasive species into uninfested areas (invasive species are found throughout the project area, but especially on the roadsides; seed sources are readily available for colonization with new areas of disturbance).

Cumulative Effects: Impacts to Hexastylis contracta caused by past forest management projects during last 25 years, such as the Guys Creek Timber Sale, are reflected in the current condition. We expect that the current prescribed burn unit will continue to be burned at appropriate intervals. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Hexastylis contracta populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CBSYPR Project area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: The CBSYPR Project may impact individuals of Hexastylis contracta but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

There are no other known occurrences of rare plants in the project area. Species with suitable habitat but no known occurrences (Monotropsis odorata, Thermopsis mollis) in proposed action areas of the project area are further described (biology, life history, distribution, and habitat associations) in 1Federal Status (S=Region 8 Sensitive; FC=NFs in NC Forest Concern; FSC=Federal Species of Concern – informal title from USFWS Official Species List)

2CBSYPR Project Area Analysis 1. Requires further analysis, known occurrences and suitable habitat for the species occurs in the proposed action area. 2. Requires further analysis; suitable habitat occurs in the analysis area (but no known occurrences). 3. Dropped, the analysis area is within range of species, but there is no suitable habitat within the proposed activity area. 4. Dropped; historic record, plant is likely extirpated.

Appendix B.

Resource Indicator 2 – Suitable Habitat Table 8 details the change in suitable habitat through stand conversion. The proposed action should not result in conversion of one habitat type to another, and therefore effects to suitable habitat are not expected.

Table 8. Effects Summary to Measure 2 (Suitable Habitat) for Alternative 2 Habitat Type Project Area Prescribed Thinning/Harvest Approximate Change Current Burn (Acres) Resulting from Condition (Acres) Proposed Actions (Acres) (Acres) Shortleaf Pine 652 231 21 (Intermediate Thin) 0 63 (Non-Commercial Thin) 164 (Seed Tree with Reserves) 60 (Selection Thin) Acidic Cove 182 103 14 (Intermediate Thin) 0 10 (Non-Commercial Thin) 2 (Selection Thin) Mesic Oak 61 33 1 (Non-Commercial Thin) 0 7 (Seed Tree with Reserves) Dry-Mesic Oak 31 4 1 (Seed Tree with Reserves) 0 3 (Selection Thin) Rich Cove 11 10 0 N/A Floodplain 1 0 0 N/A Dry Oak 3 3 0 N/A Total Acres 941 384 346

Sensitive and Forest Concern Species Associated with Shortleaf Pine Forests

Shortleaf Pine Forests are forests typically low to mid elevation with major overstory trees including any of the suite of southern yellow pine species: shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), pitch pine (Pinus resinosa), and table mountain pine (Pinus pungens). Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) is also common throughout these forests. In some of the proposed treatment areas, the current condition is white pine-dominated forest. In these stands, harvest of white pine is proposed with intention to restore historic southern yellow pine stands.

Sensitive and Forest Concern plant species with suitable habitat in Shortleaf Pine Forests but no known occurrences include:

Vascular Plants Monotropsis odorata – Sweet Pinesap (S) Thermopsis mollis – Appalachian Golden Banner (FC)

Much of the CBSYPR Project proposed treatments will enhance low-quality or extirpated shortleaf pine to a better quality stand. Thinning of non- desirable trees and harvest will occur with replanting to include various southern yellow pine species. In the short term, harvested units and thinned units will be in a much earlier seral stage, but in the long term should return to mid-late seral stage shortleaf pine forests with resilient composition and density for southern pine beetle.

The no action alternative would only allow for natural succession and may not achieve desirable stand composition for southern yellow pine stand composition and pine beetle resistance. Additionally, fuels may build without thinning or prescribed burning and the stands will be at a higher risk for wildfire. Alternative 2, the proposed action, would result in pushing the suitable habitat toward higher-quality based on species composition and density. The habitat for Sweet Pinesap and Appalachian Golden banner should improve. No negative effects are expected.

Sensitive and Forest Concern Species Associated with Acidic Cove Forests

Acidic Cove Forests are common, mesic forest types with tulip popular (Liriodendron tulipifera), black birch (Betula lenta), red maple (Acer rubrum) and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) as dominant overstory tree species. Evergreen, acid-tolerant shrubs such as great laurel (Rhododendron maximum) and doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana) or mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) occur in the shrub and mid-story layer. The herbaceous layer is usually very poorly developed with sparsely distributed species, most of which do not require rich soils. Generally, the low herbaceous diversity in this community makes this community have a relatively low probability and occurrence of rare plant species. Acidic Cove Forest community type occurs at low to mid elevations in coves and on lower slopes (Schafale, 2012).

Sensitive and Forest Concern plant species with suitable habitat in Acidic Cove Forests and known occurrences include:

Vascular Plants Hexastylis contracta – Mountain Heartleaf (S)

Treatments proposed for the CBSYPR Project area include various types of thinning and prescribed burning. We would not expect the community type overall to change, but portions that are thinned will be in an earlier seral stage for the short term. In the long term, desirable trees will grow larger and fill in light gaps created by thinning. Prescribed burning should mimic the natural fire regime that this community type would naturally depend on for thinning and fuels reduction.

The no action alternative (no thinning or burning) would allow for fuel to build up, creating a more dangerous fire hazard, especially in this WUI area.

Alternative 2, the proposed action, would result in maintaining the suitable habitat (closed canopy Acidic Cove Forest) conditions required by sensitive and forest concern plant species occurring in Acidic Cove Forests. No negative effects are expected.

Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Forest Service projects that have potential to affect sensitive plants are detailed in the project description. Past projects are reflected in the current condition, and in most cases are beyond the timeframe (15 years) where the effects are still acting on sensitive plant occurrences or habitat. Present and ongoing activities that potentially affect rare plant occurrences and habitats are mostly the result of dispersed recreation, prescribed burning, vegetation management and habitat improvement, road maintenance and use, and invasive species management.

Maintenance and use of roads for transportation and recreation in the project area would be expected to continue at least at present levels in the immediately foreseeable future. In addition, harvest activities with some associated ground disturbance and creation of openings would be expected in present and future management activities on other adjacent private lands, although the extent of such activities is unknown.

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – RFSS Abundance Additional impacts to known sensitive occurrences are expected to be minimal. Known occurrences of Hexastylis contracta will be protected by design criteria during implementation. Dispersed recreation effects are expected to be minimal, but could include trampling plants by foot or running the plants over with unauthorized ORV use. No ongoing impacts from dispersed recreation are known at this time, and the potential for future impacts is minimal. Weed treatment in the project area would be allowable under Forest-Wide direction, and could reduce impacts of the spread of weeds in the project area protecting Hexastylis contracta populations.

Resource Indicator or Measure 2 – Suitable Habitat Prescribed burning would be expected to continue in to the future at the prescribed interval. Dispersed recreation is expected to have a negligible effect to habitats since these activities are typically minimal in intensity and magnitude. Ongoing weed treatment of noxious weeds will have the beneficial effect of maintaining biological diversity and quality of habitat within the suitable habitats. Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

LRMP Compliance None of the alternatives would contribute to a loss of population viability to rare plant species. With regard to rare species, all of the alternatives comply with the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment (1994).

Federal Law Threatened or endangered plant species or suitable habitat are not suspected to occur in the project area, so all alternatives comply with the Endangered Species Act.

Diversity of plant communities would be provided, so all alternatives comply with the National Forest Management Act. Summary of Environmental Effects

Table 9. Summary Comparison of Environmental Effects to Botanical Resources for All Alternatives Resource Element Resource Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Rare plant condition Abundance No action Alternative would Hexastylis contracta has have no impact on the known occurrences in the abundance of the known Alternative 2 action areas occurrences of Hexastylis area and may be negatively contracta. impacted from proposed actions such as thinning, harvest, temporary road construction and prescribed burning. Additionally, negative indirect effects such as additional invasive species spread are possible from proposed actions. Design criteria are expected to minimize potential negative direct and indirect effects for all known element occurrences. Rare plant habitat Suitable habitat Taking no action would Alternative 2 in the long-term have no effect on the would have a beneficial amount of forest effect overall on the amount community types (though and quality of Southern the seral stages may Yellow Pine, Acidic Cove, change over time). We and Mesic Oak/Dry-Mesic would not expect actual Oak habitats. conversion of forest types. Rare plants Species viability For all sensitive plant Proposed actions may species with suitable impact known individuals of habitat present, the no Hexastylis contracta or action alternative should undetected individuals of not impact individuals and Monotropsis odorata. therefore should not Proposed actions would not change species viability. likely cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Table 10. Effects Summary to Measure 3 (Project Determinations) for All Alternatives Species Common Name Rank Determination1 Determination1 Alternative 1 Alternative2 (no action) (proposed action) Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered T NE NE Heartleaf Liatris helleri Heller’s Blazing Star T NE NE

Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Roan Mountain Bluet E NE NE

Hexastylis contracta Mountain Heartleaf S NI MIIH

Malaxis bayardii Appalachian Adder's- S/FSC NI NI mouth Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap S NI MIIH

Thermopsis mollis Appalachian Golden- FC NI NI banner Brachythecium populeum Matted Feather Moss FC NI NI

Brachythecium rotaeanum Rota's Feather Moss FC NI NI

1NE= No Effect, NI= No impact, BI= Beneficial impact, MIIH=May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species, WIIH =Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action will contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

Wildlife Resources

General Effects

There is potential for the proposed actions to negatively impact terrestrial wildlife through disturbance from equipment and direct take. Examples of common specie groups that may be impacted include salamanders, birds, butterflies, and snails. If implementation were to occur during the non-growing season (November through April), potential impact would be less.

Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species

Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to PETS, and FC Terrestrial Wildlife The only known possible effect to any PETS and FC wildlife species of this proposal (action alternative) is to the Forest Concern Appalachian woodrat (Neotoma magister). There are no other known PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species in the proposed activity areas. Therefore, this action will have no direct effects to any PETS and FC wildlife species other than Appalachian woodrat. Table 5 lists addressed PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species within the analysis area. There are no specific mitigation recommendations. With the exception of Appalachian woodrat, all other PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species including the species listed in Table 5 are not analyzed further because the proposal does not affect their respective habitat or there is no evidence the species exists within the activity areas.

Cumulative Effect The cumulative effect to potential habitat is the total effect of past, current, and foreseeable actions within the AA that have directly or indirectly affected PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species and potential habitat. All activities are minor (ex: routine road maintenance) and not analyzed. There are no known past, current, or foreseeable action(s) within the analysis area that have directly or indirectly affected or impacted any PETS and FC terrestrial wildlife species.

Possible effects to Appalachian woodrat (Neotoma magister) Appalachian woodrat could be impacted if present during implementation. The rat seeks out ledges, fissures and small galleries among boulders, under suitably large talus slabs, and in caves and rock faces to making large denning and nesting structures of sticks, leaves, trash and debris (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). These described areas are not expected to be greatly impacted by implementation. Disturbance from prescribed fire, people, and equipment may cause woodrats to temporarily leave an occupied area, a negative indirect effect. If an occupied nest structure where to be destroyed by felling operations or prescribed fire, this would represent a negative direct effect. Overall impacts, both positive and negative, are expected to be minimal.

Aquatic Resources

Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to PETS, and FC Aquatic Species

The only rare aquatic species within the analysis area is Alasmidonta varicosa or brook floaters. This freshwater mussel exists within the Johns River, with the best populations of the species located downstream of the confluence of the Johns River and Crawley Branch. Management activities have been planned that they will not cause off-site movement of soil into the analysis area waters. Access to the stands are on existing road systems that will be hardened prior to harvest. Skid trails will be designed so that they avoid water and will be well outside 100’ of perennial stream systems. No new stream crossings are planned for this project, therefore, no direct impacts are expected to occur as a result of management activities. Best management practices, or BMPs, will prevent the potential or indirect impacts to Alasmidonta varicosa, which can be sensitive to changes in water quality.

Cumulative Effects

This project has been designed so that there will be no cumulative impacts to Alasmidonta varicosa, or aquatic habitat for other species from the implementation of the Crawley Branch Southern Yellow Pine Restoration Project.

IV. EFFECTS DERTERMINATION

Determination of Effects- Botanical, Wildlife and Aquatic

The proposal may impact individual mountain heartleaf (Hexastylis contracta) and Appalachian woodrat (Neotoma magister), but is not likely to affect specie viability or cause a trend towards federal listing. The proposed project will not effect on any other federally proposed, threatened or endangered, sensitive or Forest concern terrestrial wildlife, aquatic, or botanical species because species and/or habitat are not known to occur within the activity or analysis area. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.

V. MITIGATIONS

Mitigation Measures

Directional felling of commercially harvested trees in Compartment 58, Stand 13, and Compartment 62, Stand 5, is recommend to minimize impacts to mountain heartleaf populations.

Prepared by:

/s/ Christopher L. Williams Christopher L. Williams Pisgah Zone Wildlife Biologist Pisgah National Forest

Contributors: Lorie Stroup- USFS Fisheries Biologist, Pisgah NF Sue Fruchey- USFS Botanist, Pisgah NF Gary Kauffman- USFA Botany Program Manager, NFsNC Josh Kelly- Public Lands Biologist, Mountain True

Appendix A

Plant Species Considered for Analysis

Table 4. Summary of Nantahala-Pisgah NF Sensitive and Forest Concern Plant Species for the CBSYPR Project Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Nantahala-Pisgah NF Known Analysis2 Group Suitable Habitats EO? Liverwort Bazzania A Liverwort S Spruce-Fir Forest N 3 nudicaulis Liverwort Metzgeria furcata A Liverwort S Spruce-Fir Forest, Acidic Cove N 3 var. setigera Forest in Gorge Liverwort Mylia taylorii A Liverwort FC Spray Cliff N 3 Liverwort Plagiochila Sullivant's Leafy S Spray Cliff N 3 sullivantii var. Liverwort sullivantii Liverwort Sphenolobopsis A Liverwort S Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest N 3 pearsonii Moss Brachythecium Matted Feather FC Acidic Cove Forest N 2 populeum Moss Moss Brachythecium Rota's Feather FC Acidic Cove Forest N 2 rotaeanum Moss Moss Entodon sullivantii Sullivant's FC Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in N 3 Entodon Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge, rock outcrop by stream in rich cove forest Moss Fissidens Appalachian S High Elevation streams N 3 appalachensis Pocket Moss Moss Leptodontium Grandfather S Spruce-Fir Forest N 3 excelsum Mountain Leptodontium Moss Leptodontium Pale-margined FC High Elevation Rocky Summit N 3 flexifolium Leptodontium Moss Rhytidium rugosum Golden Tundra- FC High Elevation Rocky Summit N 3 moss Vascular Aconitum Trailing Wolfsbane S Northern Hardwood Cove Forest, N 3 Plant reclinatum Rich Cove Forest Vascular Asplenium Lobed Spleenwort FC Montane Acidic Cliff N 3 Plant pinnatifidum Vascular Cardamine Mountain S Boulderfield Forest, Northern N 3 Plant clematitis Bittercress Hardwood Cove Forest, Spruce- Fir Forest, High Elevation Seep Vascular Carex misera Miserable Sedge S High Elevation Rocky Summit, N 3 Plant Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome Vascular Chamerion Purple Willowherb FC Meadow, Grassy Bald N 3 Plant platphyllum Vascular Delphinium Tall Larkspur S Rich Cove Forest, Grassy Bald, N 3 Plant exaltatum Glade, Montane Oak-Hickory, mafic rock Vascular Epilobium ciliatum Purpleleaf FC Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep N 3 Plant Willowherb Vascular Geum geniculatum Bent Avens S Boulderfield Forest, High N 3 Plant Elevation Seep Vascular Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed FC Woods and thickets, N 3 Plant circumneutral soils Vascular Helianthus Whiteleaf S Rich Cove Forest, Northern N 3 Plant glaucophyllus Sunflower Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Mesic Oak- Hickory Forest, Roadside Vascular Hexastylis Mountain S Acidic Cove Forest, Dry-Mesic Y 1 Plant contracta Heartleaf Oak Vascular Juglans cinerea Butternut S Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- N 3 Plant Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest Vascular Lilium grayi Gray's Lily S Northern Hardwood Forest, High N 3 Plant Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Wet Meadow, Beech Gap Vascular Malaxis bayardii Appalachian S* Xeric Upland Forests N 2 Plant Adder's-mouth Vascular Minuartia Greenand FC High Elevation Rocky Summit, N 3 Plant groenlandica Sandwort Low Elevation Rocky Summit Vascular Monotropsis Sweet Pinesap S Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- N 2 Plant odorata Hickory, Dry Oak-Hickory, Dry- Mesic Oak Forest, Pine- Oak/Heath Forest Vascular Packera Balsam Ragwort FC Southern Appalachian Bog, N 3 Plant paupercula var. Southern Appalachian Fen paupercula Vascular Penstemon smallii Small's S Montane Acidic Cliff N 3 Plant Beardtongue Vascular Platanthera Purple Fringeless FC Southern Appalachian Bog, N 3 Plant peramoena Orchid Seep, Marsh, rocky bar and shore, Montane Alluvial Forest Vascular Rhododendron Pink-shell Azalea S Northern Hardwood Forest, High N 3 Plant vaseyi Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog, Meadow, Roadside, Mesic Oak Forest, Granitic Vascular Thermopsis mollis Appalachian FC Dry Oak-Hickory Forest, N 2 Plant Golden-banner Montane Oak Woodland, Pine- Oak/Heath, Shortleaf Pine Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Vascular Triantha glutinosa Sticky Bog FC Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep N 3 Plant Asphodel Vascular Trichophorum Deerhair Bulrush FC Montane Acidic Cliff, High N 3 Plant cespitosum Elevation Granitic Dome Vascular Trillium recurvatum Prairie Trillium FC Rich Cove Forest N 3 Plant 1Federal Status (S=Region 8 Sensitive; FC=NFs in NC Forest Concern; FSC=Federal Species of Concern – informal title from USFWS Official Species List) 2CBSYPR Project Area Analysis 5. Requires further analysis, known occurrences and suitable habitat for the species occurs in the proposed action area. 6. Requires further analysis; suitable habitat occurs in the analysis area (but no known occurrences). 7. Dropped, the analysis area is within range of species, but there is no suitable habitat within the proposed activity area. 8. Dropped; historic record, plant is likely extirpated.

Appendix B

Species descriptions for plants with suitable habitat in the project area

VASCULAR PLANTS

Monotropsis odorata (Sweet Pinesap)

Sweet pinesap grows to 5-10 centimeters tall with a fleshy structure, scale-like leaves and purplish brown color. The plant flowers with pink or yellowish blooms in mid to late spring and is found in mature, moist, shaded, rich hardwood forests (eFloras, 2008). The plant occurs in Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Oak-Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, and Pine-Oak/Heath Forest on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is vulnerable (G3) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as vulnerable (S3) (NatureServe, 2017). Across the Nantahala- Pisgah National Forest, there are 14 known forest populations although a few have not been recently relocated within their previously documented sites but nearby at other sites. Sweet pinesap is known from Caldwell County, but not within the project area. The closest documented occurrence is approximately 1 aerial mile from the project area boundary.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Timber harvest with stand improvement activities pre and post-harvest: The proposed timber harvest treatments include selection thinning to regeneration harvest. Prescribed burning is also proposed for several of the units. Post timber harvest stand improvement activities may include site preparation, natural regeneration and planting after the first growing season within the thinned and harvested areas. There are no stands proposed for treatment that contain any known individuals of Monotropsis odorata in the project area, therefore there should be no direct or indirect effects to plants, unless they are undetected individuals. Surveys for Monotropsis odorata have been conducted in the early 1990s in relation to the Guys Creek Timber Sale as well as in 2016 and did not locate any individuals. However, the window for detection of this plant is quite early in the growing season and all surveys were done later, so it is possible that there are undetected individuals located in the suitable habitat present in stands proposed for management. Monotropsis odorata is considered to be a fire-adapted plant on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests (Pers. Communication, G. Kauffman), so prescribed burning at the appropriate time should maintain suitable habitat with no negative impacts.

Cumulative Effects: The project area overlaps spatially with the 1995 Guys Creek Timber Sale. Any impacts have been experienced and contribute to the current landscape. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Monotropsis odorata populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CBSYPR Project botanical analysis area that would impact this species. Negative cumulative effects are not expected.

Determination of Effect: The CBSYPR Project may impact undetected individuals of Monotropsis odorata but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian Golden-banner)

Appalachian golden-banner is a perennial forb that grows to 2 meters tall with yellow flowers in mid to late spring and is found on dry slopes and ridges in lower elevations of the mountains (Weakley, 2015). The plant occurs in Dry Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine- Oak/Heath, Shortleaf Pine Forest, and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species questionable, and is therefore ranked vulnerable/apparently secure (G3G4) (NatureServe, 2017). In North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2) (NCNHP, 2016). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are 4 known forest populations. Appalachian golden- banner is known from Caldwell County, but not within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Timber harvest, thinning and related stand improvement activities; prescribed burning. Post timber harvest stand improvement activities may include site preparation, natural regeneration and planting after the first growing season within the thinned and harvested areas. There are no stands proposed for treatment that contain any known individuals of Thermopsis mollis in the project area, therefore there should be no direct or indirect effects to plants. Surveys were conducted in a timeframe that would have allowed for positive identification of this plant. Surveys for rare plants were conducted in the early 1990s in relation to the Guys Creek Timber Sale as well as in 2016 and did not locate any individuals. Thermopsis mollis is considered to be a fire-adapted plant on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests (Pers. Communication, G. Kauffman), so prescribed burning at the appropriate time should maintain suitable habitat with no negative impacts.

Cumulative Effects: The project area overlaps spatially with the 1995 Guys Creek Timber Sale. Any impacts have been experienced and contribute to the current landscape. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Thermopsis mollis populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CBSYPR Project botanical analysis area that would impact this species. Negative cumulative effects are not expected.

Determination of Effect: The CBSYPR Project will have no impact on Thermopsis mollis. Appendix C

State Natural Areas Evaluation

The Hexastylis contracta population in Caldwell County is located within the Guys Creek Rare Plant Site, a 118.5 acre site that is ranked “High” (3/middle of 5 ranks) in the NC Natural Heritage Program’s natural areas classification (NC Biotics-NHDE, 2017). This ranking means that the designated site contains the 5th to 8th best examples in the state of G1-G2 elements and/or the 3rd to 6th best occurrences of any G3-G5 element within it (NCNHP, 2016). Not all of the area in the Guys Creek Rare Plant site contain rare plants. Specific locations for Hexastylis contracta are delineated separately and are evaluated separately in the project effects section. The project area, specifically 51.8 acres of treatment units, overlap with this Rare Plant Site as follows:

Size of Overlap into Location Proposed Prescribe Additional Forest Type Unit Guys Creek Rare (CPT-STAND) Action Information d Burning (Acres) Plant Site (Acres)

Stand Broadcast 58-12 Virginia pine Chain Saw 19 20.5 Improvement Burn

Selection Thin, Broadcast Commercial 58-13 Pitch pine 67 21.6 Plant Burn Thin

N. Red Oak-Hickory- Prescribed Broadcast 58-17 N/A 54 21.2 Yellow Pine Burning Burn

Selection Thin, Broadcast Commercial 62-05 White Pine 38 3.2 plant Burn Thin

Because it is unclear if Hexastylis contracta requires closed canopy conditions (since it grows well along the roadside at the Boone Fork Site and grows well under Rhododendron in drainages in other places), treatments proposed in the Guys Creek Rare Plant Site may or may or may not have an overall impact on the future quality of the area. Populations in this part of the project area will be protected with mitigation measures, so there should be limited impacts on Hexastylis contracta overall, though parts of the designated Rare Plant Site may be impacted by thinning, harvest, and temporary road construction activities as well as prescribed burning. Appendix D

References Cited Danley, D. (2007). Botanical Analysis of the Mulberry Timber Sale. Hot Springs, North Carolina: Unpublished, USDA Forest Service. eFloras. (2008). Flora of North America; Published on the Internet http://www.efloras.org. Cambridge, MA: Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria. Retrieved June 2017, from eFloras (2008). Published on the Internet http://www.efloras.org [accessed 22 February 2008]*' Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA: www.efloras.org NatureServe. (2017, May 25). NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, 7.1. Retrieved from http://explorer.natureserve.org/ NC Biotics-NHDE. (2017). North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer. Raleigh, NC: NC Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved from https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/ NCNHP. (2016). List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina, Revised February 24, 2017. Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from www.ncnhp.org Schafale, M. P. (2012). Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina; 4th Approximation. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2017, May 24). Official Species List for Crawley Branch Southern Yellow Pine Restoration Project. Asheville, NC: US Department of Interior. US Fish & Wildlife Service. (2017, May 22). Section 7 Consultation - Guidance for Preparing a Biological Assessment. Retrieved from US Fish & Wildlife Service - Endangered Species: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/ba_guide.html USDA Forest Service. (1994). Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5. Asheville, NC: National Forests in North Carolina. USDA Forest Service. (2009). Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Environmental Assessment. Asheville, NC: Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Weakley, A. S. (2015). Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States, Working Draft of 21 May 2015. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2015-05-29.pdf Whitaker, J.O. Jr. and W.J. Hamilton, Jr. (1998). Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.