Spring Creek Vegetation

Management Proposal

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Biological Assessment and

SOUTHERN REGION Evaluation

DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST Redbird Ranger District

KENTUCKY Clay County,

July 29, 2011

For Information Contact: Kim Tarter Redbird Ranger District Daniel Boone National Forest 91 Peabody Road Big Creek, KY 40914 (606) 598-2192 www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

1 Chapter One Introduction, Proposed Actions(s), and Consultation History

Introduction This Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BAE) will address and evaluate the effects of the actions proposed for the “Spring Creek Vegetation Management Proposal” on federally threatened, endangered, proposed species and designated critical habitats within the action area.1 The objectives of this BAE include, but are not limited to: • Providing a standard method to fully consider federally listed proposed, endangered, threatened (PET) species and their habitats; and federally designated critical habitat in the decision-making process; • Evaluating the potential effects of the action on listed and proposed species; designated and proposed critical habitat(s); • Determining whether any such species or habitats are likely to be adversely affected by the action; • Determining whether formal consultation or a conference is necessary; • Ensuring that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native nor contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species; • Complying with the statutory requirements to use the best scientific and commercial information available when assessing the risks posed to listed and proposed species; designated and proposed critical habitat by proposed federal actions. Additional information regarding the objectives, standards, and procedures used in this BAE process is found in section 2672.4 of Forest Service Manual 2600. The Daniel Boone National Forest defines vegetation management as any activity that is designed primarily to alter or modify vegetation to meet desired conditions on land or water (USFS 2004a). Activities proposed to meet desired conditions, as defined in the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest would improve forest health, promote oak regeneration, provide for a variety of wildlife habitat and reduce woody debris build-up through the use of commercial timber harvest, mechanical and chemical site preparation.

Area Description The proposed project activities are located on National Forest System lands within the drainage system of Spring Creek, Little Spring Creek, the head of Rocky Fork and the head of Panther Branch of Clay County, Kentucky. Spring Creek and Little Spring Creek are small perennial streams that drain into the Red Bird ; Rocky Fork and Panther Branch are also small perennial streams that drain into Flat Creek, which drains into the Red Bird River; these streams, except the Red Bird River, are located approximately 0.1 mile west of State Highway 66 and

1 The action area encompasses all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. [50 CFR §402.02]

2 approximately 0.5 mile south of State Highway 2000. The action area for this project is approximately 6,000 acres; it comprises the entire Spring Creek, Rocky Fork and Panther Branch drainage systems, and a small portion of the Flat Creek drainage system. The average width of these streams is approximately ten feet and depth of two feet, and gradient is approximately three percent. The substrate is predominantly gravel (human fingernail to fist-sized) and cobble (fist to head-sized) in riffles; and sand, cobble, boulder (larger than a human head) and sandstone/slate bedrock in pools. The footprint2 areas (eleven sites totaling approximately 410 acres) are also located in the previously mentioned drainage system, and are located in Clay County, Kentucky (see Appendix for map). The action area is predominately forested (i.e. ≥70%) with sugar maple, red oak, white oak, hickory and yellow-poplar. The average overstory3 basal area4 (BA) is about 80 square feet, with average height of 75 feet and average diameter of 18 inches; the average midstory5 BA is about 60 square feet, with average height of 65 feet and average diameter of eight inches. The proposed harvest units (approximately 161 acres) are primarily comprised of red oak, white oak, yellow-poplar, and hickory; and vegetation data plots in these units indicate approximately 140 BA of overstory, midstory and understory6. Vegetation data plots indicate approximately 43,000 hardwood seedling and sapling (1-5 inch diameter) size trees located in the proposed crop tree release units. Land use along the privately owned portion of the action area includes subsistence farming, home/road constructions, and gas/mineral extraction. The total land area for such features is approximately 100 acres; the rest is forested land (≈1,800 acres). Land use on National Forest System (NFS) land in the action area includes recreation (e.g. the multiple use Redbird Crest Trail, hunting, wildlife viewing), watershed improvement (e.g. riparian area protection, erosion control structures/waterbars), vegetation management, and privately operated gas/mineral well sites.

Proposed Management Actions Proposed Action 1 - Thinning by Commercial Timber Harvest (≈ 81 ac.) The proposed action would cut a portion of trees from the overstory and midstory in two units totaling approximately 81 acres of NFS lands. This activity would reduce the basal area of these units by approximately half, leaving around 70 square feet of basal area. The proposed thinning by commercial timber harvest would take place during the normal operating season (i.e. March 15 through December 15), could take from 10-16 weeks to complete both units, and would consist of the following activities:

2 Footprint - the immediate area involved in the proposed treatment(s)/action(s). 3 Overstory - the trees that provide the upper crown cover in a two or multi layered forest. 4 Basal Area - the cross-sectional area of a single stem (tree), including the bark, measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground); the cross-sectional area (at breast height) of a group of stems within an area (such as a stand), usually expressed in square feet per acre. 5 Midstory - a vertical layer in a forest considered to be in the middle; usually defined as ›15′ in height, but shorter in height than the dominant trees whose crowns comprise the canopy, or highest layer. 6 Understory - trees and other vegetation that grow beneath the overstory.

3 • Sale area layout/designation of timber to be harvested - A crew of 2-4 Forest Service employees would take periodic measurements to determine timber volume, apply adequate amount of water-based paint to the stumps and the bole of designated trees to be visible from twenty feet, and record forest condition data. Water-based paint is used to mark trees, and marking would generally be done when the leaves have fallen for increased visibility. Paint or flagging would be used to mark unit boundaries, designate buffer zones (e.g. cliffline, riparian, archaeological, leave strips) and designate immediate roost trees for the Indiana bat. This activity could take up to three days per unit. • Felling - The cutting of trees would be done by the contractor or contractor’s employees using a gasoline-powered chain saw and aided by felling wedges and possibly cables with block and tackle rigs. Though rarely used, other methods may include (but not limited to) sheers, handsaws and/or pushing. • Cable logging and winching - A winch attached to a dozer or skidder would be used to move cut trees from the stump to a skid road. The cable is walked through the woods then attached by the operator to the cut tree. • Skidding - Cut trees would be moved to the log landing along skid roads that are constructed between the cut trees and the log landing within each harvest unit. Skid roads are generally constructed with a dozer or a blade on a skidder. The movement of logs, by dragging, from stump to a log landing is typically done using rubber-tire heavy equipment or a small dozer along the constructed skid road. Cables are attached to cut trees for transporting them along the skid road to a log landing. The Forest Service approves the location of skid roads and actions used to close skid roads following use. Skid roads are generally closed with dips, water bars, and seeded to grasses following the completion of harvesting activities. • Log landings - These are areas where logs are temporarily stored before loading onto trucks for transport. Landings are generally cleared of standing trees, stumps, and leveled with a dozer or rubber tire skidder to form the equivalent of a small parking lot for the commercial logging operation. Log landings are accessible by roads and are generally large enough to park a log truck, pickup truck, and have room for cut trees to be piled for loading onto log trucks. Approximately two log landings per unit would be constructed. These are typically 150 X 150 feet (≈0.5 acre each). Exposed soil would be seeded with Forest Service approved grasses following use. • Log Transporting - Logs located on log landings are loaded onto trucks and transported off logging site via existing developed roads. • Site preparation - Site preparation involves the cutting and felling of additional trees not removed by the commercial sale operation to better prepare forested stands for regeneration. Trees cut during site preparation may be smaller in diameter, damaged, and may not have commercial value. Site preparation activities may be completed by Forest Service personnel or a contractor. Proposed Action 2 - Shelterwood with Reserves Regeneration by Commercial Timber Harvest (≈80 ac.) The proposed regeneration treatment, a shelterwood with reserves, would be conducted as a commercial timber harvest, and would cut a portion of midstory and overstory trees in two units totaling approximately 80 acres of NFS lands. The timber harvest would consist of the same activities as Proposed Action 1 described previously, but the residual basal area in these units would be approximately 20 square feet. Additionally, selected seedling/sapling size (i.e. ≤5

4 inches) of highly competitive species (e.g. red maple and sassafras) would receive cut stump treatment7 with an herbicide mixture of triclopyr amine & imazapyr, diluted with water, to reduce/eliminate sprouting. Low volume backpack sprayers or spray bottles would be used to deliver the herbicide spot treatment at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human and wildlife health. Proposed Action 3 - Crop Tree Release This action would be implemented in stands regenerated through a commercial timber sale around 20 years ago. These young stands are currently overcrowded with sapling-sized trees. Trees with less desirable characteristics (e.g. forked, insect/disease damaged, and rapid colonizers) and grapevines that compete with desirable forest species (e.g. well-formed oaks, hickories, American beech, hemlocks and pines) would be cut in seven units totaling approximately 249 acres of NFS lands. The proposed crop tree release would take place during the normal operating season for commercial timber harvest or during the winter months, and would consist of the following activities: • Treatment area layout/designation - Unit layout/designation would not be required, because trees growing in the proposed units are located in young sapling hardwood stands (e.g. 15-20 years old) and would be easily discerned from adjacent stands of mature forests. • Felling - The cutting of trees and grapevine that compete with desirable forest species is done by the contractor or contractor’s employees using a gasoline-powered chain saw or a brush/hand ax. Cut trees would be left on site. A crew of eight individuals could treat 30-40 acres per day. Proposed Action 4 - Wildlife Pond Construction Construct three wildlife ponds to provide supplemental water source for game, non-game and endangered species such as the Indiana bat. New ponds would range in size from 1/10 to 1/4 acre and would be round or oval in shape, with a depth of two to four feet. Ponds would be located on ridge top saddles or in canopy gaps to avoid large trees whenever possible. A dozer would be used to construct the ponds. The dozer operator would tram, with blade up, on existing roads or skid trails to the project site, which are identified by plastic flagging (orange, red, pink or yellow). The dozer blade would be kept above the ground to avoid soil disturbance. The dozer operator would also traverse around trees to reduce vegetation damage; nevertheless, seedlings/saplings and bushes (woody flora <30 foot in height) could be damaged during the tram to the work site. The dozer blade would be lowered to push soil and rocks (mainly sandstone from 1-40 inches diameter) to create a depression. Top soil would be saved and piled near the work site, to later spread on top of excavated areas. An earthen dam constructed around the pond would not be greater than four feet in height. Exposed soils would be seeded by hand, with mixture of winter wheat and native grasses to control erosion. This activity could take place in any month of the year, and a dozer operator could complete up to two ponds per day.

7 Cut stump treatment - severing and spraying an undesirable tree with an herbicide.

5 Proposed Action 5 - Road Maintenance Approximately 8 miles of existing Forest Roads (approximately 2 miles of FR #1505, 3 miles of 1696, & 3 miles 1745) would require routine maintenance to facilitate access to the project area. This includes (but is not limited to) re-grading, clearing ditches, and cleaning/repairing water control structures. Wheeled or tracked equipment to be used within the stands should be washed prior to entering National Forest System lands to limit introduction of non-native during project activities. The maintenance work would be completed by a road grader, could take place in any month of the year, and the equipment operator could complete approximately one mile every hour. Proposed Action 6 - Revegetation Rehabilitate areas of exposed soil such as log landings, skid trails, and wildlife ponds. Such areas could require scarification (e.g. harrowing, disking or ripping) followed by reseeding with a mixture of wild rye and/or winter wheat, partridge pea, Desmodium sp. and/or native lespedezas, and warm season grasses. Orchard grass would be utilized if steep slopes or erosion control are a concern. Some logging slash (tree tops, branches, etc.) would be scattered across exposed soil areas. This activity could take place during the spring and fall, and crew of two could complete one acre every hour. Table 1. Summary of the proposed management actions for Spring Creek Vegetation Management Proposal

NAME OF THE QUANTITY/ 7.5’ U.S.G.S. LATITUDE / LONGITUDE PROPOSED UNITS TOPOGRAPHI TOOLS & METHODS COUNTY IN DEGREE, MINUTE, MAP ACTIONS C (APPROXI- SECONDS MATION) QUADRANGLE MAP Paint guns for sale area 1 - Thin by layout; chainsaws; cables, commercial timber skidders & dozers for harvest in unit 5 Unit 5 at center point - moving trees; chainsaws 37º03'03"/83º34'43" (compartment & backpack pump 2803, stand ≈81 acres Clay Creekville Unit 9 at center point - Map 1 sprayer/spray bottles for 04/5612) & unit 9 37º02'23"/83º34'31" site preparation; dozers, (compartment road graders, haul trucks, 2805, stand hand seeders vegetating 14/5610) exposed soil Paint guns for sale area layout; chainsaws; cables, 2 - Shelterwood skidders & dozers for with Reserves Unit 1 at center point - moving trees; chainsaws Regeneration by 37º02'22"/83º36'17" & backpack pump commercial timber ≈80 acres Clay Creekville Unit 8 at center point - Map 1 sprayer/spray bottle for harvest in unit 1 37º02'22"/83º34'10" site preparation; dozers, (2802, 36/5610) & road graders, haul trucks, 8 (2805, 12/5610) hand seeders vegetating exposed soil

6 NAME OF THE QUANTITY/ 7.5’ U.S.G.S. LATITUDE / LONGITUDE PROPOSED UNITS TOPOGRAPHI TOOLS & METHODS COUNTY IN DEGREE, MINUTE, MAP ACTIONS C (APPROXI- SECONDS MATION) QUADRANGLE MAP Unit 2 at center point - 37º02'46"/83º35'46" Unit 3 at center point - 3 - Crop tree 37º03'04"/83º35'11" release in unit 2-4 (2802, 34/5613; Unit 4 at center point - 2803, 08/5313; 37º03'12"/83º34'44" 2803, 05/5613), 6- Chainsaws or other Unit 6 at center point - ≈249 acres " " " 7 (2805, 02/5313; handtools for felling trees 37º03'02"/83º34'07" 2805, 07/5313), & Unit 7 at center point - 10-11 (2805, 37º02'45"/83º33'55" 15/5613; 2805, 28/5313) Unit 10 at center point - 37º02'21"/83º34'45" Unit 11 at center point - 37º01'59"/83º34'42" Pond in stand 36/5610 - 37º02'23"/83º36'22" 3 structures 4 - Wildlife ponds Bulldozer to remove trees Pond east of stand 8/5313 - (≈ 0.1-0.25 " " " construction and excavate 37º02'54"/83º35'03" acre each) Pond in stand 15/5613 - 37º02'13"/83º34'43" 1505 & 1745 junction - 5 - Road Road grader would 37º01'33"/83º34'53" Maintenance on smooth and reshape road 1696 & 1695 junction - ≈8 miles " " Map 1 Forest Road 1505, surface, ditch line and 37º02'24"/83º37'02" 1696 & 1745 water control structures 1745 & 1508 junction - 37º01'11"/83º36'02" Exposed soil in log landings, skid trails and ponds would be hand seeded with a mixture of To be To be 6 - Revegetation wild rye/winter wheat, Clay Creekville To be determined determi determined partridge pea, ned desmodium/native lespedezas, and warm season grasses

Consultation History The Spring Creek Vegetation Management Proposal Biological Assessment and Evaluation was mailed to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Frankfort Field Office on January 11, 2011. The spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta) and the sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) were listed as proposed endangered under the Endangered Species Act on January 19, 2011.

7 Chapter Two Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat

Species Considered and Species Evaluated Twenty-three (23) federally listed species were identified as potentially occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) by the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Kentucky Field Office, in a letter dated March 7, 2011 (USFWS 2011). These species are listed below in Table 2. Table 2. Daniel Boone National Forest Federally listed Species

GROUP SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS Mammal Myotis grisescens *Gray Bat Endangered Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Endangered Plecotus townsendii virginianus * Big-eared Bat Endangered Fish Etheostoma percnurum *Duskytail Darter Endangered E. susanae *Cumberland Darter Proposed Notropis albizonatus *Palezone Shiner Endangered Phoxinus cumberlandensis *Blackside Dace Threatened Mussel Alasmidonta atropurpurea *Cumberland Elktoe Endangered Cyprogenia stegaria *Fanshell Endangered Epioblasma brevidens *Cumberlandian Combshell Endangered Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox Proposed Epioblasma capsaeformis *Oyster Mussel Endangered Epioblasma florentina walkeri *Tan Riffleshell Endangered Epioblasma torulosa rangiana *Northern Riffleshell Endangered Lampsilis abrupta *Pink Mucket Endangered Pegias fabula *Little-wing Pearlymussel Endangered Villosa trabalis *Cumberland Bean Pearlymussel Endangered Plant Arenaria cumberlandensis *Cumberland Sandwort Endangered Conradina verticillata *Cumberland Rosemary Threatened Schwalbea americana *American Chaffseed Endangered albopilosa *White-haired Goldenrod Threatened virginiana *Virginia Spiraea Threatened Trifolium stoloniferum *Running Buffalo Clover Endangered *Species not considered in greater detail.

8 Species marked by an “*” in Table 2 are not considered in greater detail because: • the species is not likely to occur in the project footprints, action area, Red Bird River drainage or the Redbird Ranger District; • historic and current field records/surveys for the species do not include the project footprints, action area, Red Bird River drainage or the Redbird Ranger District; • the listed aquatic species are indigenous to the Cumberland River and the project footprints, action area, and the Redbird Ranger District are in the Kentucky River drainage system; • rock strata in the project footprints and action area are sandstone with no capacity for solution-weathering, thus caves and calcareous soil do not occur in them. Four stream segments occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest were designated as critical habitat by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 31, 2004 (USFWS 2004b). These four stream segments are listed below. Table 3. Daniel Boone National Forest Designated Critical Habitat

ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATIVE STREAM NAME DESIGNATED SEGMENT SPECIES LOCATION Cumberlandian Buck Creek mainstem from State Road London Ranger *Buck Creek combshell and 192 bridge, upstream to the State Road District oyster mussel 328 bridge Marsh Creek mainstem from its Stearns Ranger *Marsh Creek Cumberland elktoe confluence with the Cumberland River, District upstream to State Road 92 bridge Rock Creek mainstem from its Stearns Ranger *Rock Creek Cumberland elktoe confluence with White Oak Creek, District upstream to River Mile 15.9 Sinking Creek mainstem from its London Ranger confluence with the Rockcastle River, *Sinking Creek Cumberland elktoe District upstream to its confluence with Laurel Branch *Streams not considered in greater detail by this BAE The proposed actions would have no effect on critical habitat and their associated federally listed threatened, endangered and proposed species, because the project action area is not located within the watersheds containing any of the listed designated streams.

Evaluated Species Survey Information Biological analysis for this project began with a literature search of data from past surveys and associated maps and a review of local & state rare species databases (i.e. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Redbird Ranger District 1993 report; biological evaluations and/or assessments of past projects that occurred within or adjacent to the project action area; and NatureServe). The process used to decide when to inventory for PETS species is consistent with FSM 2672.43. Based on this assessment, Indiana bat analysis would be completed based on assumed presence in the project sites and action area; and snuffbox analysis would be completed based on site

9 occurrence records adjacent to the action area. Sensitive and conservation species were surveyed by Kim Tarter and Garland Combs in July 2009.

Environmental Baseline for the PET Species Evaluated in this BA Indiana Bat Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was originally listed in danger of extinction under the “Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966”, in March 11, 1967, and is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) had records of extant winter populations at approximately 281 hibernacula in 19 states and 269 maternity colonies in 16 states (USFWS 2007a) in October 2006. The 2009 winter census estimate of the population was 417,185 individuals found throughout the species’ range (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/inba/pdf/2009inbaRangewidePopJuly2011. pdf). Winter Habitat & Behavior - Indiana bats hibernate by clustering tightly together in limestone caves and mines in karst areas, where the ambient temperature is between 10°C and 0°C (50°F - 32°F) (USFWS 2007a). They arrive at their hibernacula in preparation for mating and hibernation in mid-July (Barbour 1974). Adult males and non-reproductive females usually make up most of the early arrivals. The number of Indiana bats active at hibernacula increases through August and peaks from September to early October (USFWS 2007a). Males may remain active through mid-October or later, especially at sites in southern fringe of the species’ range. Indiana bats swarm during hibernacula arrival; a behavior in which large numbers of bats fly in and out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in the caves during the day (Barbour 1974; USFWS 2007a). Swarming continues for several weeks, and during this time, mating occurs, generally in the latter part of the period. Adult females store sperm from autumn copulations throughout winter, and fertilization is delayed until soon after spring emergence from hibernation (Barbour 1974). Limited mating activity occurs throughout winter and in spring as bats leave hibernation (USFWS 2007a). There are two limestone caves designated as critical habitat in Kentucky: Bat Cave in Carter County; and Coach Cave in Edmonson County (USFWS 2007a). Bat Cave is about 90 miles from the project areas and Coach Cave is about 140 miles away. Neither cave is located within or adjacent to the Redbird Ranger District. Additionally, the nearest Priority 1 hibernaculum8, located in Letcher County, Kentucky, is more than 35 miles from the project action area; and the nearest Priority 2 hibernaculum9, located in Jackson County, Kentucky, is more than 25 miles from the project action area. Previous field survey data (e.g. Energy Associates, Inc. Operating Plan Amendment USFS Tract #616 Biological Assessment/Evaluation 2007; Biological Assessment-Evaluation B & B Resources Phase II & III in Clay County, KY 2001; Spring Creek Timber Sale Biological Evaluation 1990) for areas located within the project action area and field survey data from each proposed action sites indicate that the project action area and footprint do not have limestone/sandstone hibernacula. Additionally, rock strata in the project footprint and action area are sandstone with no capacity for solution weathering and thus do not have caves in them.

8 Priority 1 - a hibernaculum that is essential to Indiana bat recovery & long-term conservation; has current and/or historically observed winter population ≥ 10,000 Indiana bats; has suitable & stable microclimate. 9 Priority 2 - a hibernaculum that contributes to Indiana bat recovery & long-term conservation; has a current or observed historic population of 1,000 or greater but fewer than 10,000 and an appropriate microclimate.

10 Summer Habitat & Behavior - Indiana bats disperse from hibernacula in late March and adult females migrate to summer habitat as early as May (Barbour 1974; USFWS 2007a). Summer habitat is found throughout eastern North America, project footprints, and action area despite past land use (Kurta 2002; personal observation 1996-present). Although summer habitat is abundant, the Redbird Ranger District has only one documented Indiana bat maternity colony; which is located approximately eight miles north of the project footprints (personal observation). This colony was discovered by contract biologists in 2007, and bats were found roosting on slippery elm snags that grew on a previously strip-mined area. The primary roost tree measured 17.2 inch DBH and was approximately 40% bark covered in 2007; as of April 21, 2011, half of this tree has broken off and the remaining trunk does not have bark on it. The secondary roost tree measured 10.3 inch DBH and was approximately 20% bark covered in 2007; as of April 21, 2011, this tree is approximately 5% bark covered. Table 4. Land acreage & forest information for counties within/adjacent to the Redbird Ranger District, USDA Forest Service Resource Bulletin #117 Forest Statistics for Kentucky—1975 and 1988. County Total Land Total Forest Total Non-Forest Land In % Forest for In Acres (NFS & Private) Land In Acres (NFS & Private) Acres (NFS & Private) County (NFS & Private) Clay 301,300 254,100 47,200 84 Harlan 299,700 275,800 23,900 92 Knox 248,100 180,900 67,200 73 Leslie 257,000 236,000 21,000 92 Owsley 131,050 108,950 22,100 83 Perry 217,900 185,700 32,200 85

Potential Threats to the Indiana Bat - Some natural and human-caused events that alter occupied winter and summer habitats could affect Indiana bat individuals. Flooding and freezing events have been documented to kill thousands of hibernating bats. A fungus (Geomyces destructans) linked with White Nose Syndrome (WNS) has been associated with bat mortality in populated hibernacula. WNS was first documented in New York on February 2006. Presently, WNS has been documented in Kentucky (Trigg County - approximately 140 miles west of the action area), Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, , , Vermont, Virginia, and ; although Missouri has not been confirmed, WNS most likely occurs there too (http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/ May 2011). Permanent modifications of hibernacula airflow and microclimate could also impact bats. Human explorations of hibernacula could alter normal behavioral pattern or introduce diseases, and vandalism in hibernacula could harm, harass and/or kill bats. Additionally, modifications of summer habitats in fall swarming, spring emergence, and maternity colony sites could also harm or harass bats. Snuffbox The USFWS listed the Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) as proposed endangered on November 2, 2010, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (USFWS 2010b). Extant populations are known from 74 streams in 14 states and 1 Canadian province; historically occurred in 208 streams and lakes in 18 states and 1 Canadian province (USFWS 2010b; Cummings 1992). Snuffbox individuals occurring in Kentucky are found in riffle and riffle/pool habitat of small or medium , and are usually buried in sand and gravel substrate (Parmalee 1998). They have been documented in the Kentucky River system as well as the Cumberland River system (Cicerello et al. 1991). The Red Bird River and the Red River are the only streams known to

11 support extant populations of this rare mussel in the Kentucky River drainage; and snuffbox could be extirpated in the Cumberland River system (USFS 1993; personal observation 1995- present). The snuffbox exhibits sexual dimorphism; shells of mature males are larger than females, and shells of mature females are more inflated than males. Individuals living in rivers adjacent to karst topography attain greater shell size and thickness; maximum length of males is about 2.75 inches (70 mm), and about 1.75 inches (45 mm) for females (Parmalee 1998; Howells 1996; personal observation 1996-2009). Habitat - The Red Bird River, approximately 30 miles long, is a small-medium stream that parallels State Highway 66 from Beverly to Oneida, Kentucky. The drainage system encompasses an area of approximately 110,000 acres; about 60% is National Forest System lands and the rest is privately owned. The average width is fifty feet and average depth is six feet. The gradient is approximately three percent. The substrate is predominantly sand, gravel and cobble in riffles; and sand, boulder and sandstone/slate bedrock in pools. Snuffbox habitat & occurrence records are not found within the proposed footprint sites or action area. The species has been documented in the Red Bird River approximately 1.5 miles below the confluence to Spring Creek. Ecology - Rivers that contain food (i.e. zooplankton, phytoplankton, and detritus material), habitat diversity, water chemistry that optimizes dissolved oxygen and minerals, and fish species diversity contribute to survival and successful reproduction (Parmalee 1998; Howells 1996). Adult and juvenile mussels take in water with an incurrent siphon to feed, and expel waste with an excurrent siphon. Glochidia, or the larval stage of mussels, survive on host fish by attaching to body surfaces and gills; and drop off the host fish when they reach the juvenile stage (Parmalee 1998; Howells 1996). Although sexual dimorphism exists, mussels do not have genitalia; males expel sperms from the excurrent siphon and females take in sperms from the incurrent siphon. Long-term or bradytictic breeders, such as the snuffbox, often spawn and fertilize eggs in late spring, summer, or early fall and produce mature glochidia by late fall or winter; however, glochidia may be retained in the female until spring or early summer the following year (Parmalee 1998; Howells 1996). Potential Threats to Snuffbox - Threats to snuffbox could come from natural events such as severe and recurrent drought, flooding, resource competition from other native or non-native mussels and diseases that impact snuffbox individuals, or host fish; and could come from human activities such as stream channeling/damming, chronic acid mine drainage or chronic sedimentation (Parmalee 1998; Howells 1996; personal observation 1993-present).

Effects of Proposed Management Actions on Each Species and Segment of Critical Habitat Evaluated Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed management actions were evaluated for the potential to impact Indiana bat and snuffbox individuals and their respective habitats. These actions are evaluated below. Sale Area Layout/Designation Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Individual(s) & Behavior - Sale area layout activities would not directly or indirectly modify summer or winter Indiana bat behavioral patterns. The designation

12 of the sale areas and buffer zones would not require heavy equipment (e.g. chainsaw & bulldozer); therefore, noise disturbance in the proposed project footprint sites would not exceed those made by normal conversations between Forest Service crew members working in the field. Past Indiana bat radio telemetry field work on the Stearns Ranger District in 1996 & 1997, mist netting experience on the Daniel Boone National Forest (including two known Indiana bat maternity trees on the Redbird Ranger District in 2007), and monitoring of one known Indiana bat maternity tree on the Nantahala National Forest in , indicate that normal conversation between personnel did not alter normal roosting behavior (e.g. result in flight from roost tree during daylight hours) or contributed to stress/alarm calls (personal experience 1994- present). Additionally, the nearest Priority 1 cave is more than 35 miles and the nearest Priority 2 cave is more than 25 miles away from the project action area; at such distance, normal conversation noise level would not likely contribute to direct or indirect alteration of winter behavioral patterns. Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Habitat - Sale area layout activity would not directly or indirectly contribute to temporary or permanent loss of Indiana bat summer or winter habitat. As previously discussed in the Proposed Management Action section, the purpose of this activity is to designate the treatment area boundary. This activity would not require the removal of any suitable Indiana bat summer habitat and would not alter Indiana bat winter habitat. Potential Effects to Snuffbox Individuals and Habitat - Sale area layout would not require equipment operation and would not occur in aquatic habitat; therefore impact to snuffbox or its habitat would not be anticipated. Logging Activities (i.e. felling, winching, skidding, log landing/transportation, and site preparation with chainsaws & herbicide) and Interrelated Actions (i.e. road maintenance, re-vegetating bare soil) Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Individual(s) & Behavior - Implementing the proposed project could produce short-term negative effects to Indiana bat individuals. Logging activities could affect Indiana bat individuals and/or their behavior during the summer roosting period if cut trees were to fall on bats or if noise resulting from logging activities caused bats to flush from roosting sites. However, these effects are insignificant10 and discountable11 for the following reasons. First, an effects determination of accidental deaths from falling trees cannot be evaluated; because, presently there is no scientific evidence indicating any population trend decrease is due to logging activities. Second, the project footprints encompass less than 3% of the action area, and the plethora of available roost trees, such as immediate roost trees12, currently suitable roost trees13, and potential suitable roost trees14, would make an effects determination immeasurable,

10 Insignificant effects - relate to the size of the impact and include those effects that are undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated. 11 Discountable effects - are those extremely unlikely to occur. 12 Immediate roost tree - a live tree of any diameter that has sloughing bark, or cavities with openings (e.g. large splits or cracks in the bole, large broken limbs or lightning scars) to the outside that would provide bat roosting habitat. 13 Currently suitable roost tree - an immediate roost tree or a live shagbark, shellbark, or red hickory that is equal to or greater than 6″ diameter at breast height (DBH). 14 Potential roost tree - a live tree ≥9″ DBH that belongs in the following species: red, silver & sugar maple; bitternut, pignut shellbark, red, shagbark hickory; American beech; white & green ash; yellow-poplar; blackgum

13 undetectable, or cannot be evaluated. For example, inventory data indicate that there are approximately 24, 302 available roost trees that are ≥6 inch diameter at breast height occur in the proposed harvest units. Third, although logging activities could take up to thirty-two weeks to complete, portions of that operational period would occur during hibernation season. Due to lack of winter habitat located within the action area, and that Indiana bats do not roost in trees during the winter months, it is unlikely that any individuals would be affected by tree felling during winter time operation. Forth, although logging activity noise could disturb nearby roosting bats, past monitoring activities (e.g. pounding stakes in ground for erecting mist netting poles and/or talking among crew members) occurring adjacent to the Redbird Ranger District’s known Indiana bat maternity colony did not alter normal roosting behavior, and did not contribute to stress/alarm calls (personal experience 2007-2011). Additionally, bats are exposed to periodic high levels of noise from the urban interface (e.g. vehicles, airplanes, lawn mowers, pets and people) as well as natural events such as thunderstorms or other inclement weather. During logging and road maintenance activities, noise would be limited to normal conversations between workers and equipment operation. This noise is not anticipated to be significantly different than the noise from the urban interface or natural events; therefore it is not likely to disrupt roosting bats located on lands adjacent to the action area. Implementing conservation measures such as leaving dominant or co-dominate trees with bat roosting characteristics (e.g. scaly or exfoliating bark) would reduce or eliminate the potential for accidental deaths caused by tree felling. Additionally, the following project design criteria would also optimize bat feeding opportunities: 1. Leave trees (i.e. trees not to be cut) should be ≥ 12 inches DBH; 2. Leave trees should be dominant or co-dominant; 3. Leave trees should be vigorous, good seed-producers, possess well-formed full crowns, and be in middle rotation age (e.g. the period between regeneration establishment and final cutting); 4. Retain all shellbark, shagbark and red hickory trees ≥ 6 inches DBH; 5. Retain all butternut trees; 6. Retain any immediate roost trees ≥ 6 inches DBH; 7. Retain all eastern hemlocks along riparian areas & in drainages unless already showing decline due to hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) infestation; 8. When harvest occurs between April 1st and September 15th, pre- and post-implementation biological monitoring for immediate roost trees shall occur, in compliance with Biological Opinion on the Forest Plan (FWS #07-B-0580); 9. Approximately 50 square-feet of basal area per acre would be retained in the Riparian Corridor Prescription area; 10. Stems of felled trees are to be completely severed, within four inches of the ground, using a suitable cutting tool; 11. All trees shall be felled so they do not lodge in any reserve trees or boundary trees; 12. Wheeled or tracked equipment to be used within the stands should be washed prior to entering National Forest System lands to limit introduction of non-native invasive species during project activities.

sourwood; shortleaf, pitch, & Virginia pine; sycamore, cottonwood; white, scarlet, shingle, chestnut, northern red, post, and black oak; black locust; sassafras, American & slippery elm.

14 A reduction in overstory/midstory tree density would increase flight corridor for insectivores, thereby increasing feeding range. The abundance of grassy/herbaceous species would be expected to increase due to increased levels of sunlight reaching the forest floor; this would also serve to increase insect prey for insectivores. The design criteria above would provide leave trees, including well-formed, hard mast-producing oak/hickory; this would increase food availability for beetles, also a source of prey for insectivores.

The proposed logging activities would not affect hibernating Indiana bat individual(s), because the project footprints and action area have been surveyed by Forest Service personnel, for data such forest type, stand condition, threatened, endangered and sensitive species, and hibernaculum and abandoned mines with open portals were not found. Site preparation using cut stump treatment with an herbicide mixture of imazapyr & triclopyr diluted with water, would produce insignificant and discountable effects to bats. The lowest effective herbicide concentration would be hand sprayed onto freshly cut stumps of targeted seedlings, and approximately 1% of the project action area would be affected only one time. Herbicide treatment would be hand sprayed onto targeted sapling trees and cut stumps of undesirable species only (e.g. red maple), therefore would greatly reduce the likelihood for chemical contact with desirable animals and . Chemical site preparation activities would be completed during the daylight hours when bats are typically roosting in live trees or standing dead trees and not cut stumps. Additionally, the herbicide risk assessment report indicates that application of imazapyr & triclopyr produces a hazard quotient (HQ) of less than one for small mammals; and the Forest Service, Southern Region standard for acceptable level of risk15 requires HQ ‹1; and HQs of 1.0 or less represent exposure levels that are of minimal or no concern (USFS 2011). Re-vegetating bare soil would not affect Indiana bat individual(s) or alter normal behavior, because summer and winter habitat would not be modified and only handtools would be utilized to distribute seeds.

Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Habitat - Logging activities and interrelated actions, in approximately 161 acres of forest habitat, would not directly or indirectly contribute to loss of roosting or foraging habitat because of the following reasons: these activities encompass approximately 3% of forest habitat in the 6,000 acre project action area (see Area Description on pp. 2-3 pp this document); these activities would not contribute to permanent forest habitat loss in the action area since the harvested stands would be allowed to regenerate; the remaining amount of forest habitat in the action area, and on lands adjacent to the action area (approximately 254,100 acres of forest in Clay County [see Table 4]) would provide plentiful residual roosting and foraging habitat; Indiana bat immediate roost trees would not be cut; and roosting/foraging habitat would remain in the footprints (i.e. approximately 65-75 basal area of

15 Risk is defined as the likelihood that an effect (injury, disease, death or environmental damage) may result from a specific set of circumstances. It can be expressed in quantitative or qualitative terms. While all human activities carry some degree of risk, some risks are known with a relatively high degree of accuracy, because data have been collected on the historical occurrence of related problems (i.e. lung cancer caused by smoking, auto accidents caused by alcohol impairment, and fatalities resulting from airplane travel). For several reasons, risks associated with activities including exposure to chemicals such as pesticides cannot be so readily determined. The process of risk assessment helps evaluate the risks resulting from these situations.

15 overstory and midstory trees in action Proposed Action 1 sites; and approximately 10-20 basal area of overstory and midstory trees in Proposed Action 2 sites).

Winter habitat was not found by Forest Service personnel during project site field surveys and during field surveys for unrelated projects located within the action area.

Potential Effects to Snuffbox Individuals and Habitat - Logging activities and interrelated actions, in approximately 161 acres of forest habitat, would not directly or indirectly contribute to loss of snuffbox individuals since riparian areas would be buffered to prevent damage during commercial timber removal, and no snuffbox individuals or their habitat occur in the footprints or action area. The hydrology and soil analysis report indicates that implementing the proposed project would contribute to less than 1% sediment increase; and at this level, it is very difficult to measure or detect sedimentation changes, at any given point, in the Redbird River (USFS 2010).

The herbicide risk assessment (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Worksheet G03 Cut Stump Imazapyr 4.4% & Cut Stump Triclopyr 47.8%) indicates that site preparation using cut stump treatment with imazapyr & triclopyr produces an HQ of less than one for aquatic invertebrate (USFS 2011). Additionally, implementing the following Forest Plan standards would reduce or eliminate potential negative effects to snuffbox individuals and habitat:

• DB-VEG-8 – Herbicides will be applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human and wildlife health.

• DB-VEG-10 – Use only nozzles that produce droplets (mean droplet size of 50 microns or greater) or streams of herbicides. Nozzles that produce fine droplets may be used only for hand treatment, where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed eight feet.

• DB-VEG-19 – No herbicide shall be applied within 30 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, perennial or intermittent springs (seeps) and streams. However, herbicides approved for aquatic use may be used when such treatment is required to control invasive plants.

• DB-VEG-20 – Necessary buffer zones must be designated before making herbicide treatments so applicators can easily recognize and avoid the buffer area.

• DB-VEG-21 – Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not to be located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or other sensitive areas. Crop Tree Release Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Individual(s) & Behavior - Short-term negative effects contributed by crop tree release activities would be insignificant and discountable. Forest condition in the proposed crop tree release units is too young and too dense to provide optimal Indiana bat roosting habitat. The age of these units is 15-20 years old, and vegetation data plots indicate approximately 43,000 hardwood seedling and sapling (1-5 inch diameter) per acre exist in the crop tree release units. Implementing the following project design criteria would optimize bat feeding opportunities (e.g. decreasing seedlings, saplings and grapevines that compete with well-formed oaks/hickories would increase hard mast production; increased hard mast would increase food availability for beetles, which would increase prey item for insectivores):

16 1. Leave trees should be dominant or co-dominant; 2. Retain shellbark, shagbark and red hickory trees ≥ 6 inches DBH; 3. Retain all butternut trees; 4. Retain any immediate roost trees ≥ 6 inches DBH; 5. Retain any eastern hemlocks along riparian areas & in drains unless already showing decline due to hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) infestation; 6. Select crop trees on a 20 ft. X 20 ft. spacing and select only dominant or co-dominant trees; 7. Stems of felled trees are to be completely severed, within four inches of the ground, using a suitable cutting tool (e.g. chainsaw); 8. All trees shall be felled so they do not lodge in any reserve trees or boundary trees; 9. Trees to be released should be of good form, free of forks, broken tops, or any other serious damage; 10. Stump sprouts should be selected as crop trees only if originating low on the stump at ground level, and preference should be given to single trees over multiple stump sprouts; 11. Retain flowering dogwood, eastern redbud, black walnut, American chestnut, shortleaf pine and pitch pine trees. Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Habitat - Implementing the crop tree release would not temporary or permanently decrease Indiana bat summer habitat in the project footprints. Indiana bats have not been documented to roost in forest stands with dense seedlings and saplings. The proposed project sites are approximately 15-20 years old, and inventory data indicate that these sites have an average of 43,000 seedlings and saplings per acre. Potential Effects to Snuffbox Individuals and Habitat - Crop tree release would not directly or indirectly impact snuffbox individuals or their habitat since this activity would not require heavy equipment and would not occur in riparian areas or in streams.

Pond Construction Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Individual(s) & Behavior - Constructing three ponds, from 0.10- 0.25 acre each, would not contribute to potential negative effects to Indiana bats or modify normal behavior. Potential Indiana bat roost trees would not be destroyed, since ponds would be located in canopy gaps to avoid large trees whenever possible. Removing approximately one acre of understory forest habitat represents less than 1% of the action area; therefore the possibility of affecting an Indiana bat would be insignificant and discountable. Although noise disturbance created by dozer operation for pond construction could alter summer habitat behavioral patterns, field experience with wetland and pond construction projects on the Cumberland Ranger District from 1993-1995, and pond construction projects on the Redbird Ranger District from 1995-present, indicate that this activity does not alter normal roosting behavior by causing flight from roost tree. The proposed pond construction sites are not located adjacent to sandstone or limestone rockshelters, caves, mine portals or cave-like structures. Therefore disruption of normal winter behavioral patterns is not likely to occur. Implementing the pond construction project would produce long-term positive effects. Pond water would provide bats with drinking reservoir, and would increase feeding opportunities (e.g. aquatic insects such as flies, mosquitoes, and aquatic beetles).

17 Potential Effects to Indiana Bat Habitat - Removing approximately one acre of understory forest habitat for pond construction would not directly or indirectly contribute to loss of roosting or foraging habitat, since this represents less than one percent forest habitat in the action area. Potential Effects to Snuffbox Individuals and /Habitat - Pond construction would not directly or indirectly impact snuffbox individuals; since this activity would not occur in riparian areas or in streams. The hydrology and soil analysis report indicates that implementing the proposed project would contribute to less than 1% sediment increase; and at this level, it is very difficult to measure or detect sedimentation changes, at any given point, in the Redbird River (USFS 2010). Cumulative Effects Implementing the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect federal proposed, endangered, and threatened species individuals, their habitats, or critical habitat, therefore cumulative effects determination is not required (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/index.html 2011).

Determination(s) of Effect & Rationale

Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species Cumberland Darter X No effect ____ Not likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat ____ Likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat

Rationale: The Cumberland darter is endemic to the upper Cumberland River system above Cumberland Falls in Kentucky and Tennessee (O’Bara 1988, p. 1; O’Bara 1991, p. 9; Etnier and Starnes 1993, p. 511 as cited in USFWS 2010). Currently, the Cumberland darter is known from 14 localities in 12 streams in Kentucky (McCreary and Whitley Counties) and Tennessee (Campbell and Scott Counties). Given the disjunctive position and relationship of the Kentucky River Basin to the Cumberland River Basin, it is extremely unlikely that the Spring Creek Vegetation Management project could have any effect to the Cumberland darter. Snuffbox ____ No effect X Not likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat ____ Likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat Rationale: No snuffbox individuals or habitat occur in the project footprints or action area; the nearest occurrence records is about 1.5 miles from the action area; the hydrology and soil analysis report indicates that implementing the proposed project would contribute to less than 1% sediment increase---and at this level, it is very difficult to measure or detect sedimentation changes, at any given point, in the Redbird River; the herbicide risk assessment report indicates that site preparation using cut stump treatment with a triclopyr/imazapyr herbicide mixture diluted with water would produce insignificant and discountable effects to aquatic species.

18 Threatened and Endangered Species American chaffseed; blackside dace; Cumberland bean pearlymussel; Cumberland elktoe; Cumberland rosemary; Cumberland sandwort; Cumberlandian combshell; duskytail darter; fanshell; gray bat; little-wing pearlymussel; northern riffleshell; oyster mussel; palezone shiner; pink mucket; running buffalo clover; tan riffleshell; Virginia big-eared bat; Virginia spiraea; and white-haired goldenrod X No effect ____ Not likely to adversely affect ____ Likely to adversely affect

Rationale: The species are not likely to occur in the Red Bird River drainage, Redbird Ranger District, or the action area; historic and current field records/surveys for the species indicate that they are not found the Red Bird River drainage, Redbird Ranger District, and the action area; the listed aquatic species are indigenous to the Cumberland River and the project action area and the Redbird Ranger District are in the Kentucky River drainage system; rock strata in the action area are sandstone with no capacity for solution weathering, thus caves do not occur in them. Consequently, the proposed action will have no effect on these species.

Indiana Bat ____ No effect X Not likely to adversely affect ____ Likely to adversely affect Rationale: Activities and their impacts to Indiana bats associated with this project are consistent with those identified in the November 3, 2003 Biological Assessment (as supplemented February 4, 2004) for the Daniel Boone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2004). Additional impacts, beyond those previously disclosed, are not anticipated, because this project is a green tree cutting proposal that is covered under the Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (FWS #07-B-0580) dated April 3, 2007. This Biological Opinion authorizes incidental take of up to 4,000 acres (annually) of green tree cutting projects. The impacts associated with this project are consistent with the projects described in the Biological Opinion, such that a “may affect- not likely to jeopardize” determination was made for the November 13, 2003 Biological Assessment. This project may use approximately 161 acres of the 4,000-acre annual authorization for green tree cutting projects. This determination of effect is based on the assumption that the acres of incidental take associated with this project, when combined with all other green tree cutting projects acres across the Daniel Boone National Forest that may be occurring during the same annual period (April 1 through September 15), would not exceed 4,000 acres annually. Application of the Terms and Conditions specified in the Biological Opinion (FWS #07-B-0580) including the annual acres of incidental take authorized, would minimize the impacts of incidental take to the Indiana bat. Further, the long-term effects of this project are designed to provide habitat conditions that are more suitable for Indiana bat foraging and roosting both on the project area and on the landscape.

19 Short-term negative effects caused by commercial timber harvest and associated activities may be insignificant and discountable because: • Presently, there is no scientific evidence that indicate population trend decrease is due to logging activities; • The project footprints encompass less than 3% of the action area, and the plethora of available roost trees, such as immediate roost trees, currently suitable roost trees, and potential suitable roost trees, would make an effects determination immeasurable, undetectable, or cannot be evaluated; • Although logging activities could take up to thirty-two weeks to complete, portions of that operational period would occur during hibernation season. Due to lack of winter habitat located within the action area, and that Indiana bats do not roost in trees during the winter months, it is unlikely that any individuals would be affected by tree felling during winter time operation; • Noise is not anticipated to be significantly different from urban interface noise or natural events, and therefore is not likely to significantly disrupt bats roosting in adjacent trees or in hibernating sites located adjacent to the action area; • Implementing conservation measures such as leaving dominant or co-dominate trees with bat roosting characteristics (e.g. scaly or exfoliating bark) would reduce or eliminate the potential for accidental deaths caused by tree felling; • Hibernacula and abandoned deep mines with open portals do not occur in the project footprints or action area; • The herbicide risk assessment report indicates that site preparation using cut stump treatment with a triclopyr/imazapyr herbicide mixture would produce insignificant and discountable effects to small insectivorous mammals; • Forest condition in the crop tree release units are too dense with seedlings and saplings to provide roosting habitat; • The proposed logging activities would not permanently modify summer habitat, since up to 20 square feet of basal area of mast producing, well-formed overstory and midstory trees would be left on footprint sites. Long-term effects could improve feeding opportunities in the action area and adjacent lands: • Decreasing overstory and midstory canopy would increase flight corridor for insectivores, which would increase feeding range; • Increased sunlight reaching the forest floor would increase grass/herbaceous species, which would increase insect prey item; • Providing leave trees and not cutting well-formed oaks/hickories would increase hard mast production, which would increase food availability for beetles; • Increased prey items would increase feeding opportunities for insectivores; • Ponds would provide additional water sources.

20 Designated Critical Habitat X No effect ______Not likely to adversely modify critical habitat ______Likely to adversely modify critical habitat Rationale: None are located within the Redbird Ranger District Table 5. Summary of Effect Determinations

NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT BEYOND THOSE PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN NO FWS #07-B-0580; OR LIKELY TO SPECIES EFFECT NOT LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE PROPOSED ADVERSELY AFFECT SPECIES, OR ADVERSELY MODIFY PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT Gray Bat X Indiana Bat X Virginia Big-eared Bat X Bald Eagle X Duskytail Darter X Palezone Shiner X Blackside Dace X Cumberland Elktoe X Snuffbox X Fanshell X Cumberlandian Combshell X Oyster Mussel X Tan Riffleshell X Northern Riffleshell X Pink Mucket X Little-wing Pearlymussel X Cumberland Bean Pearlymussel X Cumberland Sandwort X Cumberland Rosemary X American Chaffseed X White-haired Goldenrod X Virginia Spiraea X Running Buffalo Clover X

21 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures above and beyond those included in the project proposal are necessary to protect threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant or animal species as a result of actions that would occur with this project. Preparer I prepared this Biological Assessment and Evaluation and made the effects determinations: July 29, 2011 Kim Tarter Date Wildlife Biologist USDA Forest Service Daniel Boone National Forest Redbird Ranger District 91 Peabody Road Big Creek, KY 40914 Phone: (606)-598-2192 ext. 110 Email: [email protected]

22 References and Information Sources CITATIONS Alerich, Carol. 1990. Forest Statistics for Kentucky—1975 and 1988. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. Barbour, Roger W., W. H. Davis. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. Cicerello, Ronald R., Melvin L. Warren, Jr., and Guenter A. Schuster. 1991. A Distributional Checklist of the Freshwater Unionids (Bivalia: Unionoidea) of Kentucky. American Malacological Bulletin Vol. 8(2):113-129. Cummings, Kevin S. & Christine A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. Howells, Robert G., Raymond W. Neck, and Harold D. Murray. 1996. Fresh Water Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, TX, USA. Kurta, Allen & Jim Kennedy. 2002. The Indiana Bat Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat Conservation International. Austin, TX, USA. Parmalee, Paul W., Arthur E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University Of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004a. FWS #04-0227; Final Biological Opinion on implementation of the revised Land and Resource Management Plan and its effects on the Indiana bat, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Frankfort, KY. 53 pp. ______. 2004b. Federal Register Document 04-19340 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Five Endangered Mussels in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins. Cookeville, TN. 45 pp. ______. 2007a. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 258 pp. ______. 2007b. FWS #07-B-0580; Revised Final Biological Opinion on implementation of the revised Land and Resource Management Plan and its effects on the Indiana bat, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Frankfort, KY. 128 pp. ______. 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madton, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges. Proposed Rule, Federal Register, 75:121:36035- 36057. ______. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges. Proposed Rule, Federal Register, 75:211. ______. 2011. Daniel Boone National Forest Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitats. Frankfort, KY. 2 pp.

23 U.S. Forest Service. 2011. Herbicide Use & Risk Assessment - Herbicide Use Spring Creek Vegetation Management. U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Hydrology and Soils Report for the Spring Creek Vegetation Management Project Redbird Ranger District Daniel Boone National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. 2004a. Revised Land & Resources Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. 2004b. Supplemental Information to the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Revised Land & Resources Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Redbird Ranger District.

INFORMATION SOURCES Aldridge, W. David, Barry S. Payne & Andrew C. Miller. 1987. The effects of intermittent exposure to suspended solids and turbulence on three species of freshwater mussels. Environmental Pollution 45:17-28. Berkman, Hilary E., Charles F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environmental Biology of Fishes Vol. 18, No. 4:285-294. Branson, Branley A. 1973. Kentucky Land Mollusca. Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky, USA. Burch, John B. 1962. How to Know the Eastern Land Snails. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. Calow, Peter, Geoffrey E. Petts. 1992. Rivers Handbook. Blackwell Scientific Publication, Cambridge, MA. Cicerello, Ronald R. 1996. A Survey the Unionids (Bivalia: Unionoidea) of Rock Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky. Technical Report, Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky, USA. Cummings, Kevin S., John L. Harris, Richard J. Neves, Melvin L. Warren, & James D. Williams. 1992. Conservation Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society. Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology Vol. 17, No. 1:29- 42. EPA, Science and Ecoregion Support Division, Ecological Assessment Branch, Athens, . 2001. Kentucky Mountaintop Mining Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Central Appalachian Ecoregion, Kentucky. Etnier, David A. & Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

24 Flint, Russell F. 1983. Fluvial Sedimentation in Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Gleason, Henry A. and Arthur Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Second Edition. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. Harvey, Michael J., J. Scott Altenbach, Troy L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Bat Conservation International, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA. Houp, Ronald E. 1993. Observations on Long-term Effects of Sedimentation on Freshwater Mussels in the North Fork of Red River, Kentucky. Trans. Kentucky Academic Science 54(3-4):93-97. Kral, Robert. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the south; Volume I & II. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. Atlanta, GA, USA. Krieger, R. A., R. V. Cushman, N. O. Thomas. 1969. Water in Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. La Sorte, Frank A., Frank R. Thompson, III, Margaret K. Trani, Timothy J. Mersmann. 2007. Population Trends and Habitat Occurrence of Forest Birds on Southern National Forests, 1992-2004. USDA Forest Service Publications Distribution, Delaware, OH. Laudermilk, Ellis L. 1996. Caddisflies: weavers of silk. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Naturally Kentucky No. 19:6-7. MacDonald, D. D. & C. P. Newcombe. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:72-82:72-82. McCabe, Gregory D. & W. John O’Brien. 1983. The Effects of Suspended Silt on Feeding and Reproduction of Daphnia pulex. American Midland Naturalist Vol. 110, No. 2:325-337. Merritt, Richard W. & Kenneth W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Mitchell, Robert T. & Herbert S. Zim. 1987. Butterflies and Moths a Guide to the More Common American Species. Golden Press, Racine, Wisconsin. Mohan, Jackie E. 1992. Analysis of Freshwater Mussel Stresses: Stress Effects, Sources and Mitigation with Emphasis on the Horse Lick Creek, Kentucky. Unpublished Report. Neves, Richard J. 2000. Proceedings of Endangered Mollusks and Forests: Managing Stream Habitat for Aquatic Species. Society of American Forester Publication 92-01. Bethesda, MD, USA. Opler, Paul A., Vichai Malikul. 1992. Peterson Field Guides to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Page, Lawrence M., Brooks M. Burr. 1991. Peterson Field Guides to Fresh Water Fishes. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York.

25 Palmer-Ball Jr., Brainard. 1996. The Kentucky Breeding Bird Atlas. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Patrick, Thomas S., James R. Allison and Gregory A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2070 U.S. Highway 278 S.E., Social Circle, GA 30279, USA. Peacock, C. E. 1998. Fresh-water mussels as indicators of prehistoric human environmental impact in the Southeastern United States. Doctoral Thesis, University of Sheffield, England. Pflieger, William A. 1996. The Crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. Pilsbry, Henry A. 1939, 1940, 1946, 1948. Land Mollusca of North America. Wickersham Printing Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Robinson, John W. & Thomas M. Buchanan. 1992. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Rommé, R. C., Karen Tyrell, Virgil Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Ross, Stephen T. & John A. Baker. 1983. The Response of Fishes to Periodic Spring in a Southeastern Stream. American Midland Naturalist Vol. 109, No. 1:4-13. Sealander, John A. & Gary A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals. The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Slone, Tim & Tracie Wethington. 1998. Kentucky’s Threatened and Endangered Species. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Publication. Strausbaugh, P. D. & Earl L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. Seneca Books, Morgantown, West Virginia. Trani, Margaret K. & W. Mark Ford, and Brian R. Chapman. 2007. The Land Manager’s Guide to Mammals of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Durham, North Carolina. U.S. Forest Service. 1988. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Somerset Ranger District. ______. 1989. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Stanton Ranger District. ______. 1990. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Stearns Ranger District. ______. 1991. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Berea Ranger District. ______. 1992. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Morehead Ranger District.

26 ______. 1994. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, London Ranger District. ______. 2000. Environmental Assessment for Amending the Daniel Boone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; the SHNS Amendment. ______. 2004. Daniel Boone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Winchester, Kentucky. ______. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement Daniel Boone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Winchester, Kentucky. ______. 1996. The Southern National Forest’s Migratory and Resident Landbird Conservation Strategy. Atlanta, GA. U.S. Forest Service, Center of Aquatic Technology Transfer. 1999. An Inventory of Stream Habitat and Blackside Dace Phoxinus cumberlandensis in North Fork and Little Dog Slaughter Creek, Daniel Boone National Forest. Warren, Melvin L. Jr. & Wendell R. Haag. 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1383-1400. Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society 18(9):6-22. Wood, Paul J. & Patrick D. Armitage. 1997. Biological Effects of Fine Sediment in the Lotic Environment. Environmental Management Vol. 21, No. 2:203-217. Yaussy, Daniel A.(editor). 2000. Proceedings: Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central Hardwoods Landscape. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-274, Newtown Square, PA, USA.

27 Appendix Figure 1. Proposed Actions in Spring Creek Vegetation Management Proposal; Creekville Quadrangle

28 Figure 2. Action Area for Spring Creek Vegetation Management Proposal; Creekville Quadrangle

29 Table 6. Proposed Actions in Spring Creek Vegetation Management Proposal Compartment- Unit # Treatment Acres Stand 1 2802-36 Shelterwood with Reserves 40 2 2802-34 Crop tree release 55 3 2803-08 Crop tree release 29 4 2803-05 Crop tree release 27 5 2803-04 Thinning 45 6 2805-02 Crop tree release 37 7 2805-07 Crop tree release 42 8 2805-12 Shelterwood with Reserves 40 9 2805-14 Thinning 36 10 2805-15 Crop tree release 24 11 2805-28 Crop tree release 35 Total Acreage: 410

30