Jesse and Toni Kidd Marina Relocation & Facilities Placement McCreary & Pulaski Counties, Kentucky

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE Biological Assessment and

SOUTHERN REGION Evaluation

DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST Prepared for:

Stearns Ranger District KENTUCKY Whitley City, Kentucky

October 5, 2009

Prepared by: Douglas E. Stephens P. O. Box 243 Whitley City, KY 42653 [email protected]

Please direct correspondence to: Jesse and Toni Kidd, 1845 North Hwy 27 - Whitley City, KY 42653

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 3 Summary of Effect Determinations ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Consultation History ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 6 Species Considered and Species Evaluated ...... 9 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 9 Designated Critical Habitat ...... 11 USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species ...... 12 Evaluated Species Survey Information ...... 14 Environmental Baseline for the Species Evaluated in this BAE ...... 15 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 15 USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species ...... 23 Effects of Proposed Action on Each Species and Segment of Critical Habitat Evaluated ... 25 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 25 Designated critical habitat ...... 27 USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species ...... 28 Determination(s) of Effects & Rationale ...... 29 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 29 Proposed (USFWS Threatened or Endangered) Species ...... 31 Designated Critical Habitat ...... 32 USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species ...... 32 Mitigation Measures ...... 36 Appendix A ...... 47 Maps of Proposed Project ...... 47 Appendix B ...... 54 Pictures of Project Area ...... 54

2 Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BAE) for Jesse and Toni Kidd Marina Relocation and Facilities Placement Project on Daniel Boone National Forest - Stearns Ranger District McCreary and Pulaski Counties, Kentucky

Abstract

This proposed project involves relocating an existing marina from the mouth of the Rockcastle River to near the mouth of Beaver Creek on the Cumberland River (Lake Cumberland) in McCreary and Pulaski Counties, KY. The project involves both private property and public lands managed by the U. S. Forest Service (USFS). This BAE will evaluate potential effects of building a marina, boat ramp, parking area, breakwater fishing pier, road improvements, and placing underground utility lines on public land managed by the USFS (Daniel Boone National Forest). Approximately 12,237 linear feet of underground electric and water lines will be placed from a tract of personal property in Pulaski County, across federal lands, and back onto private property owned by Jesse and Toni Kidd. The project (Figure 1) occurs in northern McCreary County and southeastern Pulaski County, Kentucky along Hewling Ridge Road, Bauer Road and FS 5333 (Sediment Pond Road) on the Hail 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

Summary of Effect Determinations Federally Listed Species Not Likely to Likely to Species No Effect Adversely Effect Adversely Effect Gray Bat X Indiana Bat X Virginia Big-eared Bat X Duskytail Darter X Palezone Shiner X Blackside Dace X Cumberland Elktoe 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 Designated Critical Habitat Not Likely to Likely to Site Name No Effect Adversely Modify Adversely Modify Buck Creek, Marsh Creek, X Rock Creek, Sinking Creek X

3 Introduction

This Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BAE) is responsive to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to disclose effects on listed species and their habitats. Additionally, this document provides a standard process to provide full consideration of federally proposed, endangered, threatened (PET) and sensitive species (S) and their habitats and designated critical habitat in the decision-making process. For further information regarding the objectives, standards, and procedures used in this BAE process, see section 2672.4 of Forest Service Manual 2600. More specifically, this BAE will address and evaluate the effects of the actions proposed by Jesse and Toni Kidd’s marina relocation project on federally threatened, endangered, proposed species and designated critical habitats; and Forest Service sensitive species listed in this document.

The following information complies with the statutory requirements to use the best scientific and commercial information available when assessing the risks posed to listed and/or proposed species and designated and/or proposed critical habitat by these actions.

The proposed project area is located along the western edge of the Pottsville Escarpment within the Cumberland Plateau physiographic region in northern McCreary and southeastern Pulaski Counties, Kentucky. The western boundary of the project occurs within the transition zone of Pennsylvanian and Mississippian strata. It occurs east of US 27 and west of the Cumberland River, near the McCreary/Pulaski County line. Roads involved in the project area include Hewling Ridge Road (FS 832), Bauer Road (PUL 50), and Sediment Pond Road (FS 5333). The private land upon which the electric and water lines originate for this project is accessible via PUL 5165 (Figure 1, Appendix A). The proposed project is located approximately 4.7 miles NNE of Greenwood, Kentucky on the central section of the Hail 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle map. The coordinates for near the center of the proposed project area discussed in this report are approximately N 36.938439 W -84.437868.

Consultation History

Jesse Kidd, Owner/Operator of proposed marina project 18 May 2009, September 2009 - project location and details; route for placement of utility lines

Joe Metzmeier, Wildlife Biologist, Stearns Ranger District, Daniel Boone NF, Whitley City, KY May, August 2009 – known species locations and species concerns in the project area

Laurie Smith, Supervisory Forester (ORA), Stearns Ranger District, Daniel Boone NF, Whitley City, KY 11 September 2009 – scope of project; GIS information

4

Figure 1. General location of Marina Relocation Project in McCreary/Pulaski Counties, KY

5

Proposed Action

This report will assess potential impacts by Jesse and Toni Kidd’s planned marina relocation project that includes placement of approximately 12,237 linear feet of 4-inch schedule 80 waterline and 12, 237 linear feet of underground 7200/1440 Kvolt electrical line. These utilities will originate at private property owned by Steve Ritchie (off PUL 5165 in Pulaski County), travel across public lands managed by the United States Forest Service (through a wooded tract, along Sediment Pond Road (FS 5333), Bauer Road (PUL 50), and Hewling Ridge Road (FS 832)), onto private property owned by Jesse and Toni Kidd in McCreary County, and again onto public land at Lake Cumberland. Originally located at the mouth of the Rockcastle River, this marina (formerly London Dock) will be relocated to the Cumberland River (Lake Cumberland) near the mouth of Beaver Creek. A boat ramp, concrete parking lot, and breakwater fishing pier is also planned at the site of the marina. Some improvements to Hewling Ridge Road (FS 832) will also occur to accommodate vehicular traffic.

The electric and water lines will be buried at a depth of 48-inches and 36-inches, respectively, and will be placed a minimum of 36-inches apart. Excavation to place the utility lines will be accomplished by a trencher with every effort made to minimize tree removal. Most of the route of the utility lines occurs along old “logging” roads and along the shoulders of existing roadways and will require no tree removal. A small section of logging road, near the origin of the utilities (easternmost section - see Appendix A), has some saplings (tuliptree and Virginia pine) that will be eliminated by the trenching. One section, off FS 5333 (Sediment Pond Road), will traverse a forested area to connect to another small “logging” road that continues to the private property owned by Steve Ritchie. The section of forested area will require removal of some small trees (see Appendix B). The utility lines will cross a small, dry streambed (Tom Clark Hollow) near the origin of the utilities (Appendix A & Appendix B). Another short section of forested habitat will be crossed with the utility lines to avoid a sandstone outcropping in a curve on Hewling Ridge Road (see Appendix B). No large trees will need to be removed in that section to accommodate the utility lines. This BAE will address that portion of the project that occurs on land managed by the United States Forest Service.

Best management practices will be used to minimize erosion. This will consist of the use of straw bales and/or silt fencing in areas with high erosion potential and subsequent re-vegetation with an approved seed mixture after the trenching and placement of the utility lines are concluded. No exotic plant species will be used in the re-vegetation. Species such as annual rye may be used to provide quick cover in the disturbed areas.

Proposed Action Area Information (see Appendix A and Appendix B)

The entire area for the proposed marina relocation project was walked with Jesse Kidd to determine the planned route of features such as the utility lines. During this site visit, the exact route of the utility lines was aligned so as to not impact any trees that could serve as potential Indiana Bat summer roost trees. Potential trees were identified nearby to prevent accidental impact during construction activities. The placement of the facilities (electric and water), road improvements, and structures (ramp, parking lots, marina, etc.) will not require removal of any

6 trees determined to be suitable for potential Indiana bat summer roost habitat. Suitable trees occur near the area of disturbance but will not be removed or damaged by proposed project activities.

Hewling Ridge Road (FS 832)

The proposed utility lines will be buried along the shoulder of Hewling Ridge Road and will avoid forested areas, with the exception of a short cut-through to avoid an exposed sandstone outcropping (road cut) in a curve on the road (Appendix B). This cut-through area has scattered larger trees, such as Chestnut oak, mockernut hickory, red maple, northern red oak, and black oak. Since these trees are widely scattered, trenching through the forested area can be accomplished with removal of only a few small understory trees (sourwood, black gum, serviceberry, flowering dogwood, and red maple). Shrubs occurring in this tract include Kalmia latifolia, Vibernum acerifolium, Rhododendron nudiflorum, Clethra acuminata, and Vaccinium sp. Other species included poison ivy, Smilax sp., and striped wintergreen. Passage through a “clear-cut, drum-chopped area (approximately 5-years old) will also be required to connect back to the shoulder of Hewling Ridge Road. This will necessitate removal of several small saplings (approximately 8-10 feet tall).

Much of the roadside habitat along Hewling Ridge Road consisted of clear-cut areas that have been drum-chopped recently, as well as sections of forested habitat. Within the “clear-cuts” are scattered trees, some of which are dead and have sloughing bark. Some dead trees with sloughing bark also occur near the shoulder of the road (see Appendix B) in a few locations. Tree species occurring along the road include shortleaf pine, Virgina pine, winged sumac, pignut hickory, sourwood, scarlet oak, flowering dogwood, tuliptree, red maple, persimmon, southern red oak, black gum, chestnut oak, sassafras, devils club, redbud, white oak, and serviceberry. Shrubs included mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and blueberries (Vaccinium sp.). Herbaceous plants observed were Tridens flava, tall fescue, Panicum anceps, sensitive brier, greenbrier, colic root, hoary mountain mint, Rudbeckii sp., Desmodium sp., golden aster, great blue lobelia, several Eupatorium sp., goldenrods, Vitis sp., Spiranthes lacera, elephantsfoot, common ragweed, bracken fern, wingstem, mistflower, Chinese lespedeza, crown vetch, poison ivy, hog peanut, dogbane, and rose pink (Sabatia angularis). Some scattered Indian grass, big blue stem, and little blue stem also occurred along the roadside.

The distance from the junction of Bauer Road to the private property owned by Jesse and Toni Kidd is 1.6 miles.

Bauer Road (PUL 50)

The proposed utility lines will also be place along the shoulder of Bauer Road for a distance of 0.2 miles before traveling down Sediment Pond Road. Forested habitat along this route consists of upland, ridgetop oak-pine with mixed hardwoods. No trees along this route will be affected by the proposed utility placement.

7 Sediment Pond Road (FS 5333)

The underground electric and water lines will be placed within the corridor of this older road. No trees will be removed to facilitate placement of the utilities. Most of the length of this road is dominated by exotic species such as Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Chinese lespedeza, crown vetch, autumn olive, multiflora rose, privet, tall fescue, and japanese honeysuckle. Other plants observed along the road include common ragweed, nodding thistle, common plantain, wild strawberry, poison ivy, wild carrot, Rubus sp., raspberry, red cedar, wingstem, Virginia creeper, elephantsfoot, Desmodium sp., Tridens flava, Laportia sp., elderberry, goldenrod, Panicum anceps, Boehmeria cylindrica, pokeweed, jumpseed (Polygonum sp.), wild cherry, Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, post oak, red maple, chestnut oak, flowering dogwood, and deertongue. Some big blue stem (Andropogon gerardii) also occurred near the junction with Bauer Road.

A small sandstone outcropping (cliffline) occurred near the road (approximately 25-feet upslope) at one location (Appendix B). Because of the presence of crevices within the sandstone cliff, this site may offer limited habitat for species such as small-footed bat. This site, however, will not be impacted by the trencher during placement of the water and electric utility lines.

Section through Forested Area (at end of FS 5333)

This area consisted of a relatively young forest with few scattered larger trees (> 14” dbh). Larger trees included species such as shortleaf pine, northern red oak, white ash, and white oak. The smaller trees within the forested tract included winged elm, red maple, winged sumac, American holly, black gum, serviceberry, sourwood, chestnut oak, mockernut hickory, and tuliptree. Shrubs documented within this tract included Vaccinium sp., Rhododendron nudiflorum, and Vibernum acerifolium. One dead shortleaf pine fell within the excavation route for the utilities. This tree, however, had no remaining bark (it had been dead since the previous southern pine beetle outbreak) and offers no bat habitat. In this general area, a sandstone cliffline occurred upslope approximately 150’ from the area of disturbance for the utilities. Some larger white oaks occur nearby in the forested area. These trees may provide secondary roost habitat for Indiana bats but will not be affected by the excavation for the utilities.

Old Logging Road near Private Property

The proposed route of the utility lines will only traverse the forested tract for a short length then travel along an old “logging” road for the remainder of the distance to the private property (owned by Steve Ritchie) where the electric and water originate for the project. Along this logging road, a relatively “dense” area consisting of spicebush and wingstem (Verbisena alternifolia) will be excavated. A small section of Virgina pine and tuliptree saplings also occur along this logging road. The utility lines will also cross a dry stream bed (Tom Clark Hollow) prior to entering the private property.

No wetlands were documented in or near the area of disturbance for the project. Although sandstone cliffline and outcropping do occur in the general vicinity of the project, no cliffline

8 habitat will be encroached upon by any planned activities. No caves or old mine portals were found within the area of disturbance for the project. There are some small cave openings within 0.1 mile of the beginning of the utility route on the western boundary of the project (Appendix A) but no record of Indiana bats exist for these small cave openings. Also, Indiana bats are known from Goldson Cave, approximately 0.5 miles from the utilities place of origin on private property. Proximity of the entire proposed project to Goldson Cave is shown in Appendix A.

Species Considered and Species Evaluated

Threatened and Endangered Species

All federally Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species and designated critical habitat identified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest and all species identified as Sensitive on the Daniel Boone National Forest by the Regional Forester were considered in this BAE.

Twenty-one (21) federally listed species were identified as potentially occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest by the USFWS, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, in a letter dated March 16, 2009. These species are listed in the following table.

Group Species Common Name Status Mammal Myotis grisescens Gray Bat E Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat E Plecotus townsendii virginianus Virginia Big-eared Bat E Fish Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail Darter E Notropis albizonatus Palezone Shiner E Phoxinus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace T Mussel Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Elktoe E Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell E Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell E Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel E Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell E Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell E Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket E Pegias fabula Little-wing Pearlymussel E Villosa trabalis Cumberland Bean Pearlymussel E Plant Arenaria cumberlandensis Cumberland Sandwort E Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary T Schwalbea americana American Chaffseed E Solidago albopilosa White-haired Goldenrod T Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea T Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover E Status ‘E’ indicates the species is listed as ‘Endangered’ by USFWS. Status ‘T’ indicates the species is listed as ‘Threatened’ by USFWS.

9 Nineteen (19) species have ranges that are well outside this proposed project’s influence or do not have suitable habitat within the area of influence of this project. These nineteen species are:

Reason for dismissal from Species Common name Status Associated habitat further analysis Plecotus townsendii Virginia big- Limestone caves Suitable habitat and/or current virginianus eared bat E and sandstone known distribution not within clifflines area of influence. Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail darter Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Notropis albizonatus Palezone shiner Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Suitable habitat and/or current Phoxinus Small, cool known distribution not within Blackside dace T cumberlandensis headwater streams area of influence. Only in Cumberland River drainage. Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Slow moving Suitable habitat and/or current Elktoe E streams known distribution not within area of influence. Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Suitable habitat and/or current Cumberlandian Large streams and known distribution not within Epioblasma brevidens E combshell rivers area of influence.

Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Epioblasma florentina Tan riffleshell Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current walkeri E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Epioblasma torulosa Northerrn Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current rangiana riffleshell E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Lampsilis abrupta Pink mucket Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Pegias fabula Little-wing Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current pearlymussel E rivers known distribution not within area of influence. Villosa trabalis Cumberland Large streams and Suitable habitat and/or current bean E rivers known distribution not within pearlymussel area of influence. Arenaria cumberlandensis Cumberland Sandstone cliffs Suitable habitat and/or current sandwort E known distribution not within area of influence. Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rock/cobble bars Suitable habitat and/or current rosemary T along large streams known distribution not within and rivers area of influence.

10 Reason for dismissal from Species Common name Status Associated habitat further analysis Schwalbea americana American Generally wet Suitable habitat and/or current Chaffseed grassy and dry known distribution not within E open wooded, both area of influence. with periodic fire Solidago albopilosa White-haired Sandstone cliffs, Suitable habitat and/or current goldenrod T Powell County, KY known distribution not within area of influence. Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Edges of large Current known distribution not T rivers within area of influence. Trifolium stoloniferum Running Limestone based or Suitable habitat and/or current buffalo clover E other calcareous known distribution not within soils area of influence.

The known distributions of the above listed species are outside of this proposed project’s area of influence or do not have suitable habitat within the area of influence of this proposed project. Consequently, the proposed action will have “no effect” on these species and they will not be discussed in further detail in this report.

The two federally-listed species that are known to occur or have suitable habitat within or near the area of influence for this proposed project, and thus, have been selected for detailed analysis in this BAE, include the following:

Group Species Common Name Status Mammal Myotis grisescens Gray Bat E Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat E

Designated Critical Habitat

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 in the Federal Register notice dated 31 August 2004. These four stream segments are listed in the following table.

Designated critical habitat on the DBNF. Stream Associated Species Administrative Designated Segment Name Location Buck Creek Epioblasma brevidens and London Ranger Buck Creek mainstem from State Road 192 Epioblasma capsaeformis District bridge, upstream to the State Road 328 bridge Marsh Creek Alasmidonta atropurpurea Stearns Ranger Marsh Creek mainstem from its confluence District with the Cumberland River, upstream to State Road 92 bridge Rock Creek Alasmidonta atropurpurea Stearns Ranger Rock Creek mainstem from its confluence with District White Oak Creek, upstream to River Mile 15.9 Sinking Creek Alasmidonta atropurpurea London Ranger Sinking Creek mainstem from its confluence District with the Rockcastle River, upstream to its confluence with Laurel Branch

11 The proposed project and its area of influence are not located within the watersheds of any designated critical habitat and therefore will have “no effect” on them and they will not be considered further in this BAE.

USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species

Seventy-two (72) species are currently on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list for the Daniel Boone National Forest, dated 21 August 2001, as corrected. These species are listed below.

Group Species Common Name Status Mammal Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat S Myotis austroriparius *Southeastern myotis S Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat S Sorex dispar blitchi *Long-tailed shrew S Bird Aimophila aestivalis *Bachman's sparrow S Falco peregrinus *Peregrine Falcon S Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle S Thryomanes bewickii altus *Appalachian Bewick's wren S Fish Ammocrypta clara *Western sand darter S Ammocrypta pellucida *Eastern sand darter S Etheostoma susanae *Cumberland Johnny darter S Etheostoma cinereum *Ashy darter S Etheostoma maculatum *Spotted darter S Etheostoma tippecanoe *Tippecanoe darter S Ichthyomyzon greeleyi *Mountain brook lamprey S Noturus stigmosus *Northern madtom S Percina burtoni *Blotchside logperch S Percina macrocephala *Longhead darter S Percina squamata *Olive darter S Typhlichthys subterraneus *Southern cavefish S Mussel Anodontoides denigratus *Cumberland papershell S Cumberlandia monodonta *Spectaclecase S Epioblasma triquetra *Snuffbox S Fusconaia subrotunda subrotunda *Long-solid S Plethobasus cyphyus *Sheepnose S Pleurobema oviforme *Tennessee clubshell S Pleurobema rubrum *Pyramid pigtoe S Ptychobranchus subtentum *Fluted kidneyshell S Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica *Rabbitsfoot S Simpsonaias ambigua *Salamander mussel S Toxolasma lividus *Purple Lilliput S Gastropod Paravitrea placentula *Glossy supercoil S Pleurocera curta *Shortspire hornsnail S

12 Group Species Common Name Status Rhodacme elatior *Domed ancylid S Vertigo bollesiana *Delicate vertigo S Vertigo clappi *Cupped vertigo S Crustacean Cambarus bouchardi *Big South Fork crayfish S Insect Cheumatopsyche helma *Helma's net-spinning caddisfly S Manophylax butleri *Cliffline caddisfly S Ophiogomphus howei *Pygmy snaketail S Pyrgus wyandot *Appalachian grizzled skipper S Speyeria diana Diana fritillary S Speyeria idalia *Regal fritillary S Vascular Plant Aster saxicastellii *Rockcastle aster S Aureolaria patula *Spreading yellow false foxglove S Berberis canadensis *American barberry S Carex juniperorum *Juniper sedge S Cleistes bifaria *Small spreading pogonia S Collinsonia verticillata *Stoneroot S Cypripedium kentuckiense *Kentucky Lady's slipper S Dodecatheon frenchii *French's shooting star S Hexastylis contracta *Mountain heartleaf S Juglans cinerea *Butternut S Lesquerella globosa *Short’s (Globe) bladderpod S Marshallia grandiflora *Large-flowered Barbara's buttons S Monotropsis odorata *Sweet pinesap S Paxistima canbyi *Canby's mountain-lover S Platanthera integrilabia *White fringeless orchid S Schisandra glabra *Bay starvine S Scutellaria arguta *Hairy skullcap S Scutellaria saxatilis *Rock skullcap S Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia *Southern Oconee bells S Silene ovata *Blue Ridge catchfly S Silene regia *Royal catchfly S Thalictrum mirabile *Little Mountain meadowrue S Thaspium pinnatifidum *Cutleaved meadow parsnip S Vitis rupestris *Sand grape S Nonvasc. Plant Hygrohypnum closteri *Closter's brook-hypnum S Plagiochila austinii *A liverwort S Plagiochila sullivantii var sullivantii *Sullivant's leafy liverwort S Radula sullivantii *A liverwort S Scopelophila cataractae *Agoyan cataract moss S Status ‘S’ means the species is listed by the Regional Forester (R8, Southern Region) as ‘Sensitive’ and occurs or is likely to occur on the Daniel Boone National Forest.

13 Species marked by an “*” in the above table are not considered in greater detail in this BAE for these reasons: the species is not likely to occur in the area of the project on the Stearns Ranger District; and/or historic and current field records/surveys for the species do not include the Cumberland River drainage or the Stearns Ranger District; and/or habitat for these species is not found within the area of influence for the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed action will have no effect on these species.

Those Regional Forester’s Sensitive species that are known to occur or have suitable habitat within the Stearns Ranger District and/or the Cumberland River drainage and may occur in or near the area of influence for this proposed project, and thus, have been selected for detailed analysis in this BAE are marked with bold type in the above table and include the following:

Group Species Common Name Status Mammal Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat S Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat S Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle S Insect Manophylax butleri Cliffline caddisfly S Speyeria diana Diana fritillary S

Evaluated Species Survey Information

Prior to conducting field surveys for this project, the PET and Sensitive species records for the Stearns Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest were reviewed. The District records contain location information for rare species that have been documented by Forest Service personnel, contract biologists, local universities, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. I met with Joe Metzmeier (Wildlife Biologist) at the Stearns Ranger District office during May and August 2009 to review the species records and check locations of forest service land relative to the proposed project.

Site visits to the proposed project area were conducted on 18 May 2009 (initial site survey) and on 27 August 2009 to assess the status of rare species. During these visits, the entire length of the proposed underground utility lines and the marina site (including roads, parking area, boat ramp, piers, etc.) was walked to visually document plant species and communities and search for rare species and their habitats. Other field investigations in the vicinity of the project included observations of fauna and flipping of rocks and logs. I also searched for the presence of wetlands, cliffline habitat, mine portals, caves, and other habitat types within and near the area of influence. Plants were identified in the field and notes were recorded. Presence of the federally- endangered Indiana bat is assumed at the site since a known hibernaculum has been documented in Pulaski County, approximately one-half mile away from the westernmost section of the utility lines (Joe Metzmeier and John MacGregor, personal communication) and suitable habitat exists in the project area. A search was made to locate and mark any potential summer roost trees within the area of disturbance for this project to avoid impacts to Indiana bats. No new occurrences of federally-listed threatened or endangered or Regional Forester designated sensitive species were documented by this investigation.

14 Environmental Baseline for the Species Evaluated in this BAE

Analysis Area – aquatic species The aquatic analysis area includes Tom Clark Hollow and an unnamed tributary in the western section of the utility line placement (Appendix A) and Lake Cumberland / Cumberland River downstream of the confluence of Beaver Creek.

Analysis Area – terrestrial species The terrestrial analysis area is the area of disturbance for excavating for the proposed underground utility lines, road improvement areas, and along the proposed road improvements and marina area (including parking area, boat ramp, pier, and associated facilities, approximately 25-feet along each side of the disturbance area. For terrestrial species, activities conducted within the action sites will not impact areas or habitats outside of the project area of influence.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) – Endangered

The gray bat was described as a distinct species in 1909 from specimens collected at Nickajack Cave, Marion County, Tennessee (Decher and Choate 1995). It can be distinguished from other larger Myotis by its long forearm (typically 40 to 46 mm), the attachment of the wing membrane to the ankle rather than on the foot and by its uniformly gray color from the base to tip of the hair (Barbour and Davis 1969; Barbour and Davis 1974; USFWS 1982; Sealander and Heidt 1990). Apparently, gray bat declines began during the nineteenth century when exploitation of caves first began on a large scale due to the mining of saltpeter, onyx, and other cave minerals, but the rate of decline accelerated during the 1960’s and 1970’s due to the growing popularity in spelunking (USFWS 1982). The most drastic population declines have occurred primarily from visitation of critical wintering and summering caves, as well as human induced alterations of habitat. Prior to these declines, individual hibernacula contained populations of gray bats ranging from 100,000 to 1,500,000 or more bats. In 1982, the USFWS estimated that if gray bats continued to decline at a rate of 54% every six years there should have only been 100,000 gray bats left in 2000. Such declines did not continue and the population has recovered to the point where biologists are discussing the potential of down-listing the species from endangered to threatened.

Currently, only two caves are known to support an extensive winter population in Kentucky. The Coach and Jesse James Cave systems near Mammoth Cave National Park support a hibernating population of more than 269,500 bats as of 2005 (Pers. com. Traci Hemberger, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Bat Biologist, 2006). This represents more than 169,500 more bats than Barbour and Davis (1974) estimated for these same cave systems.

The USFWS listed the gray bat as an endangered species on April 28, 1976 and the bat received protection under the ESA. Following its listing, a recovery plan was published by the USFWS in 1982.

15

Gray bats are restricted to the limestone karst areas of the eastern and southern United States (Hall 1981; Hall and Wilson 1966; USFWS 1982). Major populations occur in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, but a few smaller populations occur in northwestern Florida, western Georgia, southeastern Kansas, southern Indiana and Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi and western Virginia (Barbour and Davis 1969; Tuttle 1979; USFWS 1982). The majority of the wintering populations occur in only nine caves, primarily found in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. According to the USFWS (1982), approximately 95% of the range wide population is found in nine hibernacula with more than half in a single cave. Based on the 1982 Recovery Plan, ten Priority-One hibernacula are listed for the gray bat with three each in Missouri and Tennessee, and one each in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Kentucky. Until recently (1999), the Jesse James Cave was the only major gray bat hibernaculum in Kentucky (Wethington 2001). Jesse James Cave harbored 300,000 bats during the 1997 census period. During this time the only other notable hibernaculum was Dixon Cave, which contained 975 individual bats (Wethington 2001).

Recent cave restoration efforts at nearby Coach Cave have produced the necessary conditions (e.g. humidity, temperature) to attract gray bats and the population has increased from 1 bat in 1997 to 264,000 in 2005 (KDFWR, Unpublished data). However, it is thought that most of these bats have moved from nearby Jesse James Cave. Historical surveys have documented 269,500 gray bats between the Coach and Jesse James Cave systems; however, these surveys are considered incomplete due to temporary inaccessibility of a large room known to hold gray bats in Jesse James Cave. At the time, these caves were considered to account for 99% of Kentucky’s winter gray bat population.

Gray bats require cave-like habitats throughout the year, so the species’ summer distribution only occurs throughout a slightly larger geographic area than its winter distribution. Gray bats can establish maternity and bachelor colonies in dams, under bridges and in storm sewers, which enables them to venture away from karst regions. According to the USFWS (1982), 30 different caves are listed as Priority One maternity colony sites with eight in Missouri, six each in Alabama and Tennessee, four in Kentucky, three in Florida, two in Arkansas, and one in Illinois.

The gray bat arrives at cave hibernacula during September through October each year. Ninety- five percent of the entire population hibernates in only nine caves in the limestone karst region of the eastern/southern United States (Lacki 1994). These bats typically form dense clusters of up to several thousand individuals on cave ceilings and walls where cave temperatures range from5.6 to 11.1 degrees Celsius (42.1 to 52.0 degrees Fahrenheit) (Sealander and Heidt 1991; Hall1962). According to Hall (1962), gray bats will choose areas with a slightly warmer temperature than Indiana bats. However, as with Indiana bats, stable low temperatures allow gray bats to maintain a low rate of metabolism and conserve fat reserves through the winter until spring emergence (Humphrey 1978; Richter et al. 1993). Cave configurations determine internal environments, and larger more complex cave systems having multiple entrances are more likely to provide suitable habitat for hibernating bats (Tuttle and Stevenson 1978; LaVal and LaVal 1980).

Copulation in gray bats occurs in late fall prior to hibernation (Sealander and Heidt 1990; Barbour and Davis 1969). Once mating has occurred, the females immediately go into

16 hibernation. Some mate and enter hibernation in early September, but all do so by early October (USFWS 1982). After mating, the males remain active for several weeks, during which time the fat reserves that were depleted during the mating season are replenished. While adult males and juveniles of both sexes tend to enter hibernation several weeks later than females, most are in hibernation by early November. Consequently, stored fat reserves must last six to seven months to ensure survival of the bats.

Adult female gray bats are the first to emerge from hibernation in late March and early April, followed by juveniles of both sexes and adult males (Tuttle 1976). Most juveniles and adult males leave the hibernacula between mid-April and mid-May. Gray bats are known to disperse at distances of 17 to 525 km to summer locations (Sealander and Heidt 1990; Tuttle 1976). Hall and Wilson (1966) indicated that summer colonies that were scattered over an area of 10,500 square miles in Kentucky, southern Illinois, and Tennessee migrated to a single cave in Edmonson County, Kentucky. Gray bats are very loyal to their home range and to where they disperse after hibernation, most using the same roosting and foraging sites from year to year (USFWS 1982). This dispersal period in early spring is highly stressful because fat reserves and food supplies are low at that time, yielding a high adult mortality in late March and early April (Tuttle and Stevenson 1978).

Summer maternity colonies of gray bats are generally found in large caves containing streams (Sealander and Heidt 1990). These colonies range from a few hundred to several thousand individuals in large caves near the central portion of the eastern United States. Undisturbed summer colonies in Tennessee and Alabama contain between 5,000 to 250,000 or more bats with most averaging 10,000 to 50,000 individuals (Tuttle 1979). The relative humidity in maternity caves can range from 86–99% (Decher and Choate 1995). Males and non-reproductive females tend to form bachelor colonies in less suitable caves within 30 km of maternity sites (BCI 1999). Although mating occurs in late fall, female gray bats have a delayed ovulation with fertilization occurring in late March to early April when they emerge from hibernation (Sealander and Heidt 1990; Guthrie and Jeffers 1938). In late-May to mid-June, each female gives birth to a single pup which matures rapidly. Growth rate is faster in colonies with large numbers of bats due to the energy saved from decreased heat dissipation by clustering behavior and the selection of roost in heat-trapping domes and related cave structures (Tuttle 1975). Tuttle (1975) also noted that the growth rate of non-volant young is positively correlated with colony size. Increasing numbers of bats roosting together reduces the thermoregulatory cost per individual (Herreid 1963, 1967). Growth rates are also positively affected by higher ambient cave temperatures and porous or domed ceilings at roost sites. The female generally leaves the young in the roost while foraging. The first flight of the young usually occurs 20 to 25 days after birth, but in colonies of reduced size this may increase to 30 to 35 days (Sealander and Heidt 1990; Tuttle 1975). For newly volant young, growth rates and survival are inversely proportional to the distance of their roost to the nearest available over-water foraging habitat (Tuttle 1975). After the young are weaned, the maternity colony disperses. Most nursery caves are abandoned by August or early September.

As with most bats, gray bats emerge from caves or other roosts at dusk to forage for insects. They most often forage over bodies of water (reservoirs and streams), but do also forage in riparian vegetation and over land (Sealander and Heidt 1990; LaVal et al. 1977). Studies have indicated that gray bats usually forage below treetop height, sometimes as low as two meters or

17 lower. LaVal et al. (1977) also suggested that while gray bats forage over even the smallest, permanently-flowing streams, the majority use larger streams. Tuttle (1979) estimated that a maternity colony of 250,000 bats may consume as much as a ton of insects each night. Decher and Choate (1995) stated that the main prey of gray bats consisted of several genera and at least six species of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Rabinowitz and Tuttle (1982) said that gray bats selected foraging areas with abundant mayflies. Some studies have indicated that mayflies were less abundant in fecal pellet studies in Kentucky and Indiana (Lacki et al. 1995; Whitaker et al. 2001). However, Decher and Choate (1995) have suggested that fecal pellet studies are biased against mayflies because they are more digestible by the bat with less identifiable remains in the fecal pellets. This is especially true if the wings are culled by the bat prior to consumption (Rabinowitz and Tuttle 1982).

Based on food studies using fecal pellets, it appears that the gray bat is primarily an opportunistic feeder, feeding on the most abundant aquatic insects available at the time (Lacki et al. 1995; Whitaker et al. 2001). Documented orders of insects consumed include Diptera (primarily midges (Chironomidae)), Trichoptera (caddisflies), Coleoptera (beetles), and Lepidoptera (moths). Whitaker et al (2001) found some chironomid pupae, indicating that the gray bat apparently gathered this species by skimming the surface of the water during foraging. LaVal and LaVal (1980) indicated a dietary preference of Plecoptera (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies), comprising up to 98% of insects consumed. They also suggested that the types of insects consumed were dependent on the phase of the moon with variances in light affecting foraging location.

During peak insect abundance in early evening, many gray bats feed in slow flying groups, but when insect numbers drop later in the evening, they become more territorial (Tuttle 1976). Tuttle suggests that territories appear to be controlled by reproductive females. Depending on prey abundance, these territories may be occupied by from one to as many as fifteen or more individuals. During lactation, some females feed continually for more than seven hours in a single night to help them maintain higher body temperatures at relatively cool roosts. Most gray bats live less than 16 years with a few surviving longer than 30 years (BCI 1999). Natural predators include screech owls, raccoons, bullfrogs, and snakes.

A population of gray bats is known from the Sloans Valley Cave system, approximately 4.5 miles WNW of this proposed project.

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) - Endangered

Because the Indiana bat’s strong resemblance to the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), it was not described as a separate species until 1928 (Miller and Allen, 1928) from a specimen collected in Wyandotte Cave, Crawford County, Indiana. Since its description as a separate species, the Indiana bat has suffered drastic population declines primarily due to human induced alterations of winter habitat. Commercialization and mining of “saltpeter” at significant caves have created environments, especially warmer temperatures, which are unsuitable or marginal for hibernating Indiana bats.

18 In 1974, Barbour and Davis estimated the Indiana bat populations in the Mammoth Cave National Park region and at Carter Caves State Park, both in Kentucky, to be approximately 200,000 individuals, but determined that “the numbers are declining in spite of the protection”. During this time, numerous examples of human impacts to the Indiana bat were documented, such as a maintenance worker at a commercial cave near Mammoth Cave National Park who commented that he swept up large numbers of bats every morning prior to opening the gift store which was constructed over an entrance of a significant Indiana bat cave, (Pers. com. John MacGregor, Indiana bat Recovery Team Member). Such activities and associated declines in Indiana bat populations resulted in the Indiana bat’s current status as an endangered species.

On March 11, 1967, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Indiana bat as an endangered species; however, the bat did not receive federal protection until the ESA was legislated years later. Several years following its listing, an Indiana bat recovery plan was developed that identifies habitat requirements, critical habitat, potential causes for declines, and recovery objectives. The recovery plan was reviewed and published by the USFWS in 1983. Currently, the recovery team and USFWS are reviewing new information and revising the recovery plan.

The range of the Indiana bat includes much of the eastern United States. It occurs from Oklahoma, Iowa and Wisconsin northeast to Vermont, and south to northwestern Florida and northern Arkansas (Barbour and Davis, 1969). The majority of the wintering population occurs within the limestone cave region of Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri. However, more recently large colonies have been found in some abandoned underground mines in Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, and New York. According to the USFWS (1999), more than 85 % of the population is found in nine Priority One hibernacula, of which Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky each contain three. As of the 2000/2001 surveying period, 382,350 Indiana bats were estimated range-wide and hibernacula that contained these bats was present in 12 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (Clawson, 2002). In Kentucky, the Indiana bat winter population is estimated to be 47,900 individuals scattered between hibernacula (Clawson, 2002). Currently, critical winter habitat has been established and includes 11 caves and two mines, including six in Missouri, two each in Kentucky and Indiana; and one each in Illinois, Tennessee, and West Virginia (USFWS, 1999).

Summer distribution of the Indiana bat occurs throughout a wider geographic area than winter distribution. The core summer range includes southern Iowa, northern Missouri, northern Illinois, northern Indiana, southern Michigan, and western Ohio. However, population distributions during the summer are poorly understood due to information gaps that exist regarding the known maternity colonies and the unknown frequency of movement between roost sites. Summer colonies of Indiana bats occur as far north as Vermont, New York, and Michigan, as far south as Alabama, Tennessee, and Missouri, and as far west as Iowa. Based on recent information, it appears that summer colonies are less frequently encountered in mountainous terrain, and such colonies are usually smaller in size and more nomadic in nature. Britzke et al. (2003) found three maternity colony sites in the mountains of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, but failed to relocate the colonies at the same roost sites the following year. In non- mountainous terrain in Michigan and Vermont, researchers have been tracking the same colonies

19 for more than five consecutive years and the bats seem to show some degree of site fidelity to a given area (Kurta, 2004; Scott Darling, unpublished data). Many of these colonies often exceed several hundred individuals.

The Indiana bat hibernates from late October to mid April. Typically, the Indiana bat forms dense clusters on cave and mine ceilings and walls where winter temperatures are 3.0-7.2 degrees Celsius. Sites containing populations where temperatures are outside this range have shown declines (Tuttle and Kennedy, 2002). Stable low temperatures allow Indiana bats to maintain a low rate of metabolism and conserve fat reserves through the winter until spring emergence when outside temperatures have increased and insects (food) are more abundant (Humphrey, 1978; Richter et al., 1993). As with cave temperature, relative humidity in the cave also dictates site selection for the hibernation of Indiana bats. According to Hall (1962), Humphrey (1978), and LaVal et al. (1976), humidity at roost sites during hibernation is usually above 74% but below saturation. Cave configurations determine internal environments, and larger more complex cave systems having multiple entrances are more likely to provide suitable habitat for the Indiana bat (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1978; LaVal and LaVal, 1980). Depending on cave environments, the Indiana bat may hibernate near the entrance where cool air seeps in from outside or deeper in the cave where cold air is trapped in a sink.

Although some bats may awaken during the winter and exit hibernacula early, the majority of individuals don’t start exiting until early to mid April. Female Indiana bats leave the hibernacula earlier in spring than males. Peak departure from hibernacula is in early May. This period is often referred to as spring staging. Males may remain near the hibernacula throughout the year, move short distances to other caves or mines, or migrate to distant areas (Whitaker and Brack, 2001). When female Indiana bats emerge they have been reported to migrate only a few miles or as far as 288 miles from their hibernacula to summer habitat. Winhold et al. (2005) reported a female traveling 465 km (288 miles) from a summer colony near Norvell, Michigan to a hibernaculum near Frenchburg, Kentucky. Conversely, Indiana bats tracked from an abandoned mine in New York only flew between 14.6 to 40.0 km (9 and 24 miles) from the foothills of the Adirondack Mountains to roost trees scattered throughout the Lake Champlain Valley (Britzke et al., 2006). Based on a combination of aerial and ground tracking surveys, Indiana bats tracked from a hibernaculum in Pennsylvania flew almost a straight line to their roost trees 135 and 148 km (83 and 92 miles) away in Maryland (Butchkoski et al., 2006).

Little effort has been focused on spring roost trees of the Indiana bat. Britzke et al. (2006) found female bats roosting primarily in live shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and roost changing was much lower than during the summer. Live shagbark hickory trees were shown to provide more shelter to roosting bats than the sloughing bark on dead trees. Such differences may have been associated with unpredictable spring weather in the northeast or because summer bats and males have been shown to switch roosts every one to three days during the spring (Menzel et al., 2001; Gumbert et al., 2002; Kurta et al., 1996, 2002). According to Britzke et al. (2006), spring roost trees used in the Lake Champlain Valley were similar in structure (e.g. sloughing bark, solar exposure, etc.) to trees used throughout the species range. Trees used during the spring included shagbark hickory, American elm (Ulmus americana), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), white ash (Fraxinus

20 americana), American beech, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), eastern hemlock, and red maple.

Britzke et al. (2006) found that some of spring roosting activity occurs within the same areas where maternity roosts have been found. Female Indiana bats form maternity roosts under exfoliating bark of dead, dying, and live trees in both upland and riparian habitats. A single maternity colony typically consists of 25 to 100 bats, but can contain as many as 384 individuals (Kiser et al., 2002). Over 30 species of trees have been documented as maternity roosts, but 87% of these are various ash (Fraxinus spp.), elm (Ulmus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), maple (Acer spp.), poplar (Populus spp.) and oak species (Quercus spp.) (Kurta, 2004). Most trees used by reproductive females are deciduous, but hemlock and pitch pine (Pinus rigida) have been used in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, and white pine (Pinus strobis) has been used in Vermont (Britzke et al., 2003; J. Kiser, pers. obs., 2004).

Roost trees used by Indiana bats vary in size. The minimum tree diameter at breast height (DBH) reported for a male roost is 6.4 cm (2.5 inches) (Gumbert, 2001), and 11 cm (4.3 inches) for a female roost (Britzke, 2003). Primary maternity roosts are always found in larger trees usually greater than 22 cm DBH (Kurta, 2004). Larger diameter trees provide thermal advantages to reproductive females and their pups and give them more room to move around while locating appropriate temperatures. Females are pregnant when they arrive at maternity roost and reproductive capacity is low with only one pup per year. Pups are normally born in late June and early July and grow quickly, becoming able to fly between early July and early August.

Indiana bats may travel several miles from day roosts to foraging areas. Gardner et al. (1991) found that individuals from an Illinois maternity colony traveled 2.5 miles to foraging areas. In fragmented habitat, bats will use hedge rows and other features on the landscape as travel ways between foraging areas and day roosts (Murray and Kurta, 2004). Rather than crossing open habitats (e.g. pasture land, open water, agricultural fields) Indiana bats increased their travel distance by 55% in Michigan to take advantage of the protective cover of tree-lines (Murray and Kurta, 2004). Indiana bats will forage in upland and floodplain forest (Brack, 1983; Humphrey et al., 1977; LaVal and LaVal, 1980; Gardner et al., 1991; Kiser and Elliott, 1996). Indiana bats are opportunistic foragers, feeding on a variety of small insects. The diet of Indiana bats varies between habitats, geographic locations, season, sex, and age of bats (Kurta and Whitaker, 1998; Brack and LaVal, 1985; Belwood, 1979). Sparks and Whitaker (2004) summarized food habit studies conducted over 30 years and determined that Indiana bat’s diet consisted primarily of insects belonging to the orders Diptera (flies), Lepidoptera (moths), and Coleoptera (beetles), but when locally abundant, Trichoptera (caddisflies) and Hymenoptera (wasp and ants) may be the predominant food.

Foraging activity is usually interrupted by periods of rest, referred to as night roosting. Most Indiana bats apparently use trees as night roosts (Butchkoski and Hassinger, 2002; Murray and Kurta, 2004), although they do occasionally utilize bat boxes (Butchkoski and Hassinger, 2002) and concrete bridges (Kiser et al., 2002). Night roosting is considered as any time a bat stops flying during the night. The purpose of night roosts is to provide bats a resting place between foraging bouts, promote digestion and energy conservation, provide retreats from predators and

21 inclement weather, provide places to ingest food transported from nearby feeding areas, function as feeding perches as sit-and-wait predators, and to serve as a place to promote social interactions and information transfer (Ormsbee et al., In Press).

Indiana bats start arriving at hibernacula during late August and fly around the entrances in attempt to find a mate. This phenomenon is referred to as “swarming” and typically is a multi- species event (Cope and Humphrey, 1977). During swarming, Indiana bats day roost under sloughing bark of trees near the cave and travel to the entrance each night (Kiser and Elliott, 1996). Roost trees used during autumn range from 4.7 to 26.4 inches DBH and occur primarily on ridge tops and upper slopes (Kiser and Elliott, 1996). As with summer roosts, site fidelity to autumn roosting areas is exhibited by male Indiana bats (Gumbert et al., 2002). Male Indiana bats typically remain active longer than females during autumn. Once arriving at hibernacula, females may only remain active for a few days, where as males remain active, seeking mates into late October and early November.

Known winter hibernacula occur in the Goldson Cave system (Joe Metzmeir and John MacGregor, personal communication), approximately 0.5 miles NW from the western edge of the proposed project. Distance from the cave to all points along the proposed project is shown in Figure 2. Given the relative proximity to the project area, Indiana bats are most likely present in the general vicinity of the project.

Figure 2. Location of Goldson Cave relative to the Marina Relocation Project.

22 USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) – Sensitive

The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is closely tied to ridgetop/cliffline habitat. Big-eared bats are often corridor foragers, flying within the open spaces along the clifflines or roadways located on the ridgetops. In the summer on the DBNF these species also use rockshelters associated with sandstone cliffline as both roosting and feeding shelters. It has also been documented in abandoned buildings within its range. This bat is found on the Stearns Ranger District. It is not migratory, but instead finds both summer habitat (maternity sites, summer colonies, individual roost sites or feeding shelters) in the same area as winter habitat (hibernacula). Winter hibernacula are generally found in sandstone or limestone caves. This species is known to occur in caves in close proximity to the project area.

Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) – Sensitive

The eastern small-footed bat occurs very locally across the eastern two-thirds of Kentucky, but most frequently in the western Cumberland Plateau and the Cumberland Mountains. Based on radio-telemetry and general observations of bats roosting, this small bat uses solar exposed crevices in rock structures for roosting (MacGregor and Kiser, 1999). On a few occasions it has been found under old buildings and beneath rocks (Campbell et al., 1994; Barbour and Davis, 1969). During hibernation, the eastern small-footed bat is often found in crevices and cold passages of caves and abandoned underground mines. They are usually found singly, wedged back into a recessed area in the rock. Despite their small size, these bats seem to prefer cold sites (just above freezing) as hibernation sites. During the summer, small-footed bats roost both singly and in small groups (up to about 20 individuals). Little is known of this bat’s foraging behavior, but the species presumably forages primarily in the vicinity of forest and forest edge. The eastern small-footed bat has not been documented in the proposed action area but may use crevices in the rock outcrops in the general vicinity of the project (outside the area of disturbance).

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Sensitive

This species is dependent on aquatic habitat, primarily river floodplains, lakes, and reservoirs. It utilizes both standing and flowing fresh water sources (and salt water, in coastal areas) that have large trees suitable for nesting, perching and roosting. In Kentucky, the birds have nested and wintered around wetland/floodplain habitats and reservoirs resulting from the impoundment of rivers (e.g., Laurel River Lake on the DBNF). Wintering birds are known to occur on major impoundments on the DBNF. Records of nesting exist for Laurel River Lake (John Omer, personal communication). No nests, however, are known to occur on the Stearns Ranger District. While this species is relatively selective in its nesting habitat requirements, it is much less selective in where it forages and is likely to be found foraging throughout the general forest, regardless of forest type, provided that a body of water such as a large river or lake is present. The Cumberland River provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. Though no

23 nests have been documented along the Cumberland River, sightings of adult birds are not uncommon.

Cliffline caddisfly (Manophylax bulteri) – Sensitive

The cliffline caddisfly is the most terrestrial caddisfly known (Schuster 1997). It went unnoticed by entomologists until 1985 when Robert Butler collected larva from a sandstone wall in Cumberland Falls State Park, McCreary County, Kentucky (Schuster 1993). The cliffline caddisfly was not formally described as a species until 1997. According to Schuster (1993), the cliffline caddisfly is known from 12 sites in Kentucky and eight sites in West Virginia. This insect is restricted to exposed sandstone rock walls that are moist to the touch or have a very thin film of water on their surfaces. These sites may be consistently moist or may be moist for only a few weeks of the year. While this caddisfly has been documented from moist rocky surfaces adjacent to streams, most sites on the DBNF are along sandstone cliffline that is not associated with surface water. According to Schuster, adult cliffline caddisflies are poor fliers and remain almost exclusively on the walls from which they emerge. This species has since been found to occur at several locations on the Stearns, London, and Cumberland Ranger Districts. Although the project area is relatively close to known locations, this species has not previously been documented in close proximity to the proposed project site and was not found during field investigations for this project.

Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) - Sensitive

The Diana fritillary is known to occur on the Stearns Ranger District, as well as other areas in eastern Kentucky. It has been observed within open ROW’s and grassy understories of ridgetop oak-pine stands (personal observation). They are commonly found in forest edge conditions and in residential lawns near forested habitat, forested trails, woodland roads, and strip mined benches (personal observation). This species is known to frequent open areas, old fields, and tall grass areas. Diana fritillaries utilize various violets (Viola sp.) as hosts (Allen, 1997). Numerous species of herbaceous plants including milkweeds (Asclepias sp.), butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa), ironweeds (Veronia sp.), Joe-pye weeds (Eupatorium sp.), thistle (Cirsium sp.), aster (Aster sp.), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), wild bergamot (Monardia fistulosa), spring beauty (Claytonia sp.), birds-foot violet (Viola pedata), phlox (Phlox subulata), cinquefoil, and strawberry provides these butterflies with nectar (Allen, 1997). No populations of Diana fritillaries have been documented from the immediate project area, but are likely present.

24 Effects of Proposed Action on Each Species and Segment of Critical Habitat Evaluated

Threatened and Endangered Species

Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) – Endangered

Direct Effects

Gray bats are generally associated with caves or cave-like habitats during all their life stages. The closest cave that is known to provide habitat for gray bats is in the Sloans Valley Cave system, approximately 4.5 miles WNW of this proposed project. Because of the distance from the cave, this project will have no direct effect to gray bats at that cave. Gray bats routinely forage over streams eating emerging aquatic insects. Potential foraging habitat exists along Lake Cumberland in the immediate area of the marina site. The area of disturbance for the marina relocation project will not affect any caves or cave-like habitat suitable for occupation by gray bats. Activities associated with this proposed project will occur during the daytime and therefore will not result in potential collisions of gray bats with the equipment used for construction / trenching activities. This project, therefore, will have no direct effects to gray bats or their habitat.

Indirect Effects

Gray bats consume emerging adult aquatic insects; therefore, if these insect communities are affected by construction activities, foraging behavior could be indirectly affected. Aquatic insect communities are often affected during construction projects by increased sediment loads into streams that provide habitat for immature insects. Sedimentation can cause declines in insect populations and even eliminate some less tolerant species. Specifically, the potential decline occurs as result of sediment filling the interstitial spaces in the substrate, which reduces or eliminates cover for many aquatic insects. In addition, sediment often reduces the ability of gill- breathing aquatic insects to filter oxygen from the water. Erosion and sedimentation impacts that would affect aquatic insects are not anticipated from this project due to distance from streams and planned BMP’s. The one stream crossing proposed by this project involves crossing a dry streambed at the westernmost limit of the underground utility lines. As such, there should be no indirect effects to gray bats associated with this project.

Cumulative Effects

This project provides electric and water to the proposed marina project and to the only house in the immediate area. The land where the house and marina is located is an in-holding surrounded by forest service land. Therefore, there should be no additional needs for such facilities in the foreseeable future. Once the area of disturbance has been re-vegetated after construction activities, the area should be no different than current conditions relative to environmental effects. Also, there are no known future federal, state or private activities reasonably certain to occur within the area of this proposed project.

25 Due to these factors, this proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the gray bat or it’s habitat.

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) – Endangered

Activities and their impacts to Indiana bats associated with this project are consistent with those identified in the November 13, 2003 Biological Assessment (as supplemented February 4, 2004) for the Daniel Boone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Additional impacts, beyond those previously disclosed, are not anticipated.

Direct Effects

Because Indiana bats are most vulnerable to the effects of projects during two stages of their life (i.e., while hibernating or preparing to hibernate, and while immobile during their first few weeks of life and in the maternity trees), this analysis focuses primarily upon the effects the proposed project may have upon Indiana bats particularly during these two periods of their life. A visual search of the project area was completed to determine if any underground openings (caves, abandoned underground mines, tunnels, etc.) were present. None were found within the area of disturbance for the proposed project. This project does, however, occur near known winter hibernacula (Figure 2) (Joe Metzmeier and John MacGregor, personal communication). Since construction activities associated with the proposed project will be timed to occur outside the time periods for the spring and fall swarming periods, the potential for adverse effects to Indiana bats during hibernation, spring swarming, and fall swarming is not likely. No caves will be impacted by this project. Implementation of this project should have no direct effects on the Indiana bats during spring and fall swarming or hibernation periods.

Since suitable summer roost habitat occurs near the area of disturbance for this project, presence in the area is assumed. This area is not, however, within 2.5 miles of any known maternity (summer roost) site – the area in which all available habitat should be protected. No trees that could potentially offer summer roost habitat for the bats are expected to be removed to facilitate placement of the utility lines, roads, marina, and associated structures. Nearby trees that may provide roost habitat have been identified for avoidance. None will be impacted by construction activities. Mr. Jesse Kidd has indicated his willingness to work with a qualified biologist to ensure that these trees are not impacted by project activities. This project, therefore, will not directly affect Indiana bats during the summer roosting period. All excavation and associated activities will occur during the daytime. No direct encounters of bats with the equipment used will occur since the activities will not occur at night when the bats are active. Based on these results, no direct effects to the Indiana bat are anticipated from any activities associated with this proposed project.

Indirect Effects

Indiana bats are known to consume aquatic insects; therefore, if these communities are affected by construction activities, the project could have an indirect affect on foraging behavior of the species. Aquatic insect communities are often affected during construction projects by increased

26 sediment loads. Sedimentation can cause declines in insect populations and even eliminate some less tolerant species. Specifically, the potential decline occurs as result of sediment filling the interstitial spaces in the substrate, which reduces or eliminates cover for many aquatic insects. In addition, sediment often reduces the ability of gill-breathing aquatic insects to filter oxygen from the water.

Erosion and sedimentation impacts that would affect aquatic insects are not anticipated from this project due to the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that will be installed prior to any construction activities and maintained throughout the duration of construction. Most of the project area occurs on wide, flat ridgetops, well away from streams. Also, because of the distance of the area of disturbance away from the streams and the abundance of leaf litter on the surface of the ground in the forested areas, any potential sediment should be filtered out prior to discharging into any streams. The stream that will be traversed by the utility lines is dry and any excavation across it will stabilize promptly. The sites will be re-vegetated immediately upon cessation of construction activities.

Noise in areas that have summer roost habitat could result in bats being disturbed and relocating from near construction activities. This could indirectly affect the young bats. Since excavation activities associated with the trenching for the placement of the water and electric lines will occur outside the summer roosting period, there will be no indirect effects relative to noise.

Since BMP’s will be implemented at any areas that potentially affect any streams, there should be no effects to the aquatic insect population as result of this proposed project. Also, since construction activities will occur during the winter time period when the bats are hibernating, noise caused by construction activities will not affect individuals. Therefore, indirect effects to the Indiana bat as result of activities associated with this project are not anticipated.

Cumulative Effects

This project occurs in an area that is primarily federally owned (Daniel Boone National Forest). No trees currently suitable as Indiana bat roost trees are anticipated to be removed by the proposed project. Therefore, there should be no immediate reduction in suitable roost habitat. Injury of some tree roots during excavation of the underground utility lines could result in some future dead trees along the area of disturbance, thus potentially increasing suitable bat roosts in the future. There are no known future activities (federal, state, or private) in the immediate area of the project that would reduce available roost habitat.

Due to these factors, this proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the Indiana bat or its habitat.

Designated critical habitat

This proposed project and its area of influence are not located within the Buck Creek, Marsh Creek, Rock Creek, or Sinking Creek watersheds and thus will have “no effect” on them.

27 USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) – Sensitive Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) – Sensitive

Direct and indirect effects: Rafinesque's big-eared bats are found throughout the Forest and are known to occur near the proposed project (approximately 0.25 miles away). Eastern small- footed bats also occur in the general area, even though no documented records exist near the project site. The cliffline habitat that occurs nearby will not be affected by this project. No potential roost trees (hollow trees) or abandoned buildings will be disturbed by planned project activities. No caves or abandoned mine portals occur within the area of disturbance for the project. Work will be carried out during daylight hours and would eliminate the potential for direct injury by collision with the excavation equipment. Noise during construction activities could cause individual bats to relocate to other roosts.

Cumulative effects: This project occurs in an area that is primarily federally owned (Daniel Boone National Forest). Also, there are no other future federal, state, or private activities reasonably certain to occur within or near the proposed action area of this project. Therefore, this project should not add to potential cumulative effects for this species.

Due to these factors this proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat or eastern small- footed bat.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Sensitive

Direct and indirect effects: Since the bald eagle is a transient bird that can occupy a wide variety of habitats when migrating or hunting, it is nearly impossible to say that a bald eagle couldn’t roost near or fly over the proposed project area. The proposed project is located adjacent to the Cumberland River; this could be considered optimal breeding and/or wintering habitat for this species. There are, however, no known nests within the area of influence of this proposed project. The closest known active bald eagle nest is located on Laurel River Lake, several miles from the proposed project area. The project as proposed will potentially remove some trees that could be used for perching. There are, however, many trees along the shoreline of Lake Cumberland / Cumberland River near the project area that provide suitable perching sites. Noise from construction activities may result in eagles relocating to nearby perches. This will only be a temporary situation and should not directly affect bald eagles.

Cumulative effects: There are no known future federal, state or private activities reasonably certain to occur within the proposed action area of this project. Therefore, this project should not add to potential cumulative effects for this species.

Due to these factors this proposed project “may impact individual but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for the bald eagle or its habitat.

28 Cliffline caddisfly (Manophylax butleri) – Sensitive

Direct and indirect effects: This species is known to occur along the clifflines near the area of disturbance for this proposed project. Since this project as proposed, however, will not encroach upon any cliffline habitat, this species should not be affected by project activities.

Cumulative effects: There are no known future federal, state or private activities reasonably certain to occur within the proposed action area of this project. Therefore, this project should not add to potential cumulative effects for these species.

Due to these factors this proposed project should have “no impacts” on this species.

Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) - Sensitive

Direct and indirect effects: The Diana fritillary potentially occurs along the roads (Hewling Ridge Road, Bauer Road, and Sediment Pond Road) near the proposed project area. During trenching for the utility lines and improvements to Hewling Ridge Road, herbaceous plants that may be host plants for the larval butterflies could be disturbed; even some larval butterflies could be killed, if present. Nevertheless, host plants are not limited in the area and only a few will be disturbed by construction activities. Also, the trenching for placement of the utility lines will take place during the time of the year in which no larval butterflies will be present.

Cumulative effects: There are no known other future federal, state, or private activities reasonably certain to occur within the proposed action area of this project.

Due to these factors, this proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for this species.

Determination(s) of Effects & Rationale

Threatened and Endangered Species

X no effect ____ not likely to adversely affect ____ likely to adversely affect

Rationale: The known distributions of the following nineteen (19) listed species are well outside of this proposed project’s area of influence and/or do not have suitable habitat within the area of influence of this proposed project. Consequently, the proposed action will have “no effect” on these species.

29 Group Species Common Name Status Mammal Plecotus townsendii virginianus Virginia Big-eared Bat E Fish Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail Darter E Notropis albizonatus Palezone Shiner E Phoxinus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace T Mussel Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Elktoe E Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell E Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell E Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel E Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell E Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell E Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket E Pegias fabula Little-wing Pearlymussel E Villosa trabalis Cumberland Bean Pearlymussel E Plant Arenaria cumberlandensis Cumberland Sandwort E Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary T Schwalbea americana American Chaffseed E Solidago albopilosa White-haired Goldenrod T Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea T Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover E

Gray bat ( Myotis grisescens) – Endangered

____ no effect X not likely to adversely affect ____ likely to adversely affect Rationale:

 No caves or cave-like habitats suitable for gray bats occur within the area of disturbance for the proposed project.

 The nearest known gray bat cave occurs approximately 4.5 miles WNW of the proposed project.

 BMP’s implemented will keep erosion and sedimentation from entering any streams and potentially affecting habitat of aquatic insects.

 The only “stream” crossing involves trenching across a dry stream bed to facilitate placement of underground electric and water lines.

 Work will be performed during daylight hours so direct collisions with bats are not expected.

Due to these factors this proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the gray bat or its habitat.

30 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) - Endangered

____ no effect X not likely to adversely affect ____ likely to adversely affect

Rationale:

 No caves, abandoned mine openings or other suitable habitat exists within the area of disturbance for the proposed project. A known winter hibernaculum does occur approximately 0.5 mile of the western end of the project area. Trenching to place utility lines will occur outside the period for the spring and fall swarming activities.

 The proposed project site is not within 2.5 miles of any known maternity roosts.

 No suitable roost trees will need to be cut during construction of the underground utility lines, road improvements, marina, boat ramp and other associated structures for this project.

 Mr. Jesse Kidd will work with a qualified biologist to ensure that no potential summer roost habitat is affected.

 BMP’s implemented will keep erosion and sedimentation from entering nearby streams and affecting habitat of aquatic insects. The area of disturbance also has a large buffer strip of forest and associated leaf litter to filter potential sediment.

 Work will be performed during daylight hours so direct collisions with bats are not expected.

Due to these factors this proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the Indiana bat or its habitat.

Proposed (USFWS Threatened or Endangered) Species

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: No proposed threatened or endangered species are currently listed for any District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, including the area of the proposed project site.

31 Designated Critical Habitat

X no effect

not likely to adversely modify critical habitat

likely to adversely modify critical habitat

Rationale: The proposed project and its area of influence are not located within the Buck Creek, Marsh Creek, Rock Creek, or Sinking Creek watersheds and thus will have “no effect” on them.

USDA Forest Service, R8 Sensitive Species

X no impacts beneficial impacts may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability

Rationale: The known distributions of the following sixty-seven (67) species are outside of this proposed project’s area of influence and/or do not have suitable habitat within the area of influence of this proposed project. Consequently, the proposed action will have “no impacts” on these species.

Group Species Common Name Status Mammal Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis S Sorex dispar blitchi Long-tailed shrew S Bird Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow S Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon S Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren S Fish Ammocrypta clara Western sand darter S Ammocrypta pellucid Eastern sand darter S Etheostoma susanae Cumberland Johnny darter S Etheostoma cinereum Ashy darter S Etheostoma maculatum Spotted darter S Etheostoma tippecanoe Tippecanoe darter S Ichthyomyzon greeleyi Mountain brook lamprey S Noturus stigmosus Northern madtom S Percina burtoni Blotchside logperch S Percina macrocephala Longhead darter S Percina squamata Olive darter S Typhlichthys subterraneus Southern cavefish S

32 Group Species Common Name Status Mussel Anodontoides denigratus Cumberland papershell S Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase S Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox S Fusconaia subrotunda subrotunda Long-solid S Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose S Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell S Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid pigtoe S Ptychobranchus subtentum Fluted kidneyshell S Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rabbitsfoot S Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander mussel S Toxolasma lividus Purple Lilliput S Gastropod Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil S Pleurocera curta Shortspire hornsnail S Rhodacme elatior Domed ancylid S Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo S Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo S Crustacean Cambarus bouchardi Big South Fork crayfish S Insect Cheumatopsyche helma Helma's net-spinning caddisfly S Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail S Pyrgus wyandot Appalachian grizzled skipper S Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary S Vascular Plant Aster saxicastellii Rockcastle aster S Aureolaria patula Spreading yellow false foxglove S Berberis canadensis American barberry S Carex juniperorum Juniper sedge S Cleistes bifaria Small spreading pogonia S Collinsonia verticillata Stoneroot S Cypripedium kentuckiense Kentucky Lady's slipper S Dodecatheon frenchii French's shooting star S Hexastylis contracta Mountain heartleaf S Juglans cinerea Butternut S Lesquerella globosa Short’s (Globe) bladderpod S Marshallia grandiflora Large-flowered Barbara's buttons S Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap S Paxistima canbyi Canby's mountain-lover S Platanthera integrilabia White fringeless orchid S Schisandra glabra Bay starvine S Scutellaria arguta Hairy skullcap S Scutellaria saxatilis Rock skullcap S Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia Southern Oconee bells S Silene ovata Blue Ridge catchfly S Silene regia Royal catchfly S Thalictrum mirabile Little Mountain meadowrue S Thaspium pinnatifidum Cutleaved meadow parsnip S

33 Group Species Common Name Status Vitis rupestris Sand grape S Nonvasc. Plant Hygrohypnum closteri Closter's brook-hypnum S Plagiochila austinii A liverwort S Plagiochila sullivantii var sullivantii Sullivant's leafy liverwort S Radula sullivantii A liverwort S Scopelophila cataractae Agoyan cataract moss S

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) – Sensitive Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) - Sensitive

____ no impacts ____ beneficial impacts X may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability ____ likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability

Rationale:

 No potential roost trees (hollow trees) or abandoned buildings will be disturbed by planned project activities.

 No caves, abandoned mine portals or other suitable habitat exists in the area of disturbance for the project. Nearby cliffline habitat will not be encroached upon.

 Work will occur during daylight hours, eliminating the potential for direct injury or death by collision with heavy equipment.

 Construction noise could cause some individuals to temporarily relocate.

Due to these factors this proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for these bats or their habitat.

34 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Sensitive

____ no impacts ____ beneficial impacts X may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability ____ likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability

Rationale:

 There are no known bald eagle nests within the area of disturbance for the project.

 The closest known bald eagle nest is located on Laurel River Lake, several miles from this proposed project.

 Potential perch sites may be removed by the proposed project in the area of the marina and boat ramp.

 Construction activities may cause some individuals to temporarily seek other perch sites.

 There is an abundance of potential perching sites along the shoreline of Lake Cumberland in the vicinity of the project.

Due to these factors this proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for the bald eagle or its habitat.

Cliffline caddisfly (Manophylax butleri) – Sensitive

_X_ no impacts ____ beneficial impacts ____ may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability ____ likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability Rationale:

 This species is not known from the area of disturbance for this proposed project.

 This proposed project will not encroach upon cliffline habitat.

Due to these factors this proposed project should have “no impacts” to this species or its habitat.

35

Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) - Sensitive

____ no impacts ____ beneficial impacts X may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability ____ likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability

Rationale:

 The diana fritillary potentially occurs along all the roads within the project area, although there are no known records for this species within the area of disturbance.

 Herbaceous plants that could be hosts for larval butterflies could be disturbed and individuals may be killed, if present.

 Trenching activities for placement of the underground utility lines, however, will occur outside the time period when larval butterflies are present.

Due to these factors this proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for this butterfly or its habitat.

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.

36 Preparer:

I prepared this Biological Assessment and Evaluation and made the effects determinations.

October 5, 2009 Name: Douglas E. Stephens Date: Position: Fish and Wildlife Biologist Private Consultant

Reviewer:

I have reviewed this BAE and agree with the findings and effects determinations.

______Name: Joe Metzmeier Date Position: Wildlife Biologist Stearns Ranger District

37 References and Information Sources

Allen, T. J. 1997. The butterflies of West Virginia and their caterpillars. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 388 pp.

Barbour, Roger W. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 322 pp.

Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969 Bats of America. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 286pp.

Barclay, L.A. and D.R. Parsons 1983. An Endangered Species Survey of Abandoned Mine Shafts in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Kentucky and Tennessee. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 95 pp.

BCI (Bat Conservation International, Inc.). 1999. Bats of Eastern Woodlands. Austin, Texas. 243pp.

Belwood, J. J. 1979. Feeding ecology of an Indiana bat community with emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 104 pp.

Brack, V., Jr. 1983. The non-hibernating ecology of bats in Indiana, with emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Brady, J. H., T. H., Kunz, M. D. Tuttle, and D. E. Wilson. 1982. Gray bat recovery plan. Unpublished report to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Colorado, 98pp.

Brady, J. T, R. K. LaVal, T. H. Kunz, M. D. Tuttle, D. E. Wilson, and R. L. Clawson. 1983. Recovery for the Indiana Bat. Unpublished report to the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Rockville, Maryland, 83 pp.

Britzke, E. R. 2003. Spring roosting ecology of female Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the northeastern United States. Unpublished Report. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office, Concord, New Hampshire.

Britzke, E. R., M. J. Harvey, and S. C. Loeb. 2003. Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, maternity roosts in the southern United States. Southeastern Naturalist 2:235–242.

Britzke, E. R., A. C. Hicks, S. L. von Oettingen, and S. R. Darling. 2006. Description of spring roost trees used by female Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in the Lake Champlain Valley of Vermont and New York. Am. Midl. Nat. 155:181-187.

38 Burr, B. M. and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A Distribution Atlas of Kentucky Fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series Number 4. Frankfort, KY. 398 pp

Butchkoski, C., J. Chenger, G. Turner, C. Sanders, and S. Wolbert. 2006. Abstract in the proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Bat Working Group. Conference hosted by Pennsylvania Game Commission, and East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Butchkoski, C. M. and J. D. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of a maternity colony roosting in a building. Pages 130 – 142 In The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Butterflies of North America. Butterflies of Kentucky. Diana fritillary, Speyeria diana. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa/ky/76.htm. November 05, 2004.

Call, S. M., and P. W. Parmalee. 1982. The discovery of extant populations of Alasmidonta atropurpurea (Rafinesque) (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the upper Cumberland River basin. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union for 1981:42-43.

Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, and R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. J. of Mammalogy, 78:818-825.

Campbell, J. J. N., J. R. Abbott, R. R. Cicerello, J. D. Kiser, J. R. MacGregor, and J. G. Palis. 1994. Cooperative inventory of threatened, sensitive, and rare species, Daniel Boone National Forest: London Ranger District. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Technical Report, 251 pp.

Campbell, J. J. N., R. R. Cicerello, J. D. Kiser, R. R. Kiser, J. R. MacGregor, and A. C. Risk. 1993. Cooperative inventory of endangered, threatened, sensitive, and rare species Daniel Boone National Forest: Redbird Ranger District. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky. 184 pp.

Campbell, J. J. N., A. C. Risk, V. L. Andrews, B. Palmer-Ball, and J. R. MacGregor. 1990. Cooperative inventory of endangered, threatened, sensitive, and rare species Daniel Boone National Forest: Stearns Ranger District. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky. 147 pp.

Cicerello, R. R. 1996. A survey of the unionids (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Rock Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. 11 pp.

Cicerello, R. R. 1995. A survey of the unionids (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Marsh Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Kentucky State NaturePreserves Commission, Frankfort. 21 pp.

39 Cicerello, Ronald R. 2003. Freshwater Mussel Exploration in Sinking Creek, Laurel County, Kentucky, 2003. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission paper, Frankfort, KY. 4 pp.

Cicerello, R. R. and G. A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 7:1-62.

Clawson, R. L. 2002. Trends in population size and current status. Pages 2 – 8 In The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Cope, J. and S. Humphrey. 1977. Spring and autumn swarming behavior in the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. J. Mamm., 58:93-95.

Decher, J. and J. R. Choate. 1995. Mammalian Species: Myotis grisescens, No. 510, pp.1-7, The American Society of Mammalologists.

Di Stefano, R. J. 1984. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Horse Lick Creek, Rockcastle River, Kentucky. Nautilus, 98(3) :110-113.

Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 681 pp.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1991. Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Unpublished report. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.

Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River: review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 89(15): 1-99.

Grandmaison, D., J. Mayasich, and D. Etnier. 2004. Eastern Sand Darter Status Assessment. NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2003/40, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN. 45 pp.

Groves, Katherine McCutchan. 2000. Survey of the Unionidae and Bioassessment of Fish and Macroinvertebrates of Sinking Creek, Laurel County, Kentucky. MS Thesis, EKU, Richmond, KY. 164 pp.

Gumbert, M. W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky. 136 pp.

Gumbert, M. W., J. M. O’Keefe, and J. R. MacGregor. 2002. Roost fidelity in Kentucky. Pages 143 – 152 In The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

40 Guthrie, M. J. and K. R. Jeffers. 1938. A cytological study of the ovaries of the bats Myotis lucifugus and Myotis grisescens. J. Morph., 62:528-557.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 600 pp.

Hall, J. S. and N. Wilson. 1966. Seasonal populations and movements of the Gray bat in the Kentucky area. American Midland Naturalist 73:317-324.

Hall, J. S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, Reading Publ. Mus. Art., Gallery Publ. 12:1 – 68.

Herreid, C. F., II. 1963. Temperature regulation of Mexican free-tailed bats in cave habitats. J. Mamm., 44:560-573.

Herreid, C. F., II. 1967. Temperature regulation, temperature preference and tolerance, and metabolism of young and adult free-tailed bats. Physiol. Zool., 40:1-22.

Humphrey, S. R. 1978. Status and winter habitat, and management of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Florida Scientist 41:65 – 76.

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:334-346.

Hurst, T. E. 1997. Foraging area, habitat use, population estimates and food habits of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in southeastern Kentucky. MS Thesis. University of Kentucky at Lexington, Lexington, Kentucky, 112 pp.

Hurst, T. E. and M. J. Lacki. 1999. Roost selection, population size, and habitat use by a colony of Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). American Midland Naturalist 142: 363-371.

Jones, R. L. 2005. Plant life of Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 834 pp.

Kiser, J. D. and C. L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, during autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky. Final Report, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky. 65 pp.

Kiser, J. D. and J. R. MacGregor. 2004. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) mist net surveys for coal mining activities. Pp.45 – 54 in Proceedings of Indiana bat & coal mining: a technical interactive forum (K. Vories and A. Harrington, eds). U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Alton, Illinois. 229 pp.

41 Kiser, J. D., J. R. MacGregor, H. D. Bryan, and A. Howard. 2002. Use of concrete bridges as nightroosts. Pages 208 – 215 In The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the south. Tech. Publ. R8-TP-2. USDA Forest Service. Vol. I, pp. 363-366.

Kurta, A. 2004. Roosting ecology and behavior of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in summer. Pp.29 – 38 in Proceedings of Indiana bat & coal mining: a technical interactive forum (K. Vories and A. Harrington, eds). U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Alton, Illinois. 229 pp.

Kurta, A., S. W. Murray, and D. H. Miller. 2002. Roost selection and movements across the summer landscape. Pp. 118 – 129 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 253 pp.

Kurta, A. and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1998. Diet of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the northern edge of its range. Amer. Midl. Nat., 140:280-286.

Kurta, A., K. J. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioral, and thermal observations of a peripheral population of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Pp. 102 – 117 in R.M.R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham (eds.). Bats and Forest Symposium. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 292 pp.

Lacki, M. J. 1994. Metal concentrations in guano from a Gray bat summer roost. Trans. Ky. Acad. Sci. 55(3-4)124-126.

Lacki, M. J., L. S. Burford, and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1995. Food habits of Gray bats in Kentucky. J. Mamm. 76(4):1256-1259.

LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, W. Caire, L. R. Wingate, and M. L. LaVal. 1976. An evaluation of the status of Myotine bats in the proposed Meramec Park Lake and Union Lake project areas, Missouri. Final Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri. 136 pp.

LaVal, R.K., R. L. Clawson, M.L. VaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with special emphasis on the endangered species Myotis grisescens and Myotis sodalis. J. Mamm., 58:592-599.

LaVal, R. K. and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave dwelling species. Terrestrial Series 8. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 52 pp.

Laudermilk, E. L. and R. R. Cicerello. 1998. Upper Cumberland River Drainage, Kentucky fish collection catalog (1982-1994). Unpublished report, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky. 469 pp.

42

MacGregor, J. R. and J. D. Kiser. 1999. Temperature variation at a maternity roost for Myotis leibii in a concrete bridge in eastern Kentucky. Abstract in 9th Annual Colloquium on the Conservation of Mammals in the southeastern United States, Hosted by Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries et al., Wytheville, Virginia, February 24-26, 1999.

Menzel, M. A., J. M. Menzel, T. C. Carter, W. M. Ford, and J. W. Edwards. 2001. Review of the forest habitat relationships of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-284. 21 pp.

Miller, G. S., Jr. and G. M. Allen. 1928. The American bats of the genera Myotis and Pizonyx. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 144. 218 pp.

Murray, S. W. 1999. Diet and nocturnal activity patterns of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. M.S. Thesis, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Murray, S. W. and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Zoology (London) 262:197-206.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February 6, 2009 ).

Neel, J. K., and W. R. Allen. 1964. The mussel fauna of the upper Cumberland Basin before its impoundment. Malacologia 1(3):427-459.

O'Bara, C. J. 1988. Ecological and Behavioral Characteristics of the Blackside Dace, Phoxinus cumberlandensis. Tenn. Coop. Fishery Research Unit, Tenn. Tech. University, Cookeville, TN.

Ormsbee, P. C., J. D. Kiser, and S. I. Perlmeter. In Press. The importance of night roosts to the ecology of forest bats. Chapter 5 in Bats in Forests: conservation and management (M. J. Lacki, J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, eds). John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 368 pp.

Page, Lawrence M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes, North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston/New York. 432 pp.

Palmer-Ball, B., Jr. 1996. The Kentucky breeding bird atlas. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 372 pp.

Palmer-Ball, B., J.J.N. Campbell, M.E. Medley, D.T. Towles, J.R. MacGregor & R.R. Cicerello. 1988. Cooperative inventory of endangered, threatened, sensitive and rare species: Daniel Boone National Forest, Somerset Ranger District. Technical report by U.S. Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission and Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Ky.

43 Parmalee, P. W. and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

Rabinowitz, A. R. and M. D. Tuttle. 1982. A test of the validity of currently used methods of determining bat prey preferences. Acta Theriologica, 27, 21:283-293.

Rabinowitz, A. R. and M. D. Tuttle. 1980. Status of summer colonies of the endangered Gray bat in Kentucky. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 44(4):955-960.

Richter, A. R., S. R. Humphrey, J. B. Cope, and V. Brack, Jr. 1993. Modified cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and resulting decline of endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Conservation Biology 7:407- 415.

Romme, R. C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Report submitted to the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Bloomington, Indiana, by 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio. Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8, 38 pp.

Sealander, J. A. and G. A.Heidt, 1990. Arkansas Mammals, Their Natural History, Classification, and Distribution. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 308 pp.

Sparks, D. W. and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 2004. Foraging ecology of the Indiana bat. Pp.15 – 21 in Proceedings of Indiana bat & coal mining: a technical interactive forum (K. Vories and A. Harrington, eds). U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Alton, Illinois. 229 pp

Starnes, Lynn B. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1978a. A new Cyprinid of the genus Phoxinus endemic to the upper Cumberland River drainage. Copeia, 1978(3) 508-516.

----- 1978b. Status report on a new and threatened species of Phoxinus from the upper Cumberland Drainage. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings, February 1978, Vol.2 No. 2.

Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. 782 pp.

Tuttle, M. D. 1979. Status, casues of decline, and management of endangered Gray bats. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 43:1-17.

Tuttle, M. D. 1976. Population ecology of the Gray bat (Myotis grisescens): Philopatry, timing and patterns of movement, weight loss during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. Occas. Papers Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kansas, Lawrence, 54:1-38.

Tuttle, M. D. 1975. Population ecology of the Gray bat (Myotis grisescens): factors influencing early growth and development. Occas. Papers Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kansas, 36:1-24.

44 Tuttle, M. D. and J. Kennedy. 2002. Thermal requirements during hibernation. Pp. 68 – 78 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 253 pp.

Tuttle, M. D. and D. M. Stevenson. 1978. Variation in the cave environment and its biological implications. In Zuber, R., et al, (eds.). National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, 1977. Speleobooks, Adobe Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 140 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Land and Resourse Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 117A. 280 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Viability Assessment for the Daniel Boone National Forest

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1999. Agency Draft Indian Bat (Myostis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Recovery plan for Cumberland elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea), oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis), Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma brevidens), purple bean (Villosa perpurpurea), and rough rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical strigillata). Atlanta, Georgia. 168 pp.

(USFWS) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Indiana bat revised recovery plan (agency draft). Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.

USFWS 1996. Recovery Plan for Cumberland Sandwort (Arenaria cumberlandensis). Atlanta, Georgia. 28 pp.

(USFWS) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Little-wing pearly mussel recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Atlanta, Georgia. 29 pp.

(USFWS) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery plan for the Indiana bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp.

(USFWS) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

(USFS) U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Redbird Ranger District.

Virginia Big-Eared Bat Distribution in Kentucky http://frankfort.fws.gov/docs/endspec/kymap/vbebatmp.html

Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas. Working draft as of 09 August 2006. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill, NC. 1014 pp.

45 Wethington, T.A. 2001. Status and management of endangered bats in Kentucky. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 55: 389-395.

Wharton, M. E. and R. W. Barbour. 1979. A guide to the Wildflowers and Ferns of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington. 344 pp.

Wharton, M. E. and R. W. Barbour. 1973. Trees and Shrubs of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington. 582 pp.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer ecology in Indiana. Pp. 48 – 54 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 253 pp.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. and W. J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 583 pp.

Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6–22.

Winhold, L., E. Hough, and A. Kurta. 2005. Long-term fidelity by tree-roosting bats to a home area. Bat Research News 46:9-10.

Wofford, B. E. and R. Kral. 1979. A new Arenaria (Caryophyllaceae) from the Cumberlands of Tennessee. Brittonia 31(2): Pp. 257-260.

Wofford, B. E. and D. K. Smith. 1980. Arenaria cumberlandensis status survey report. Report for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

46

Appendix A

Maps of Proposed Project

47

Overall Topographic View of Proposed Kidd Marina Relocation Project

48

Overall Aerial View of Proposed Project

49

Aerial View of Western Section of Project Area, Including Private Property at Origin of Utility Lines

50

Aerial View of Middle Section of Project Area

51

Aerial View of Eastern Section of Project Area, Including Marina Location

52

Proximity of the Proposed Project Area to Goldson Cave / Indiana Bats

53

Appendix B

Pictures of Project Area

54

Hewling Ridge Road - 1 Hewling Ridge Road - 2

Hewling Ridge Road - 3 Curve at Sandstone Outcrop to be Avoided

55

Potential Indiana Bat Roost Trees near FS 832 Potential Indiana Bat Roost Trees near FS 832

56 View Through Woods at Cut-through Bauer Road Roadside

FS 5333 – near Bauer Road FS 5333

57 Microstegium on FS 5333 Sandstone Cliff near FS 5333

FS 5333 – near End Proposed Road through Forested Area

58 Old Logging Road nearing Private Property Rock Outcrop Upslope from Old Logging Rd.

Dry Stream Bed near Private Property Steve Ritchie Property – Start of Utilities

59

Forest Stearns Ranger District 3320 Hwy 27 North Service Whitley City, KY 42653 (606) 376-5323

File Code: 1950/2670 Date: December 1, 2011 Route To: Official Project File

Subject: Proposed Critical Habitat for Cumberland Darter

To: Official Project File

Fifteen stream segments occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest were proposed as critical habitat for Cumberland Darter by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 12, 2011 (Fed. Reg. 2011). These fifteen stream segments are listed below.

DBNF Proposed Critical Habitat. Stream Associated Administrative Designated Segment Name Species Location Bunches Creek between Kentucky London Ranger Bunches Creek Cumberland darter Highway 90 (KY 90) and the District Cumberland River Calf Pen Creek from its confluence with London Ranger Calf Pen Creek Cumberland darter Polly Hollow downstream to its District confluence with Bunches Creek Youngs Creek from Brays Chapel Road Youngs Creek Cumberland darter Off Forest downstream to its confluence with the Cumberland River Barren Fork from its confluence with an Stearns Ranger Barren Fork Cumberland darter unnamed tributary downstream to its District confluence with Indian Creek Indian Creek from its confluence with an Stearns Ranger Indian Creek Cumberland darter unnamed tributary, downstream to its District confluence with Barren Fork Cogur Fork from its confluence with an Stearns Ranger Cogur Creek Cumberland darter unnamed tributary downstream to its District confluence with Indian Creek Kilburn Fork from its confluence with an Stearns Ranger Kilburn Fork Cumberland darter unnamed tributary downstream to its District confluence with Laurel Fork Laurel Fork from its confluence with Stearns Ranger Laurel Fork Cumberland darter Tom Fork downstream to its confluence District with Indian Creek Laurel Fork Creek from Laurel Fork Stearns Ranger Laurel Creek Cumberland darter Reservoir downstream to its confluence District with Jenneys Branch Elisha Branch from its confluence with Stearns Ranger Elisha Branch Cumberland darter an unnamed tributary downstream to its District confluence with Laurel Creek Jenneys Branch from its confluence with Stearns Ranger Jennys Branch Cumberland darter an unnamed tributary downstream to its District confluence with Laurel Creek

“America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way” Printed on Recycled Paper

Stream Associated Administrative Designated Segment Name Species Location Wolf Creek from its confluence with Stearns Ranger Wolf Creek Cumberland darter Sheep Creek downstream to Wolf Creek District River Road Jellico Creek from its confluence with Scott Branch, Scott County, Tennessee Stearns Ranger Jellico Creek Cumberland darter downstream to its confluence with District Capuchin Creek, McCreary County, Kentucky Rock Creek from its confluence with Sid Stearns Ranger Rock Creek Cumberland darter Anderson Branch downstream to its District confluence with Jellico Creek Capuchin Creek from its confluence with Stearns Ranger Capuchin Creek Cumberland darter Hatfield Creek downstream to its District confluence with Jellico Creek

There are five Primary Constituent Elements to consider when making an effects determination to critical habitat from projects that are currently covered under NEPA. These elements are:

Primary Constituent Elements: Cumberland darter (1) Primary Constituent Element 1 Shallow pools and gently flowing runs of geomorphically stable second- to fourth-order streams with connectivity between spawning, foraging, and resting sites to promote gene flow throughout the species’ range. (2) Primary Constituent Element 2 Stable bottom substrates composed of relatively silt-free sand and sand covered bedrock, boulders, large cobble, woody debris, or other cover. (3) Primary Constituent Element 3 An instream flow regime (magnitude, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) sufficient to provide permanent surface flows, as measured during years with average rainfall, and maintain benthic habitats utilized by the species. (4) Primary Constituent Element 4 Adequate water quality characterized by moderate stream temperatures, acceptable dissolved oxygen concentrations, moderate pH, and low levels of pollutants. Adequate water quality is defined for the purpose of this rule as the quality necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages of the Cumberland darter. (5) Primary Constituent Element 5 Prey base of aquatic macroinvertebrates, including midge larvae, mayfly nymphs, caddisfly larvae, and microcrustaceans.

The following projects were reviewed to consider their effects to the proposed critical habitat: Indian Creek Trail Bridge , Boonedocks Marina, Stearns Trail Reconstruction, Stearns Thinning and Release Project, West Stearns Fuels Reduction, Eastside Fire, Rock Creek Pond Construction, Wildlife Opening Maintenance, White Fringeless Orchid Site Restoration, Stearns Storm Salvage, Upper Rock Creek Vegetation Mgt Project.

After a review of these projects it was determined that none of the primary constituent elements will be measurably impacted and these projects are “Not Likely to Adversely Modify Critical Habitat”

/Joe Metzmeier/ December 1, 2011 Name: Joe Metzmeier Date: Position: Wildlife Biologist Stearns Ranger District

Forest Daniel Boone National Forest 1700 Bypass Road Service Winchester, KY 40391 (859) 745-3100

File Code: 1920/2670 Date: December 15, 2011 Route To:

Subject: Cumberland Darter Listing as Endangered-New Information: NEPA and ESA

To: Line and Staff Officers, DBNF

On June 24, 2010, the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae) was proposed for listing as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (www.regulations.gov, Docket # FWS-R4-ES- 2010-0027, Proposed Rule). Following the publication of this proposal, a letter dated July 19, 2010 (attached) was sent to the District Rangers with a cc to the biologists on the forest explaining the need to supplement BAEs for new and ongoing projects with this new information. On September 8, 2011, the final rule to list the Cumberland darter as Endangered went into effect (www.regulations.gov, Docket # FWS-R4-ES-2010-0027, Final Rule). On October 12, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule for critical habitat for the Cumberland darter (www.regulations.gov, Docket # FWS-R4-ES-2011-0074, Proposed Rule). Consequently, all ongoing projects must be reviewed and supplemented to ensure their compliance with Forest Service Manual Direction, the ESA and the NEPA. In addition, analysis for all future projects must also include the Cumberland darter as a species listed as endangered, and address proposed critical habitat for the species.

ESA COMPLIANCE Per my July 19, 2010 letter, one of the following three determinations of effect was required for the Cumberland darter when the proposed rule was published:  No effect.  Not likely to jeopardize1 proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat2.  Likely to jeopardize proposed species, or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. As of September 8, 2011, the above determinations are no longer valid for the species and must be replaced with one of the following:  No effect.  May affect, not likely to adversely affect.  May affect, likely to adversely affect. Depending on the new effects determination, consultation may be in order. Both FSM and the ESA require the Forest Service to consult with the FWS only on actions that may affect the species. Informal consultation and written concurrence from the FWS are required for “not

1Jeopardy is defined by ESA as “an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.” 2 Critical habitat was not proposed within the listing rule.

“America’s Working Forests – Caring Every Day in Every Way” Printed on Recycled Paper

Line and Staff Officers, DBNF Page 2

likely to adversely affect” determinations. Formal consultation is required for “likely to adversely affect” determinations and will result in the issuance of a biological opinion by the FWS.

For the proposed critical habitat, one of the following determinations must be made:  No effect.  Not likely to adversely modify proposed critical habitat.  Likely to adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Both FSM and the ESA require the Forest Service to confer with the FWS only on actions that are likely to result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Though not required by FSM or the ESA, an informal conference may be advantageous when “not likely to adversely modify” or “no effect” determinations are reached.

NEPA COMPLIANCE As stated earlier, the proposed listing and subsequent actions taken to remain compliant under ESA should be viewed as “new information” or “changed circumstances” as it relates to compliance with NEPA. Conduct an interdisciplinary review of projects for which the decision is made and implementation has not begun or implementation is not complete. This review should follow direction in FSH 1909.15 Chapter 18. If the responsible official determines that a correction, supplement, or revision to an environmental document is not necessary and implementation should continue, document the results of the review in the appropriate project file in the form of a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) (FSH 1909.15 (18.1)). Consideration of projects occurring outside of the area where the Cumberland darter and/or the proposed critical habitat are found may be consolidated into one SIR and a copy of the approved SIR filed in each project file. All future projects, and projects that are currently in the planning phases (a decision not made), project files should include consideration of the Cumberland darter as an Endangered species and consideration of proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter. For questions regarding ESA compliance, contact Sandie Kilpatrick at (859) 745-3173. For questions regarding NEPA compliance, contact Elizabeth Botner at (859) 745-3151.

/s/ Frank R. Beum FRANK R. BEUM Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Tom R Biebighauser Frank J Metzmeier

Pamela J Martin John Omer Kim Tarter David Taylor Sandra Kilpatrick Jeffrey F Lewis Robert L Sitzlar Mike D Lick Laurie A Smith Elizabeth R Botner