Draft Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

April 2019 Draft Environmental Assessment

Buck Project

Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Clay County, North Carolina

For information Contact: Sarah Bridges 123 Woodland Drive Murphy NC 92006 (828) 837-5152 ext 110 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc Environmental Assessment Buck Project

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9742. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table of Contents

Summary ...... 1 Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Document Structure ...... 2 1.2 Description of the Project Area ...... 3 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 8 1.3.1 NFsNC Ecological Restoration Focus Areas & Forest Plan...... 8 1.3.2 Purpose and Need ...... 10 1.4 Proposed Alternatives ...... 10 1.4.1 Alternative A ...... 10 1.4.2 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ...... 10 1.4.3 Alternative B - Modified ...... 18 1.4.4 Alternative C ...... 18 1.4.5 Alternative D ...... 23 1.5 Decision to be Made ...... 27 1.6 Scoping ...... 27 1.6.1 Issues Raised in Scoping to be Addressed in this Analysis ...... 28 1.6.2 Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis ...... 32 2. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 32 2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 32 2.1.1 Alternative A ...... 32 2.1.2 Alternative B ...... 33 2.1.3 Alternative B - Modified ...... 33 2.1.4 Alternative C ...... 33 2.1.5 Alternative D ...... 33 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 33 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 34 2.4 Design Criteria ...... 35 3 Environmental Consequences ...... 37 3.1 Introduction ...... 37 3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 38 3.2.1 Aquatic Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 40 3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 48 3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 56 3.2.4. Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats ...... 64 3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 66 3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species ...... 66 3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species ...... 66 3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 66 3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species...... 66 3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species ...... 67 3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species ...... 67 3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive Species ...... 67 3.5. Forest Concern Species...... 67 ii

Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species ...... 68 3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species ...... 68 3.5.3 Wildlife Forest Concern Species ...... 69 3.6. Invasive Species, Natural Heritage Areas, & Old Growth ...... 71 3.6.1 Invasive Species ...... 71 3.6.2 North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas ...... 75 3.6.3 Old Growth ...... 76 3.7. Soil and Water Resources ...... 80 3.7.1 Soil Resources ...... 80 3.7.2 Water Resources ...... 86 3.8 Air Resources...... 92 3.9 Timber and Vegetation Management ...... 93 3.10 Heritage Resources ...... 95 3.11 Recreation Resources ...... 96 3.12 Scenery ...... 97 3.13 Social and Economic Considerations ...... 97 3.14 Road Management ...... 99 3.15 Climate Change ...... 99 4 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 103 4.1. List of Preparers ...... 103 4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 103 4.3 Literature Cited ...... 104 5 Appendix ...... 108 5.1 Biological Evaluation ...... 108

iii

Environmental Assessment Buck Project

SUMMARY Proposed Actions:

Implement management activities in Tusquitee Ranger District compartments 100 – 104 and 106 – 116 including: (1) implementing silvicultural treatments through commercial timber harvest to improve the resiliency of vegetation communities through the shelterwood with reserves silvicultural regeneration technique and create approximately 845 acres of early successional habitat in 32 stands; (2) implementing site- and species-specific stand improvement prescriptions to encourage the regeneration of natural vegetation within the historic range of variation in all treated stands through herbicide application, hand tool treatments, prescribed burning, planting hardwood seedlings, and/or releasing potential natural vegetation with herbicide treatments; (3) conducting treatments to control damaging infestations of grape and pipe vines through a combination of mechanical and herbicide treatments; (4) conducting thinning and burning treatments in two stands totaling 50 acres to improve conditions for botanical species; (5) building approximately 9.1 miles of temporary road to access stands for silvicultural treatments; (6) conducting treatments to improve watershed condition and aquatic organism passage in Dave Barrett Creek, Loggy Branch, Barret Branch, Ledford Branch, Glade Branch, Barnards Branch, Buck Creek, Little Buck Creek, and Muskrat Branch; (7) daylighting select sections of National Forest System roads by cutting and removing trees within a zone approximately 15 to 30 feet on each side of road edges; (8) implementing slashing treatments and increasing the prescribed burning program in the Serpentine Barrens area to restore unique ecosystem components; (9) planting herbaceous annual, biennial, and perennial native pollinator species in log landings, as practical, to provide foraging habitat for insects, birds, and other wildlife; (10) creating linear wildlife openings on sections of decommissioned temporary roads; (11) rehabilitating existing wildlife openings that are in poor condition in the Buck Creek, Dave Barrett Creek, and Vineyard Creek watersheds and on Boteler Peak; (12) implementing three new prescribed burns totaling approximately 3,600 acres; and (13) controlling invasive species by spraying approved herbicide solutions along all system roadsides and selected areas within treatment units.

Location of Action:

Compartments 100 – 104 and 106 – 116. Tusquitee Ranger District, Clay County, NC

Type of Statement: Responsible Officials:

Environmental Assessment Andrew V. Gaston, District Ranger Hurston A. Nicholas, Forest Supervisor

Lead Agency: Contact Person:

USDA Forest Service Sarah Bridges, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC 92006. (828) 837-5152

Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.), which requires an environmental analysis for federal actions having the potential to impact the quality of the human environment; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 through 1508) for implementing NEPA; Forest Service Procedures for Implementing CEQ regulations (Forest Service Manual (FSM) Chapter 1950); and the Forest Service Policy and Procedures Handbook (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15).

This document is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations. The EA is organized into five parts:

• Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Alternatives: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed by the Forest Service, subject to modification based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible design criteria to protect environmental attributes in the analysis area. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative. No Action provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tusquitee Ranger District office in Murphy, North Carolina.

2 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

1.2 Description of the Project Area

The analysis area (AA) encompasses approximately 20,638 acres of National Forest System lands in Compartments 100 – 104 and 106 – 116 located in southeastern Clay County, North Carolina. National Forest System acres in the compartments are in management area (MA) 3B, 4C, 4D, 5, 13, and 14. Embedded within the compartments is management area 18 (riparian areas around perennial water bodies). MAs 3B and 4D are suitable for vegetation management through commercial timber sales. MAs 5 (Backcountry), 7 (Wilderness), 13 (Special Interest Areas), and 14 (Appalachian Trail Management Corridor) are not suitable for timber sales. No treatments are proposed in the unsuitable management areas. These are included in the analysis area to better project the wildlife effects of proposed treatments.

Elevations in the AA range from approximately 2,400 feet to 4,000 feet. The AA includes the Boteler Peak, Chunky Gal, and Sharptop Ridge Inventoried Roadless Areas, the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Special Interest and Botanical Areas, North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas and sites near Deep Gap and the Southern Nantahala Wilderness. There are no developed Forest Service recreation facilities in the AA. The Appalachian Trail is at the eastern end of the AA and the Chunky Gal Trail cuts across the AA along the main ridge of Chunky Gal Mountain. The majority of recreational use occurs at dispersed camp sites along Buck Creek and Deep Gap Road, in and adjacent to the rockhounding area at Glade Gap, with hunting and fishing occurring throughout the AA near open and closed National Forest System roads.

The geology in the AA includes pockets of the Blue Ridge Belt, which is made up of sedimentary and metamorphic rock that contains mafic minerals with a basic pH. As most soils in the Southern Appalachians are acidic, these basic soils support unique plant assemblages. The Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens occur on soils derived from Blue Ridge Belt parent materials and provide habitat for locally rare insects. True to their name, the Barrens had a fewer number of widely spaced trees more typical of woodland rather than forest condition, but fire suppression during the 20th Century has allowed forests in the Barrens to become more fully stocked with woody vegetation, which is a departure from the range of historic variation in the area.

There is a long history of land use in the AA. Ritter Lumber Company, Gennett Lumber Company, and Champion Lumber Company owned large tracts of land in Clay County and Macon County in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For a number of years Ritter Lumber Company operated a sawmill in the Rainbow Springs area just east of the Buck AA. Most easily accessible portions of the AA were clearcut or high-graded prior to government acquisition in the 1920s – 1940s. A number of areas inaccessible to the timber companies were left undisturbed and some of those stands remain as old growth forest today. Several corundum mines were also established in the AA in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and provided raw material to be used in sandpaper and other abrasives. These mines were abandoned prior to government acquisition. Some old shafts still remain and at least two horizontal shafts are used as hibernacula by some bat species.

Past management by the Forest Service in the 20th century was typical for the time period. Fire was suppressed and excluded after government acquisition. Upland areas were allowed to regenerate to mixed mesophytic and northern hardwood forest types after having been high-

3 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project graded or clearcut in the early 1900s. Some of these areas were designated as roadless, wilderness, and special interest areas near the end of the 20th Century. With the exception of Compartment 106, the majority of the AA is in MA 4D, which emphasizes high quality habitats for wildlife requiring older forests and freedom from disturbance from motorized vehicles. Early successional habitat is provided in conjunction with managing suitable timber land in these areas.

Figure 1.2.1 Buck Project Vicinity Map

According to the Forest Service’s FSVeg Database, there are approximately 111 acres of early successional habitat (ESH – stands aged 0-10 years), 0.54% of the AA, on National Forest

4 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

System lands in the compartments. A total of 14,222 acres of the woody vegetation is over 80 years old, which is approximately 69% of the AA (Figure 1.2.2). Some areas in the AA may have forest in the 0 – 10 year age class due to natural disturbances that is not reflected by the FSVeg data. Although portions of the AA were affected by the wildfires in the fall of 2016, and some areas within the Boteler Peak Roadless Area experienced mortality as a result, there does not appear to be the same degree of dieback that occurred in other parts of the Nantahala National Forest where arson fires burned upslope and created extreme fire behavior relative to what is typically experienced in the Southern Appalachians. The fire that affected Boteler Peak was caused by a lightning strike near the top of the mountain, and the fire burned relatively slowly and primarily downslope at low intensities over several days, and while it killed some trees, it did not result in widespread stand-replacing intensity that produces ESH.

Table 1.2.1 (page 6) displays the current amount of early successional stands by compartment and also shows the amount of ESH that would result from this project as proposed, as well as the allowable amount of ESH per the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) by Compartment, MA, and for the AA.

Permanent openings, e.g. road rights of way (ROWs), wildlife openings, and power line ROWs, are not used in the calculation of zero to ten year age class stands. Age class distribution and ESH were estimated using the FSVeg database which contains the most recent forest inventory. The FSVeg database, however, does not show the potential natural vegetation compared to the existing vegetation cover, and age class data are not the only information utilized to formulate a purpose and need for the project and prescription to implement the objectives of the LRMP.

Figure 1.2.2 – Number of acres by age class in the Buck Project Area.

Chart developed from the Forest Service’s FSVeg Database, accessed February 2018.

5 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 1.2.1 – Amount of ESH Proposed and Allowed by Compartment (C) and Management Area (MA) for the Buck Project Acres of 0-10 Main Proposed Allowable Total C Number C Acres Present by C MA per C 0-10 Acres 0-10 Acres Existing + per C per C Proposed 100 307 0 4D 0 31 0 101 1,888 0 4D 0 189 0 102 2,014 0 4D 63 201 63 103 739 0 5 0 0 0 104 1,700 0 4D 75 170 75 106 1,585 9 3B 193 238 202 107 877 0 4D 74 88 74 108 1,100 0 4D 50 110 50 109 1,122 0 4D 100 112 100 110 1,436 0 4D 75 144 75 111 1,965 0 4D & 5 97 197 97 112 1,009 0 4D 0 101 0 113 1,681 46 4D & 5 75 168 121 114 1,638 66 4D 43 164 109 115 979 0 4D 0 98 0 116 799 0 4D 0 80 0 Acres of ESH calculated from the Forest Service’s FSVeg Database, accessed February 2018.

As demonstrated in Table 1.2.1, the amount of proposed ESH for each MA and compartment is consistent with the LRMP. A total of approximately 845 new acres of ESH is proposed for the AA, in addition to the 111 acres of existing ESH, results in a future total amount of 956 acres. The LRMP allows a maximum of 2,089 acres of ESH in the AA. The range of ESH allowed by the LRMP for the entire AA is 1,042 – 2,089 acres. Although not all the 111 acres of existing ESH are projected to remain in the zero to ten year age class by the time the proposed Buck Project treatments are implemented, the existing amount, combined with the acres proposed in this EA, would be 4.6% of National Forest System lands in the AA; the LRMP allows a maximum of 10%. This increase in ESH during the life of the project, approximately 2020 – 2027, would also see approximately 3,589 acres in the 71-80 age class enter the 81-90 age class, increasing that total from 14,222 acres currently (69% of the AA) to 17,811 or 86% of the AA at the conclusion of the project in 2027 or 2028.

Interior forest ESH is an important component of a healthy and diverse forest. Research by King and Schlossberg (2014), Greenberg et al (2011a), and Swanson et al (2010) document the rising concern among natural resource scientists and managers about decline of the many plant and wildlife species associated with ESH. Small and medium sized forest openings, which result from silvicultural treatments and natural disturbances, “function as high-quality food patches by providing abundant fruit, and nutritious foliage and flowers that attract pollinating and foliar arthropods and support high populations of small mammals that, in turn, are prey for numerous vertebrate predators” (Greenberg et al. 2011b). Interior forest ESH openings also provide habitat that is important to the 14 species of bats native to the Southern Appalachians (Loeb and O’Keefe 2011), as well as to ruffed grouse (Dessecker and McAuley 2001), a wide variety of

6 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

non-game bird species including the golden-winged warbler, and to many other wildlife species (Harper 2007, Labbe and King 2014).

Compartments 104, 108, 110, 111, and 113 are approximately five miles or less from the known golden-winged warbler (GWWA) cluster in the Rainbow Springs area. The GWWA (Vermivora chyrsoptera) is a migratory songbird that spends its summers in the eastern and north-central portions of the United States and southern Ontario and winters in Central America and northern South America. This species is one of the most critically threatened vertebrates in eastern North America that has yet to be designated as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Roth et al. 2012). It is reliant on ESH in forested landscapes. In 2010, the GWWA was petitioned for listing under the ESA. Golden- winged warbler population declines are due to loss of suitable young forest habitat and are exacerbated by competition and hybridization with a close relative, the blue-winged warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera).

To help expand breeding and foraging habitat for the GWWA, the Golden-Winged Warbler Working Group recommends management practices that produce ESH be conducted less than five miles (preferably less than one mile) from known GWWA populations and less than one mile from other ESH patches. Configuring habitat units in proximity to existing breeding populations is recommended because there is a high potential for successful positive response by golden-winged warblers (Roth et al. 2012). Two-age cuts are typically begin being used for breeding habitat one to two years post-harvest, and the GWWA will use these areas for several years as vegetation matures and until the canopy closes.

Natural disturbances can provide ESH, but those events occur at irregular and unpredictable intervals, therefore relying on natural disturbance regimes to establish ESH instead of scheduled management activities does not ensure ESH in desired amounts and locations. Natural mortality also produces ESH as stands reach senescence and begin another stand replacement cycle. Due to the extractive logging practices of the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the majority of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are in the 81 – 100 year age classes. According to the Forest Service’s Region 8 Old Growth Team, the estimated maximum age of trees in the dry- mesic oak forest community is 240-348 years for white oak and northern red oak, while maximum ages in the mixed mesophytic forest community ranges from 225 years for yellow poplar, 372 years for sugar maple, and 412 for beech.

As appreciable amounts of ESH from natural stand replacement cycles will not start occurring across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests for another 100 years or more, forest managers cannot rely on natural disturbance and senescence processes to produce ESH in the near future. Natural processes also do not assure a regular and sustained flow of interior forest ESH habitats across the national forest through space and time, and the age class and structural diversity ESH provides, as directed in the LRMP (page III-29). The LRMP also provides direction to provide ESH in conjunction with managing suitable timber land (page III-78) and also to use timber management practices as the primary tool to create desirable habitat (page III-74).

7 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 NFsNC Ecological Restoration Focus Areas & Forest Plan

In broad terms, the project is designed to improve, or maintain, wildlife habitat, species diversity of stands, soil and water resources, and forest health through vegetation management and other treatments. The project would implement direction set forth in the LRMP 1986-2000 for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (USDA, March 1987) as amended in 1994, in a manner which moves existing forest resources toward desired future conditions. More specifically, the project is designed to create interior forest ESH to improve breeding and foraging habitat for game and non-game wildlife in the short term and, through management, regenerating mixed hardwood stands with a plurality of oaks and hickories for hard mast production in the future.

In addition to implementing direction in the LRMP, these proposed actions also address the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Ecological Restoration Focus Areas. Ecological focus areas were developed as a collaborative effort between the Forest, partner organizations, and research scientists in August of 2008. This effort provides specific restoration goals for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests that are both timely and ecologically sound.

The proposed activities address the following restoration focus areas:

• Restore Rare Native Communities; Threatened and Endangered Species. • Restore Fire-Dependent Ecosystems. • Restore Diversity in Low-Diversity Forest Stands. • Restore Stream Systems and Watersheds to a Healthy Condition. • Restore Viable Native Plant Communities by Controlling Invasive Species. • Restore Wildlife Habitat.

Proposed treatments will also improve the existing condition of wildlife habitat, tree species diversity, timber resources, forest health, watershed conditions, recreational safety and access, and stream habitat within the Buck Project area in accordance with the LRMP goals, objectives and direction. The proposed activities move this vicinity of the Forest toward the desired future conditions established in the LRMP.

Direction in the LRMP reads, in part, to “Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations.” The project area contains minimal amounts of ESH which provides conditions for a suite of wildlife species, including game animals and Neotropical migratory birds, that regularly use young forests for cover, browse, or to feed on the insects and fruits and berries that are more abundant in very young forest conditions. The proposed regeneration treatments would accomplish the need to provide ESH by increasing the percentage of young forest. Silvicultural treatments would contribute to a mixture of stand age classes throughout the project area.

According to the LRMP, for botanical, wildlife, and fish resource management, “Use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives” (LRMP pg. III-24). The proposal includes treatments such as

8 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

shelterwood with reserves harvests to establish conditions conducive to the establishment and growth of mixed mesophytic hardwood and northern hardwood vegetation communities.

In addition to promoting the sustained viability of plant and tree populations, one way to achieve the desired sustained flow of diverse habitats is to disperse ESH across the landscape (LRMP, page III-31). The desired condition is to maintain ESH on a minimum of 5% and maximum of 15% in MAs 1B and 3B while not exceeding 10% in MA 4D on a compartment and AA basis (LRMP Amendment 5, page III-31).

The proposal includes silvicultural treatments to prepare and regenerate harvested areas for the development of future stands, and release treatments to improve tree growth and promote development of young trees. Post- and pre-harvest regeneration and release treatments would improve stand stocking and species composition. The proposed treatments also include tree harvesting using conventional ground-based and cable logging systems, site preparation to encourage natural regeneration of hardwood species, stand improvement after the first growing season to promote hard mast-producing species, roadside thinning, establishment of linear wildlife openings on select temporary road prisms, and rehabilitation of existing wildlife openings. Silvicultural treatments would establish approximately 845 acres of new, interior forest ESH to the landscape, an age class that is largely absent on national forest lands in the project area and which provides habitat for game and nongame wildlife.

Existing wildlife food plots and linear food strips are needed to provide grass/forb habitats and shrub habitats for wildlife species requiring those habitats. The proposed activities are in accordance with LRMP direction to “…use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives…” (LRMP, p. III-24).

Complete descriptions of desired conditions for each management area are contained in the LRMP.

• MA 4D: Emphasize high quality habitats for wildlife requiring older forests and freedom from disturbance from motorized vehicles. Allow small widely dispersed openings throughout the management area. Close roads to private motorized vehicles. ESH is provided in conjunction with managing suitable timber land in these areas. In MA 4D emphasis is on providing high quality wildlife habitat, particularly for black bear. The preferred habitat for black bear includes freedom from the disturbance of motorized vehicles, some areas of older forest, a sustained supply of hard mast (such as acorns from oaks) and den trees, and small, widely dispersed openings providing the soft mast (fruits and berries) typically found in very young forest. Timber management activities should be designed to provide these conditions (LRMP pages III-77 and III-78).

• MA 3B: Emphasize sustainable supply of timber, but with few open roads and limited disturbance associated with motorized vehicles. This MA also provides for the habitat needs of wildlife such as wild turkey, deer, a variety of small mammals, and other species that will benefit from a managed forest with limited motorized access. A sustainable supply of timber is achieved through regulating the growth and removal of trees through time (LRMP page III-71).

9 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

1.3.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is established by the requirements of the LRMP and the objectives set forth by the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Ecological Restoration Focus Areas. A key related purpose of this project is to increase the resiliency of vegetation communities and the non-game and game wildlife species, including the GWWA, that rely on them for habitat. The desired future condition for the Buck AA is a landscape that supports a diverse, productive, and healthy forest composed of vegetation within the historic range of variation, including age class and structural diversity. The literature cited in this chapter demonstrates the need for resilient ecosystems, including ESH, and the services that resilient ecosystems provide. An additional need in this project is to assign management area direction through a forest plan amendment to 31.5 acres of Tract N-958. The entire 140.28 acres in Tract N-958 was acquired by the Forest Service from the Stumac Corporation in 2003 and was never assigned a management area under the current Forest Plan. To proceed with proposed silvicultural treatments in Alternatives B and C, the applicable Forest Plan direction for these acquired lands needs to be identified.

1.4 Proposed Alternatives

1.4.1 Alternative A

No Action. Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented. This alternative would: (1) not contribute to the desired age class and structural diversity conditions set forth by the LRMP; (2) not maintain and enhance biological diversity by reproducing declining forest species, including golden-winged warblers; (3) not rehabilitate grass/forb openings for wildlife habitat; (4) not implement forest management activities to add interior forest ESH to the landscape; (5) not regenerate hard mast-producing mixed hardwood stands; and (6) not assign MA direction to a portion of Tract N-985. Disturbance regimes and successional processes would continue under Alternative A, resulting in forest communities that lack ESH and are departed from the historic range of natural variation.

1.4.2 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Shelterwood with Reserves: A total of 845 acres in 32 stands are being proposed for regeneration using a two-aged shelterwood with reserves treatment (refer to Table 1.4.2.1 on page 11 for stand numbers and the area of environmental analysis). This would be implemented by commercial timber harvest, using ground-based skidding equipment or cable yarding systems, consistent with direction in the LRMP. The majority of the timber would be cut and removed while approximately 10 - 20 square feet of basal area would remain through the next rotation. The residual trees would be left in clumps or dispersed throughout the stand, depending on site specific characteristics. The result of this treatment is the creation and maintenance of a two- aged stand in which one of the age classes is the regenerating trees and the other is the mature trees that remain after the harvest is complete.

The LRMP limits openings through silvicultural treatments to 25 acres with 660 feet between openings in MA 4D. For 17 stands, the area of analysis identified in Table 1.4.2.1 is larger than 25 acres to provide the Forest Service the flexibility to locate openings equal to or less than 25

10 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

acres, consistent with the LRMP direction, within the area of analysis while avoiding and/or minimizing impacts to botanical, heritage, wildlife, and/or riparian resources in the area of analysis. When finalized, treatment areas would not exceed 25 acres and would not extend beyond the boundary of each stand’s area of analysis identified on project maps.

Table 1.4.2.1: Buck Project – Proposed Vegetation Treatments – Alternative B Stand Management Area Treatment/Analysis Area Acres 102/3n 4D 20 102/3s 4D 20 102/5 4D 23 104/13 4D 25/28 104/18 4D 25/28 104/19 4D 25/26 106/2 3B 39 106/4 3B 38 106/5 3B 39 106/7e 3B 40 106/7w 3B 37 107/2 4D 24 107/4 4D 25 107/19 4D 25/29 108/20 4D 25/28 108/23 4D 25/28 109/7 4D 25/27 109/11 4D 25/28 109/19 4D 25/26 109/35 4D 25/29 110/7 4D 25 110/18 4D 25/27 110/22 4D 25/27 111/32 4D 24 111/34 4D 23 111/40 4D 25/26 111/41 4D 25/26 113/1* 4D 25 113/11* 4D 25/26 113/34* 4D 25/26 114/6n 4D 18 114/7 4D 25/48 Total Area of Treatment 845/899 *All treatments to these stands would be dropped under Alternative B – Modified, described on pages 17 - 18.

Forest Plan Amendment: Consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding new land acquisitions, a forest plan amendment is being proposed in Alternative B to assign 31.5 acres of Tract N-958 to Management Area 4D. The entire 140.28 acre tract, 31.5 acres of which are

11 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

included in this amendment, was acquired by the Forest Service from the Stumac Corporation in 2003 and was never assigned a management area under the current LRMP.

To proceed with the proposed silvicultural treatment in stand 113/34, which overlaps the acquisition, the applicable LRMP direction for these acquired lands needs to be identified. The area is almost entirely surrounded by MA 4D and assignment to this management area would be consistent with adjacent land management identified in the LRMP. MA 4D emphasizes high quality habitats for wildlife requiring older forests and freedom from disturbance from motorized vehicles. ESH is provided in conjunction with managing suitable timber land in these areas. All plan direction that applies to MA 4D in the current LRMP would be applied to the 31.5 acres allocated to MA 4D through this amendment. Figure 1.4.2.1 on page 13 shows the 31.5 acres of the 140.28 acre tract that is covered by the proposal to amend the LRMP.

Meeting Substantive Requirements of the Rule: In conducting a plan amendment, the specific substantive planning rule requirements within 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that are “directly related” to the plan direction being amended need to be identified and applied. Conversely, any substantive rule requirements that are not directly related do not need to be applied to the amendment (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5).

The planning rule identifies that a specific substantive planning rule requirement is “directly related” to an amendment based on the purpose for the amendment and if there are substantive adverse effects associated with that requirement, or if the amendment would substantially lessen protections for a specific resource (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5)). If any of the plan components being amended are determined to be “directly related” to a substantive planning rule requirement, the Responsible Official must apply that rule requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and, if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the rule requirement.

For this plan amendment, given the purpose of the amendment to assign LRMP management direction to an acquired tract, the planning rule requirement that is directly related to this plan amendment is 36 CFR 219.10(a), which states that “The plan must include plan components, including standards and guidelines, for integrated resource management to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses in the plan area.” Assigning MA 4D with its accompanying set of plan management direction and standards to this tract of acquired land will meet this planning rule requirement.

Since this forest plan amendment is to add the management direction and standards associated with the adjacent lands to these newly acquired lands that previously had no management direction, there would be no substantial adverse effects associated with this amendment, nor would there be any substantial lessening of protections for a specific resource. Consequently, none of the other 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 requirements are directly related to this amendment.

12 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Figure 1.4.2.1 Area Proposed for Forest Plan Amendment

13 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Stand Improvement and Site Preparation Activities: Activities following harvest would be necessary to promote the desired future condition of the stands. The following activities are proposed, and would be implemented based on site-specific conditions and needs:

• Site Preparation with Herbicide – treatment of residual stems with herbicide; • Site Preparation with Hand Tools – cutting of the residual stems; • Site Preparation burning – using prescribed fire to prepare the site for regeneration; • Planting – planting desirable tree species on the site; and • Release with Herbicide – releasing desirable stems to grow by applying herbicide on undesirable stems.

Crop Tree Release and Vine Control: Release desired trees several years post-harvest through manual and/or chemical treatment of undesirable competition, including vines, from hardwood stems, particularly favoring the release of hard mast-producing species, as necessary, in AA stands as they reach 10 to 30 years of age. Release and vine control treatments would be conducted as necessary to prevent damage to regenerating areas in the stands receiving silvicultural treatments as proposed in Table 1.4.2.1 and in areas that have received silvicultural treatments previously.

Temporary Road Construction: To provide management access, approximately 9.1 miles of temporary road construction is proposed to access the stands listed in Table 1.4.2.2, below. Approximately 4.7 miles would utilize an existing road prism, with the remainder of approximately 4.4 miles of new temporary road.

Table 1.4.2.2 Temporary road construction proposed in the Buck Project – Alt B Access to Compartment Length in Miles 104 0.96 new prism 106 0.45 existing prism & 0.54 new prism 107 0.67 existing prism & 0.33 new prism 108 1.09 new prism 109 1.06 existing prism 110 0.43 existing prism 111 0.74 existing prism 112 0.15 existing prism 113* 0.89 existing prism & 1.23 new prism 114 0.29 existing prism & 0.25 new prism *These temporary road segments would be dropped under Alternative B – Modified, described on pages 17 - 18.

Watershed Improvements: A total of 17 watershed improvement projects are proposed, as follows:

• Dave Barrett Creek Crossing. Stream crossing currently has three corrugated metal pipes (CMPs). The channel is over widened with aggradation upstream. Propose replacing the crossing with a bridge or bottomless arch.

14 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Dave Barrett Creek bank erosion. The left stream bank is eroding approximately 150 feet downstream of the road crossing. Propose stabilizing slopes, constructing a small bankfull bench, installing a rock or log vane to direct flow away from the bank, and vegetating the site.

• Loggy Branch Ford. The road has been blocked, but the old ford lacks vegetation on banks. Propose breaking up soil compaction using small excavator and vegetating with transplants, live stakes, and riparian seed.

• Dave Barret Creek Dump site/ATV trail. Trash has been left within the riparian area. An old road accessing the dump site is used by ATVs. Propose removing trash, obliterating the illegal road using small excavator, and seeding and mulching the site.

• Barret Branch Crossing. The existing CMP is undersized for the stream. Propose replacing with a natural ford or bottomless arch.

• Ledford Branch Ford. Ford is too flat, resulting in rocks being deposited within the ford and over-widening the channel. Propose installing rock vane structures at the ford to increase substrate transport capacity within the ford and improve vehicular access.

• Glade Branch dispersed campsite. The campsite sits entirely within the floodplain of Glade Branch, causing stream bank erosion and channel instability. Propose closing and redesigning the campsite to control runoff, reconstructing the stream bank using toewood structure, possibly installing an instream rock/log structure to control stream grade, and vegetate the stream bank.

• Glade Branch trash dumps. Tires, appliances, etc. have been dumped along the road adjacent to Glade Branch. Propose removing and disposing of the trash.

• Glade Branch 4x4 road (spur road off of old Highway 64). The old road is being used by 4x4 vehicles, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of streams. Propose obliterating the road using an excavator.

• Tributary of Glade Branch Ford (spur road off of old Highway 64). An old road is open to 4x4 vehicles with a ford that is diverting water onto the road surface for approximately 50 feet in length. Propose obliterating the road using an excavator and restoring the stream to its original channel.

• Barnards Branch Road and Slide. An old road within the riparian area has developed a slide directly into Barnards Branch. Propose obliterating the old road and constructing a small bankfull bench along the stream where the slide has occurred using an excavator. The site would be revegetated.

• Barnards Branch Log Crib Fish Barrier. A fish barrier is causing stream aggradation upstream and degradation downstream. Propose removing the structure using an

15 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

excavator, stabilizing the existing banks, installing instream grade control structures, and vegetating banks.

• An abandoned vertical mine shaft near the log crib barrier is currently flooded and poses a safety risk. The shaft would be plugged using boulders placed by an excavator.

• Buck Creek Road – Forest Service Road (FSR) 71. A side channel of Buck Creek is cutting into FSR71. Propose unplugging other channel to redirect flow away from road. A vane would be installed in the bend of the creek at the road to pull water away from road and create a pool for fish. The opposite bank from the vane would require some reworking with an excavator to provide a bankfull channel for the stream.

• Buck Creek FSR71D Spur. An old road bed intersects FSR71D. The road has diverted stream flow during storms resulting in mass wasting of stream banks and undercutting of the road fill. The upstream portion of this old road was analyzed for treatment under the Buck Creek Watershed Project (2014 decision) but the lower portion also requires plugging and stabilization using an excavator to prevent additional erosion from occurring.

• Little Buck Creek Brook Trout Reintroduction. Little Buck Creek once supported a Brook Trout population. Propose working with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to relocate Brook Trout from upper Buck Creek into Little Buck Creek to reestablish a population. This work may require removal of any Rainbow Trout and/or Brown Trout which may occur within the headwaters of Little Buck Creek using electrofishing gear.

• Muskrat Branch Large Woody Debris Additions. This stream contains very little large woody debris within the channel. Several sections have an entrenched stream channel condition with very low fish habitat diversity. Propose adding trees with root wads attached to the channel using an excavator. Trees would be placed at the direction of the fisheries biologist and/or hydrologist to increase stream channel complexity and reconnect the stream channel to its floodplain. Some steep banks may need to be sloped to a stable 2:1 slope and vegetated.

Botanical and Vegetation Community Treatments:

• Thinning and Burning: Conduct thinning treatments in stands 114/6s (25 acres) and 104/23 (25 acres) to remove some trees which would allow the remaining trees more room to grow and to increase the amount of sunlight on the forest floor to benefit botanical species which respond favorably to more open conditions. Harvested stems would be selected to allow increased growth to the remaining trees. The residual basal area would be approximately 80 square feet. Thinning would be followed with prescribed burning to further support fire adapted species in the vicinity.

• Serpentine Barrens Treatments: Slashing and burning treatments would be conducted at select locations across 1,500 acres in the serpentine barrens and the Buck Creek

16 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

watershed north of U.S. Highway 64. These treatments would remove overstocked vegetation and improve ecological conditions in and adjacent to the serpentine barrens and would consist of using mechanical methods to reduce basal area, leaving larger trees. These methods would be used to enhance prescribed fire effectiveness, to mimic natural fires which occurred more frequently historically, and which is essential to the vigor and resilience of the special vegetation communities in the area. Slashing would be used in locations where commercial timber harvest is not practical or feasible, prescribed fire has been ineffective due to shaded, cool, and mesic conditions from the tree canopy, and where additional fuel loading is needed to achieve desired fire effects. Slashing and burning treatments may be applied to selected areas across the entire 1,500 acre area multiple times over the life of the Buck Project. Vegetation monitoring would be utilized to determine when and where to use sub-merchantable timber harvest based on the percent cover of woody vegetation within a prescribed burn unit.

• Prescribed Fire: Separate from the thinning treatments described previously, three prescribed burn units (approximately 3,600 acres) are proposed for the area around the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Special Interest Area, Glade Gap Slopes, and the Riley Knob/Chunky Gal Special Interest Area. The goal of prescribed fire in the Buck Project area is to reduce encroaching woody vegetation which is degrading open habitat needed for native plants and animals and to promote barrens fire adapted plant and animal species found in the Special Interest Areas and surrounding Management Areas, some of which include Natural Heritage Natural Areas. Multiple prescribed fires within each prescribed burn unit are proposed over the life of the Buck Project.

• Planting: Plant herbaceous annual, biennial, and perennial native pollinator species in log landings, as practical, to provide foraging habitat for insects, birds, and other wildlife.

• Non-native Invasive Species: Treat non-native invasive plant species with NFsNC- approved herbicides as necessary throughout the analysis area. These treatments would be applied as many times as necessary.

Wildlife Treatments:

Buck Creek Watershed: • Rehabilitate the three wildlife fields on FSR 6269A, which could include disking, seeding, applying herbicide, and feathering the edges; replant to clover; and plant one or two apple trees along the field margins and protect with tree shelters. • Plant multiple apple/persimmon trees along the margins of the Catholic Fields and protect with tree shelters. Due to the need for female persimmons to produce fruit, multiple trees would need to be planted in close proximity.

Dave Barrett Creek Watershed: • Rehabilitate an existing logging deck from a prior entry in this watershed. Increase the size of the logging deck by removing young poplars and other trees using a dozer and establish a 30-40 feet wide brushy edge around the perimeter. Plant clover and /or a pollinator mix.

17 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Apply herbicide to eliminate Sericea lespedeza on a nearby logging deck and establish clover mix at this location.

Vineyard Creek Watershed: • Clear encroaching woody vegetation in wide spots of FSR 6225. If possible, plant to clover mix.

Boteler Peak Area: • Reestablish clover, if not the entirety, then as much as possible, in the large field on top of Boteler Peak.

1.4.3 Alternative B - Modified Under Alternative B – Modified, the Forest Service would not complete a project-level plan amendment to designate 31.5 acres of Tract N-958 to Management Area 4D. This would result in three stands totaling 75 acres being dropped from silvicultural treatments - - 113/1, 113/11, and 113/34 - - and would reduce the amount of temporary road construction to 7 miles from 9.1 miles, by dropping 0.89 miles of temporary road on an existing prism and 1.23 miles on a new temporary road prism. The Forest Service would attempt to implement all other treatments proposed in Alternative B, but some watershed, botanical, and wildlife treatments may need to be reduced commensurate with a projected 9% reduction in silvicultural treatments under Alternative B – Modified, which would result in 770 acres of ESH.

1.4.4 Alternative C

Alternative C largely reflects the original proposal that was scoped with the public in 2018.

Conduct Shelterwood with Reserves treatments on 36 stands totaling approximately 953 acres (refer to Table 1.4.4.1 for stand numbers and maximum treated acres). This would be implemented by commercial timber harvest, using ground-based skidding equipment or cable yarding systems, consistent with direction in the LRMP. The majority of the timber would be cut and removed while approximately 10 - 20 square feet of basal area would remain through the next rotation. The residual trees would be left in clumps or dispersed throughout the stand, depending on site specific characteristics. The result of this treatment is the creation and maintenance of a two-aged stand in which one of the age classes is the regenerating trees and the other is the mature trees that remain after the harvest is complete.

The LRMP limits openings through silvicultural treatments to 25 acres with 660 feet between openings in MA 4D and to 40 acres with 330 feet between openings in MA 3B. In 28 stands, the area of analysis presented in Table 1.4.3.1 is larger than 25 and 40 acres in MA 4D and 3B, respectively, to provide the Forest Service the flexibility to locate openings equal to or less than 25 acres in MA 4D and 40 acres in MA 3B, consistent with the LRMP direction, within the area of analysis while avoiding and/or minimizing impacts to botanical, heritage, wildlife, and/or riparian resources in the area of analysis. When finalized, treatment areas would not exceed 25 acres in MA 4D and 40 acres in MA 3B, and would not extend beyond the current boundary of

18 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project each stand’s area of analysis. The total new ESH established within this 1,280 acre area of analysis would be approximately 953 acres.

Table 1.4.4.1: Buck Project – Proposed Vegetation Treatments – Alternative C Stand Management Area Area of Analysis in Acres 102/5 4D 18 102/3n 4D 21 102/3s 4D 25/30 104/13 4D 25/34 104/18 4D 25/37 104/19 4D 25/34 104/23 4D 25/40 106/2 3B 40/44 106/4 3B 40/43 106/5 3B 40 106/7e 3B 40/41 106/7w 3B 37 107/2 4D 23 107/4 4D 25/51 107/11 4D 25/29 107/19 4D 25/46 108/8 4D 25/40 108/20 4D 25/43 108/21 4D 25/31 108/23 4D 25/34 109/7 4D 25/28 109/11 4D 25/28 109/19 4D 23 109/35 4D 25/37 110/7 4D 22 110/18 4D 24 110/22 4D 25/27 111/32 4D 25/46 111/34 4D 25/34 111/40 4D 25/32 111/41 4D 25/42 113/1 4D 25/41 113/11 4D 25/39 113/34 4D 25/35 114/6 4D 25/47 114/7 4D 25/59 Total 953/1,280

Forest Plan Amendment: Consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding new land acquisitions, a forest plan amendment is being proposed in Alternative C to assign 31.5 acres of

19 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Tract N-958 to Management Area 4D. The entire 140.28 acre tract, 31.5 acres of which are included in this amendment, was acquired by the Forest Service from the Stumac Corporation in 2003 and was never assigned a management area under the current LRMP. Please refer to the description regarding the substantive requirements on pages 11 - 12 and to Figure 1.4.2.1 on page 13.

Stand Improvement and Site Preparation Activities: Post-harvest treatments are necessary to promote the desired future condition of the stands. The following activities are proposed:

Crop Tree Release and Vine Control: Release desired trees several years post-harvest through manual and/or chemical treatment of undesirable competition (including vines) from hardwood stems, particularly favoring the release of hard mast-producing species, as necessary, in AA stands as they reach 10 to 30 years of age. Release and vine control treatments would be conducted as necessary to prevent damage to regenerating areas in the stands receiving silvicultural treatments as proposed in Table 1.4.4.1 and in areas that have received silvicultural treatments previously.

Temporary Road Construction: To provide management access, approximately 10.06 miles of temporary road construction is proposed to access the stands listed in Table 1.4.2.2.

Table 1.4.4.2 Temporary road construction proposed under Alternative C Access to Stand Length in Miles 104/18 .28 104/19 .11 106/2 .80 107/2 and 107/19 .67 107/11 .53 108/8 1.11 108/20 .12 108/23 .26 109/7 .38 109/11 .21 109/35 and 107/4 .87 110/7 and 107/22 1.2 110/18 .31 111/32 .16 111/34 .15 111/40 .39 111/41 .19 113/1 .35 113/11 1.61 114/7 .36

20 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Watershed Improvements: A total of 17 watershed improvement projects are proposed, as follows:

• Barret Branch Crossing. The existing CMP is undersized for the stream. Propose replacing with a natural ford or bottomless arch.

• Ledford Branch Ford. Ford is too flat, resulting in rocks being deposited within the ford and over-widening the channel. Propose installing rock vane structures at the ford to increase sediment transport capacity within the ford and improve vehicular access.

• Glade Branch trash dumps. Tires, appliances, etc. have been dumped along the road adjacent to Glade Branch. Propose removing and disposing of the trash.

21 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Barnards Branch Log Crib Fish Barrier. A fish barrier is causing stream aggradation upstream and degradation downstream. Propose removing the structure using an excavator, stabilizing the existing banks, installing instream grade control structures, and vegetating banks.

• An abandoned vertical mine shaft near the log crib barrier is currently flooded and poses a safety risk. The shaft would be plugged using boulders placed by an excavator.

Botanical and Vegetation Community Treatments:

• Prescribed Fire: Three prescribed fire units (approximately 3,600 acres) are proposed for the area around the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Special Interest Area, Glade Gap Slopes, and the Riley Knob/Chunky Gal Special Interest Area. The goal of prescribed fire in the Buck Project area is to reduce encroaching woody vegetation which is degrading open habitat needed for native plants and animals and to promote barrens fire adapted plant and animal species found in the Special Interest Areas and surrounding Management Areas, some of which include Natural Heritage Natural Areas. Multiple prescribed burn treatments within each prescribed burn unit are proposed over the life of the Buck Project.

22 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Planting: Plant herbaceous annual, biennial, and perennial native pollinator species in log landings, as practical, to provide foraging habitat for insects, birds, and other wildlife.

Wildlife Treatments:

Vineyard Creek Watershed: • Clear encroaching woody vegetation in wide spots of FSR 6225. If possible, plant to clover mix.

Boteler Peak Area: • Reestablish clover, if not the entirety, then as much as possible, in the large field on top of Boteler Peak.

1.4.5 Alternative D

Alternative D is based on information the Forest Service received during scoping and responds to concerns about impacts to (1) areas that could be proposed for wilderness (see also Section 1.6.1); (2) areas that that have the potential to support old growth forests given the topography, aspect, and reported age; (3) the area in Compartment 113 which contains a recently acquired private tract that has not been assigned a management area; and (4) soil and water quality from temporary road construction. In response to these concerns, under Alternative D, 18 stands would be dropped from the original proposal (Alternative C) resulting in approximately 497 acres of ESH and 3.4 miles of temporary road construction.

Shelterwood with Reserves: A total of 497 acres in 18 stands are being proposed for regeneration using a two-aged shelterwood with reserves treatment (refer to Table 1.4.5.1 on page 24 for stand numbers and the area of environmental analysis). This would be implemented by commercial timber harvest, using ground-based skidding equipment or cable yarding systems,

23 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

consistent with direction in the LRMP. The majority of the timber would be cut and removed while approximately 10 - 20 square feet of basal area would remain through the next rotation. The residual trees would be left in clumps or dispersed throughout the stand, depending on site specific characteristics. The result of this treatment is the creation and maintenance of a two- aged stand in which one of the age classes is the regenerating trees and the other is the mature trees that remain after the harvest is complete.

The LRMP limits openings through silvicultural treatments to 25 acres with 660 feet between openings in MA 4D. For six stands, the area of analysis identified in Table 1.4.5.1 is larger than 25 acres to provide the Forest Service the flexibility to locate openings equal to or less than 25 acres, consistent with the LRMP direction, within the area of analysis while avoiding and/or minimizing impacts to botanical, heritage, wildlife, and/or riparian resources in the area of analysis. When finalized, treatment areas would not exceed 25 acres and would not extend beyond the boundary of each stand’s area of analysis identified on project maps. The total new ESH established within this 511 acre area of analysis would be approximately 497 acres.

Table 1.4.5.1: Buck Project – Proposed Vegetation Treatments – Alternative D Management Treatment/Analysis Area Stand Area Acres 102/3n 4D 20 102/3s 4D 20 102/5 4D 23 106/2 3B 39 106/4 3B 38 106/5 3B 39 106/7e 3B 40 106/7w 3B 37 107/2 4D 24 107/4 4D 25 107/19 4D 25/29 109/11 4D 25/28 109/19 4D 25/26 109/35 4D 25/29 111/32 4D 24 111/40 4D 25/26 111/41 4D 25/26 114/6n 4D 18 Total Area of Treatment 497/511

Stand Improvement and Site Preparation Activities: Activities following harvest would be necessary in order to promote the desired future condition of the stands. The following activities have been proposed:

• Site Preparation with Herbicide – treatment of residual stems with herbicide;

24 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Site Preparation with Hand Tools – cutting of the residual stems; • Site Preparation burning – using prescribed fire to prepare the site for regeneration; • Planting – planting desirable tree species on the site; and • Release with Herbicide – releasing desirable stems to grow by applying herbicide on undesirable stems.

Crop Tree Release and Vine Control: Release desired trees several years post-harvest through manual and/or chemical treatment of undesirable competition (including vines) from hardwood stems, particularly favoring the release of hard mast-producing species, as necessary, in AA stands as they reach 10 to 30 years of age. Release and vine control treatments would be conducted as necessary to prevent damage to regenerating areas in the stands receiving silvicultural treatments as proposed in Table 1.4.5.1 and in areas that have received silvicultural treatments previously.

Temporary Road Construction: To provide management access, approximately 3.3 miles of temporary road construction is proposed to access the stands listed in Table 1.4.5.2, below. Approximately 2.4 miles would utilize an existing road prism, with the remainder of approximately 0.9 miles of new temporary road.

Table 1.4.5.2 Temporary road construction proposed in the Buck Project Access to Compartment Length in Miles 106 0.45 existing prism & .54 new prism 107 0.62 old & 0.38 new prism 109 .58 existing prism 111 0.74 existing prism

Watershed Improvements: Nine watershed improvement projects are proposed, as follows:

• Ledford Branch Ford. Ford is too flat, resulting in rocks being deposited within the ford and over-widening the channel. Propose installing rock vane structures at the ford to increase sediment transport capacity within the ford and improve vehicular access.

• Glade Branch trash dumps. Tires, appliances, etc. have been dumped along the road adjacent to Glade Branch. Propose removing and disposing of the trash.

• An abandoned vertical mine shaft near the log crib barrier is currently flooded and poses a safety risk. The shaft would be plugged using boulders placed by an excavator.

25 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Botanical and Vegetation Community Treatments:

• Prescribed Fire: One prescribed burn unit totaling approximately 1,383 acres is proposed for the area around the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens SIA. The goal of prescribed fire is to reduce encroaching woody vegetation which is degrading open habitat needed for native plants and animals and to promote barrens fire adapted plant and animal species. Multiple prescribed burn treatments are proposed over the life of the Buck Project.

• Serpentine Barrens Treatments: Thinning treatments would be conducted at select locations within 900 acres of the serpentine barrens SIA and would consist of using mechanical methods to reduce basal area, leaving larger trees. These methods would be used to enhance prescribed fire effectiveness, to mimic natural fires which occurred more frequently historically, and which is essential to the vigor and resilience of the special vegetation communities in the area. Slashing would be used in locations where commercial timber harvest is not practical or feasible, prescribed fire has been ineffective due to shaded, cool, and wet conditions from the tree canopy, and where additional fuel loading is needed to achieve desired fire effects. Slashing and burning treatments may be applied to selected areas across the entire 900 acres multiple times over the life of the Buck Project. Vegetation monitoring would be utilized to determine when and where to

26 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

use sub-merchantable timber harvest based on the percent cover of woody vegetation within a prescribed fire unit.

• Planting: Plant herbaceous annual, biennial, and perennial native pollinator species in log landings, as practical, to provide foraging habitat for insects, birds, and other wildlife.

Wildlife Treatments:

Vineyard Creek Watershed: • Clear encroaching woody vegetation in wide spots of FSR 6225. If possible, plant to clover mix.

1.5 Decision to be Made

Based on the environmental analysis, the responsible official will decide whether to implement an action alternative, a modified action alternative, or the no action alternative. If an action alternative is selected, it will include: • Which treatments best meet the purpose and need for the project and implements the objectives of the Ecological Restoration Focus Areas and the LRMP? • How well does it maintain and protect physical, biological and social resources? • What design criteria and monitoring requirements are needed?

1.6 Scoping

The project was scoped with the public in November and December of 2017. A public meeting to discuss the project was held at the Hinton Rural Life Center on November 2, 2017. On November 30, 2017, a letter was mailed to the Tusquitee Ranger District’s mailing list, including to people who live in the Buck Creek and Rainbow Falls area. A Scoping Record with maps and a proposed activity list was posted on the National Forests in North Carolina web site for interested parties to comment on the project proposal. A total of 17 formal comments were received from federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and members of the general public.

27 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

1.6.1 Issues Raised in Scoping to be Addressed in this Analysis

The following concerns, issues, and recommendations were raised during public scoping:

Concern: Request for a collaborative process and longer timeline.

Response: The Forest Service has made efforts to accommodate these two requests. The Tusquitee Ranger District hosted meetings with the two organizations that requested more collaboration in spring 2018 and convened a site visit with these same parties on October 30, 2018. The project timeline was lengthened by several months, partially in response to these and other comments. The Tusquitee Ranger District conducted additional interdisciplinary team meetings on the project in late winter and early spring of 2019 to further refine alternatives.

Concern: Statement that the Buck Project should have thorough field inventories and analysis for rare species, and allow for independent, third-party surveys during the growing season.

Response. The longer timeline provided the opportunity for third-party botanical survey. Results of this study were shared with the Forest Service and resulted in adjustments to some of the proposed treatments and treatment areas that are reflected in Alternatives B, B – Modified, and D. The extended timeline also enabled the Forest Service to review the contracted botanical survey and to spend time in the field with representatives from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and from MountainTrue. Results of these surveys and site visits are incorporated in the Biological Evaluation (BE) in Section 5.1 of this document, and also in Section 3.2, Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species, and are also reflected in a number of modifications to the actions proposed in the Scoping Record as reflected in Alternatives B, B – Modified, and D.

Concern: Statement that the Buck Project, as proposed in the Scoping Record, violates the 2001 Roadless Rule, specifically stands 102/5 and 111/40.

Response: The Forest Service has withdrawn the area of concern in stand 102/5. The Forest Service reviewed internal databases and the official Motor Vehicle Use records and found that Forest Service Road 6262 extends to the eastern end of stand 111/40, which is outside of the Chunky Gal Inventoried Roadless Area. Accordingly, the Forest Service has determined that the treatments proposed for 102/5 and 111/40 under Alternatives B, B – Modified, and D are consistent with law, regulation, and policy pertaining to roadless areas.

Concern: Some of the areas proposed for treatment are being evaluated for wilderness characteristics, having been nominated for addition to the Southern Nantahala Wilderness as part of the process to revise the Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Recommendation that the Forest Service should take no action in the Buck Project that would prejudice or limit the consideration of alternatives for these areas in the future.

Response: Independent of the Buck Project, the National Forests in North Carolina is conducting an analysis of lands that may be suitable for wilderness as part of the planning effort

28 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. In response to this comment, the Forest Service developed Alternative D, which does not include treatments in areas that are within lands that may be suitable for wilderness. To ensure consistency with the plan revision process, potential impacts to wilderness characteristics of the Boteler and Chunky Gal inventory areas were considered for each of the Buck Project’s alternatives that were analyzed in detail and are described below.

Under Alternatives A and D, no treatments are proposed in areas that have been identified as lands that may be suitable for wilderness, so there would be no impacts to wilderness characteristics of the Boteler and Chunky Gal inventory areas from these alternatives.

Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C, stands 104/18, 104/19, 104/13, and 104/23 lie within the Boteler Peak inventory area, adjacent to but outside of the Boteler Peak Inventoried Roadless Area. They are all either directly adjacent to or within a half mile of an open Forest Service system road. Open roads, an existing communication tower, and a cleared utility corridor all detract from naturalness and solitude in the vicinity of the proposed treatments. Proposed silvicultural treatments on 100 acres across four units would not further impact wilderness characteristics in the eastern portion of the Boteler Peak inventory area. Other treatments in this area include temporary road construction to provide access for silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning. Both prescribed fire and temporary road construction would be short-term impacts on the landscape that would not further detract from wilderness characteristics in the vicinity. None of the proposed treatments in Compartment 104 represent an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would preclude future potential recommendation for wilderness.

Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C, stands 108/20, 108/23, 109/7, 110/7, 110/22, 110/18, and 114/7 lie within the Chunky Gal inventory area, adjacent to but outside of the Chunky Gal and Sharptop Ridge Inventoried Roadless Areas. All units are either directly adjacent to or within a half mile of an open Forest Service system road. Proposed silvicultural treatments in compartment 108 are less than a quarter mile from U.S. Highway 64 where sights and sounds from the highway impact solitude and naturalness. Silvicultural treatments in compartments 109 and 114 are adjacent to open Forest Service roads and the three proposed units in compartment 110 are adjacent to a closed Forest Service road. All proposed treatments are in areas that have existing roads and past silvicultural treatments, and treatments would not impact wilderness characteristics in the Chunky Gal inventory area. Other proposed treatments in this area include temporary road construction to provide access to accomplish silvicultural treatments, fisheries and watershed work, and prescribed burning. All proposed treatments would result in short-term impacts on the landscape that would not further detract from wilderness characteristics in the vicinity. None of the proposed treatments in Compartments 108, 109, 110, and 114 represent an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would preclude future potential recommendation for wilderness.

Concern: Statement that because potential areas for silvicultural treatment exceed the maximum size established by the LRMP in a number of cases, the Forest Service must identify the actual boundaries of areas proposed for timber harvest so that the full suite of potential effects can be identified and assessed.

29 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Response: As stated in Chapter 1, the geology and elevations in the Buck Project AA support unique vegetation communities, including Regionally Sensitive and Forest Concern species, National Forests in North Carolina Special Interest Areas, wild native trout stream headwaters, seeps, boulderfields, and other attributes of concern, including North Carolina Natural Heritage Areas, to name several. To ensure that areas with special attributes would not be negatively impacted by silvicultural treatment, and to support a robust assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, the Tusquitee Ranger District chose to analyze polygons that exceed the maximum size direction in the LRMP. The Forest Service believes this approach has succeeded in providing accurate and reliable data to both inform internal analyses as demonstrated in this document, and has, and will continue to enable meaningful public comment on that analysis.

Although a number of stands identified in the four action alternatives currently exceed LRMP direction, the majority do so by less than five acres in Alternatives B, B – Modified, and D. Per Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, and 1.4.5, when finalized, treatment areas would not exceed LRMP direction and would not extend beyond the current boundary of each stand’s area of analysis.

Concern: Statement that the project would allow ground-based logging on steep slopes where the LRMP requires cable logging.

Response: The Tusquitee Ranger District would follow all LRMP standards for operations. Please see Section 3.9 for a description of proposed logging methods.

Concern: That areas proposed for early successional habitat regeneration contain rare communities, rare species, and may contain old-growth forest.

Response: In developing the proposal, the Forest Service consulted the map layers produced by MountainTrue and others to identify areas they previously identified as containing old growth forest as well as those they identified as suitable for management. None of the proposed treatment units are located within known old growth areas, and all work proposed in Alternatives B and C in Compartment 113 are located in areas mapped as suitable for management by MountainTrue and others. See also Section 3.6.3. Areas proposed for treatment were subjected to internal, contracted, and third-party review, and several were withdrawn from consideration due to the special attributes located within the areas of analysis. Treatment boundaries were adjusted, also based on those reviews, and buffers to protect rare botanical species and communities have been identified to minimize impacts to biological resources.

Concern: Impacts to Natural Heritage Natural Areas (NHNAs).

Response: Please refer to Section 3.6.2 for a discussion of NHNAs.

Concern: Portions of Stand 113/34 have not been assigned a management area.

Response: Please refer to Sections 1.3.2, 1.4.2, and 1.4.4 for the Forest Service response. The National Forests in North Carolina is evaluating amending the LRMP for the Nantahala and

30 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Pisgah National Forests to assign a management area to the portion of Compartment 113 that includes Stand 34.

Concern: Management activities could result in erosion and sedimentation, negatively impacting water quality and aquatic resources.

Response: Please refer to Sections 3.2.1, 3.7.2, and 5.1 for an assessment and disclosure of potential impacts to water and aquatic resources. Design criteria to protect water quality would be implemented as described in Section 2.4.

Concern: Concern over the amount of road reconstruction, road construction, and temporary road construction proposed in the Scoping Record.

Response: The scoping record identified the maximum amount of road treatments that could have been required to the existing road system and estimated the amount of temporary road construction that may have been required to implement silvicultural treatments. After review, the Forest Service determined that no reconstruction treatments are necessary for the existing road system. No new system road is proposed under the four action alternatives. The amount of temporary road under the action alternatives is disclosed in Section 1.4 and is shown on the project maps.

Concern: Observation that temporary roads are not truly temporary and that they can disrupt hydrology, negatively affecting subsurface groundwater movement and increasing base, peak, and stream storm flow, and also become long-term sources of sediment. Request that an alternative be developed in which forwarding equipment is required so that temporary roads and skid roads are not needed; request that an alternative be developed in which all temporary roads are returned to contour when operations are completed.

Response: Please see Section 3.7 for a discussion of the potential impacts to soil and water from the proposed action alternatives, including temporary roads.

Concern: Statement of general support for the prescribed burning treatments, watershed improvement treatments, wildlife opening improvement treatments, and treatments to reduce woody stem density in the serpentine barrens, with the understanding that larger and older trees in the barrens should not be targeted for removal.

Response: The Forest Service appreciates the support. If authorized, treatments to stands in the serpentine barrens would be subject to review by Forest Service botanists to ensure that restoration goals are met without affecting unimpaired ecological attributes of the barrens.

Concern: That stands proposed for treatment in Compartment 110 could be visible from the Appalachian Trail.

Response: The Forest Service conducted a site visit with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy during leaf off season and determined that only Stand 110/7 would be potentially visible from the Appalachian Trail. Please see Section 3.12 for a description of how the Forest Service would meet visual quality objectives for this unit.

31 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Concern: Request by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Program that stand 108/21 be dropped due to its exemplary condition and contribution to the integrity of the Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNA.

Response: In response, this stand has been withdrawn from consideration in the preferred alternative. See also Section 3.6.2 for an assessment and disclosure of how the Forest Service worked with the North Carolina Heritage Natural Heritage Program on management in and near other NHNAs.

Concern: That the project could affect owners of neighboring private property.

Response: The Forest Service has been working with a number of neighboring landowners to address their concerns.

Concern: Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats are known to hibernate in abandoned mines in the AA and there are known roost sites in Compartments 106 and 107.

Response: Please see Section 2.4, 3.3.3, and 5.1 for an assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these federally listed species and how the Forest Service would comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

1.6.2 Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis

Issues which are not addressed in this analysis include topics of a broader nature such as general Forest Service policy issues because they are beyond the scope of this project.

Concern: Request for a thorough Transportation Analysis Process (TAP) to assess the state of present road network in the AA given that reconstruction was proposed in the Scoping Record and because the project initially proposed 0.8 miles of new system road.

Response: Per Section 1.6.1, the Scoping Record did state that road reconstruction and new road construction could occur under the Buck Project. After assessing the condition of the existing road system and refining the treatments proposed in scoping, the Forest Service determined that the current road network can support the level of access necessary for the silvicultural treatments and that the proposed segment of new road was not needed. Because none of the actions proposed in the Buck Project necessitate a TAP review, the Forest Service has not completed one for this project.

2. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Based on the issues identified during scoping, three alternatives are identified for analysis. There is a no-action alternative and three action alternatives that were analyzed in detail.

2.1 Alternatives Considered

2.1.1 Alternative A

Alternative A is to take no action. Alternative A is described in Section 1.4.1 on page 10 of this document.

32 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

2.1.2 Alternative B

Alternative B is the proposed action as described in Section 1.4.2 on pages 10 through 18 of this document.

2.1.3 Alternative B - Modified

Alternative B – Modified is a proposed action as described in Section 1.4.3 on page 18 of this document.

2.1.4 Alternative C

Alternative C is the original proposed action that was scoped with the public in 2018 and is described in Section 1.4.4 on pages 18 through 23 of this document.

2.1.5 Alternative D

Alternative D is based on information the Forest Service recived during scoping, and responds to concerns about potential negative impacts to special values in the AA and is described in Section 1.4.5 on pages 23 through 27 of this document.

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

The Forest Service considered one additional alternative based on comments received during the scoping period, Alternative E, and an alternative that would not use herbicides to meet management objectives, Alternative F. The agency’s Interdisciplinary Team examined the characteristics and discussed the advantages and liabilities of these two alternatives.

Alternative E is based on information the Forest Service received from business owners in the local community and local government officials and responds to their request that the Forest Service maximize the amount of timber harvest allowed in the LRMP to support local industries and employers involved in logging and sawmilling, and the crews that implement service contracting (crop tree release, vine control, etc.). In response to these requests, the Forest Service contemplated Alternative E, which would produce approximately 2,000 acres of ESH, consistent with LRMP direction (please refer to the discussion of Table 1.2.1 on page 6).

This alternative would have required the Forest Service to identify and analyze an additional 1,330 acres of stands suitable for timber harvest in addition to the 845 proposed in Alternative B, as well as additional stands suitable for thinning treatments that would maximize growth and yield between implementation of Alternative E and the Forest Service’s next entry to the analysis area. To fully implement this alternative, several miles of new permanent National Forest System road would be required to access stands for silvicultural treatment. Therefore, although Alternative E would maximize the amount of timber harvest consistent with levels allowed in the LRMP, it was not carried forward for detailed analysis because a decision has already been made at a higher level to move the Forest Service towards a minimum road system (36 CFR 212.5 and 40 CFR 1502.14).

33 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative F was considered in which no herbicide would be used. Although the National Forests in North Carolina has an existing Supervisor’s Decision to treat nonnative invasive species with herbicide, it does not include the use of herbicide for timber stand improvement work. Thus, instead of using herbicide to conduct timber stand improvement (TSI), under this alternative manual slashing would be used to accomplish the management objectives. However, the manual treatment-only alternative was not considered in further detail because application of herbicide is known to be the most effective tool for these TSI treatments. Manual slashing, on the other hand, requires repeated treatments and does not kill the targeted vegetation. Manual treatment is not a practical or cost-effective control measure. An alternative with manual TSI work would not meet the purpose and need for the project. For these reasons, this alternative was not considered in further detail.

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2.3.1: Summary of Management Activities for the Buck Project Alt A Alt B Treatment Alt B* Alt C Alt D (No Action) Modified Shelterwood 845 acres, 770 acres, 953 acres, 497 acres, None with Reserves 32 stands 29 stands 36 stands 18 stands Stand 845 acres, 770 acres, 953 acres, 497 acres, None Improvements 32 stands 29 stands 36 stands 18 stands Crop tree 845 acres, 770 acres, 953 acres, 497 acres, None release 32 stands 29 stands 36 stands 18 stands Vine Control None As needed As needed As needed As needed Thinning 50 acres, 50 acres, None None None 2 stands 2 stands† Serpentine 1,500 1,500 900 None None Barrens acres acres† acres Temporary None 9.1 miles 7 miles 10.06 miles 3.3 miles Road Watershed None 17 sites 17 sites† 17 sites 9 sites Improvements Botanical Plantings Plantings Plantings Plantings None Treatments & NNIP & NNIP & NNIP & NNIP Wildlife No new Six sites Six sites† Six sites Three sites Treatments Prescribed 3,600 3,600 3,600 1,383 No new sites Burning acres acres† acres acres Road None As needed As needed As needed As needed Daylighting ESH Created None 845 acres 770 acres 953 acres 497 acres *Preferred Action †May be reduced commensurate with reduction in silvicultural work.

34 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

2.4 Design Criteria

Follow Forest-wide general directions and standards for MAs 1B, 3B, 4A, and 4C as described on pages III-58 – III-59 (MA 1B), pages III-72 – III-73 (MA 3B) and pages III-79 – III-83 (MA 4A and 4C) of LRMP Amendment 5. In particular, the following measures would be employed as part of this proposed action:

Visual Resource Management: Proposed actions would meet the Modification Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5, I-5) for MAs 3B, 4D, and 14 (AT Corridor). LRMP Direction for MA 3B is Modification, which is defined as management activities are to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within three to five growing seasons after treatment. Proposed actions would meet the Retention VQO (LRMP Amendment 5, I-5) for MAs 4D and 14. Direction for MAs 4D and 14 is Retention, which is defined as management activities are not be evident to the casual forest visitor and to meet the VQO within three growing seasons after treatment.

Wildlife Management: The proposal would follow standards in LRMP Amendment 25 (USDA Forest Service, 2000 and as revised in 2010) to minimize the risk of incidental take and conserve habitat for the Indiana Bat. It would comply with the terms and conditions listed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion (B.O., April 2000). Retain as many snags and den trees as practicable. Designate and retain living residual trees in the vicinity of one third of all large (>12 inches dbh) snags with exfoliating bark to provide them with partial shade and some protection from windthrow. Limit openings in the upper canopy to single tree gaps within 30 feet each side of intermittent streams, with at least 75 feet distance between openings. The proposal would follow all standards of the 4(d) rule for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat.

Conservation of Botanical Resources: The following rare botanical species were identified during field surveys, and would be protected through designated buffer zones.

• A liverwort (Frullania appalachiana) occurs in stands 106/5 and 114/7 and would need a 200 foot no-activity buffer around this plant location; • Butternut (Juglans cinerea) occurs in stand 111/32 and would need to be protected from cutting and would be reserved in the stand; • Highlands moss (Schlotheimia lancifolia) occurs in the Buck Creek serpentine barrens proposed for prescribed fire and would be protected by wetting down the habitat prior to prescribed burning; • Yellow hyssop (Agastache nepetoides) occurs on the access road to stand 104/18 and would need a 50 foot no-activity buffer around this plant location; • Wood’s sedge (Carex woodii) occurs in stands 104/23, 106/2, 106/4, 106/7, 108/8, 108/23, and 109/7 and would need a 50 foot no-activity buffer around these plant locations; • Small yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum) occurs in stands 104/13, 106/4, 106/7, 107/2, 107/4, 107/11, and 108/20 and would need a 50 foot no- activity buffer around these plant locations; • American fly honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis) occurs in stand 104/19 and would need a 50 foot no-activity buffer around this plant location;

35 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Large purple fringed orchid (Platanthera grandiflora) occurs in stands 106/7, 108/8, and 109/7 and would need a 100 foot no-activity buffer around these plant locations; • Seneca snakeroot (Polygala senega) occurs in stand 114/6 and would need a 50 foot no- activity buffer around this plant location; • American colombo (Frasera caroliniensis) occurs in stand 114/6 and would not have a buffer, but the stand would need to be harvested during the dormant season to minimize disturbance to the plants; • Huger’s carrion flower (Smilax hugeri) occur in stand 114/6 and would not have a buffer, but the stand would need to be harvested during the dormant season to minimize disturbance to the plants.

Soil and Water Management: Comply with the forest practices guidelines and standards in the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (BMPs).

• An interdisciplinary team, one member of which would be a fisheries biologist, would map riparian areas prior to timber harvest in units proposed for harvesting within 100 feet of perennial water sources, including all riparian areas in the proposed harvest units within Compartment 110. All proposed temporary roads within Compartment 110 would be constructed under the direct supervision of the harvest inspector to ensure that erosion control measures are installed at the end of each work day. • Proposed temporary stream crossings within the Buck Creek watershed would utilize temporary culverts with clean stone fill material rather than soil culvert fills to minimize the potential for introduction of fine sediments to ORW streams. Alternative crossing methods (i.e. temporary bridges or bridge mats) may also be utilized where landscape features allow for a fully spanning crossing structure. • The proposed temporary stream crossing over Muskrat Branch would utilize a temporary bridge and the existing road would receive minimal soil disturbance. The existing road surface would be hardened using clean stone. • Temporary roads would be constructed on previous exiting routes (old woods roads or skid trails) where possible to minimize the need for new temporary road construction. • Temporary roads would follow the general contour as practical and would generally not exceed sustained grades over 10%. • The travel way of temporary roads would generally not exceed 14-16 feet except at turnouts and landings. • Drainage structures, such as outsloping and waterbars, would be installed along temporary roads when the use of the road is no longer needed. • If constructed, and when work is completed, segments of the temporary road accessing 113/1 and 113/11 would be seeded with an appropriate wildlife mixture and maintained as a linear wildlife opening through periodic mowing under Alternative B. • Once the temporary roads are no longer needed, they would be closed to normal vehicle traffic and illegal ATV use would continue to be prohibited. The closures may include stormproofing treatments including, but not limited to, installation of an earthen barrier, re-contouring, placement of logging debris along the road surface, or placement of boulders. • Skid trails would be closed at their junction with landing sites by placing slash on the skid trail to discourage illegal ATV use.

36 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• Log landings and skid trail locations would be evaluated and approved by the Forest Service prior to harvesting in order to ensure that they are placed in locations with adequate drainage and away from sensitive soils or riparian areas. • Skidding and decking would be limited to designated and approved routes along ridges and gentle slopes to protect sensitive soils. Skidding would not be allowed on sustained slopes over 35%. • Operation of ground-based equipment would only be allowed when soils are dry. Soil moisture would be assessed during harvest operations to determine periods when equipment should be halted to minimize compaction and rutting. • Skid trails, log landings, temporary roads, or other areas of exposed soil, would be seeded and fertilized as soon as practical after harvest activities have been completed in order to restore vegetative cover and reduce the potential for erosion. • Water bars would be installed on skid trails and temporary roads at the completion of the project to minimize the potential for erosion. • Compacted soils on skid trails, temporary roads, and log landings would be ripped or tilled in areas of detrimental soil compaction to maintain soil quality standards and increase water infiltration. • Sensitive soils discovered during timber sale layout would be protected by restricting access or activities in these areas.

Herbicide Use: Apply herbicides according to labeling and site-specific analysis; all formulations and additives must be registered with EPA and approved for Forest Service use. Use application rates at or below those listed as typical rates in the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Assessment on Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains (ROD, FEIS-Veg. Mgmt.); use selective rather than broadcast applications. Forest Service supervisors and contract representatives must be certified pesticide applicators. Sign treated areas in accordance with FSH 7109.11. Application would be consistent with USDA Forest Service herbicide risk assessments (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Apply no herbicides within 200 feet of public or domestic water sources; those not having an aquatic label would not be applied within 30 feet of perennial or intermittent streams. Herbicides would be dispensed into application equipment on National Forest land at least 200 feet from surface water.

In addition to the above measures, apply all standards and guidelines for the MA 3B, as found in the LRMP, as amended. Also, apply all 99 mitigating measures found in the ROD, FEIS-Veg. Mgmt., and incorporated in the LRMP by Amendment #2 in July 1989, as needed.

3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for comparison of alternatives. The environmental effects described here include both beneficial and detrimental effects as well as the appropriate ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, and human health-

37 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project related effects, which directly, indirectly, or cumulatively result from the proposed action. The environmental effects discussion is includes some of the issues identified for this project (refer to Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis, Section 1.6). Environmental effects are analyzed using references from scientific literature and reports, which are incorporated as an integral part of this environmental assessment. This section of the EA is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations.

3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The four tables (3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4) on pages 38 – 40 support the analysis that follows for biological communities, special habitats, and management indicator species. Discussion for all environmental consequences to biological resources will be presented by discipline: aquatic communities, special habitats, and MIS, botanical communities, special habitats, and MIS, and terrestrial wildlife communities, special habitats, and MIS.

Table 3.2.1. MIS species, trend estimates, and community or special habitat by MIS. MIS Trend Associated Biological Community or Special Habitat Component Black Bear Increase Old Forest Hard mast-producing Contiguous areas with Communities species low disturbance White Tailed Deer Stable ESH (0-10 years) Hard mast species Pileated Woodpecker Increase Old Forest Snags & dens >22” Down woody debris Ovenbird Decrease Large Contiguous Forest Areas Eastern Towhee Decrease ESH (0-10 years) ESH (11-20 years) Pine Warbler Stable Yellow pine mid- successional forests Ruffed Grouse Stable ESH (0-10 years) ESH (11-20 years) Down woody debris Acadian flycatcher Increase Riparian Brook, Brown and Stable Coldwater streams Rainbow Trout Largemouth Bass Stable Reservoirs Blacknose Dace Stable Coldwater streams Smallmouth Bass Stable Coolwater and warmwater streams Fraser Fir Decrease Fraser Fir Forests Carolina Hemlock Increase Carolina hemlock bluff forests Ginseng Decrease Rich cove forests Ramps Stable Northern hardwoods

38 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.2.2. Biological communities and associated MIS (using LRMP EIS, Table III-8) Analyzed Further/ Biological Community Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Fir dominated high elevation Fraser fir No/1 forests Northern hardwood forests Ramps Yes/1 Carolina hemlock bluff Carolina hemlock No/1 forests Rich cove forests Ginseng Yes/1 Xeric yellow pine forests Pine warbler No/1 Reservoirs Largemouth bass No/1 Riparian forests Acadian flycatcher No/2 Coldwater streams Brook, brown, and rainbow trout; blacknose dace Yes/2 Coolwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1 Warmwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1

Table 3.2.3. Special Habitats and associated MIS (using LRMP EIS, Table III-9). Analyzed Further/ Special Habitat Components Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Old forest communities (100+ years old) Black bear Yes Early successional (0-10 years old) Rufous-sided Yes (Eastern) towhee Early successional (11-20) Ruffed grouse Yes Soft mast-producing species (<40 yrs) Ruffed grouse Yes Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs) Black bear Yes Large contiguous areas with low levels of human Black bear Yes disturbance Large contiguous areas of mature deciduous forest Ovenbird Yes Permanent grass/forb openings White-tailed deer No/2 Down woody debris Ruffed Grouse No/2 Snags Pileated woodpecker No/2 *1 Biological community does not occur in the activity areas and would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community. *2 Biological Communities and their represented species would be protected in accordance with LRMP standards and guidelines; therefore, these communities would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the communities, this project would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with these communities.

39 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.2.4. Effects of alternatives on biological communities for the Buck Project. Biological Alternative Alternatives Alternative Alternative Alternative Community A B B - Mod C D Fraser fir forests None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected Northern hardwood None affected. 85 acres 85 acres 85 acres None affected forests affected by affected by affected by timber harvest timber harvest timber harvest Carolina hemlock None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected bluff forests Rich cove forests None affected. 124 acres 124 acres 146 acres 74 acres affected by affected by affected by affected by timber harvest timber harvest timber harvest timber harvest Yellow pine forests None affected. None affected None affected None affected. None affected Reservoirs None affected. None affected None affected None affected. None affected Riparian forests None affected. None affected None affected None affected. None affected Cold water streams None affected. + 0.5 miles + 0.5 miles + 0.5 miles + 0.5 miles Coolwater streams None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected. Warm water streams None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected. None affected.

3.2.1 Aquatic Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

Boundaries of Aquatic Communities and MIS

This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Buck Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts (direct and indirect effects) on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not necessarily overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters, the analysis area encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities when considered within the watershed context (cumulative effects). The aquatic analysis areas for the Buck Project consist of the following watersheds: Buck Creek, Muskrat Branch, Ledford Creek, Dave Barrett Creek, Jackie Cove, Vineyard Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, and Shooting Creek to the Jackie Cove confluence.

Existing Conditions for Aquatic Communities and MIS

Buck Creek and many of its tributaries are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C; Tr; ORW waters. Muskrat Branch, Ledford Creek, Dave Barrett Creek, Vineyard Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, and Shooting Creek are classified as C; Tr waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are “unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses” (N.C. Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 2B.0303). The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications).

The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the

40 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Buck Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of boulders, cobble and large gravel. Analysis area streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2011).

Communities and MIS Evaluated

The aquatic analysis area contains one aquatic community, coldwater streams. Special habitat components are not associated with any aquatic resources, and therefore will not be analyzed further (see also Appendix 5.1).

Five aquatic MIS potentially affected by the proposed action alternatives are fully evaluated. The following streams provide habitat for wild Brook Trout: Buck Creek, Johnson Branch, and Muskrat Branch. The following streams provide habitat for wild Rainbow Trout: Buck Creek, Glade Branch, Barnard Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, Shooting Creek, and Vineyard Creek. The following streams provide habitat for wild Brown Trout: Shooting Creek and Buck Creek. Mottled Sculpin occur within Buck Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, Shooting Creek, Muskrat Branch, and Vineyard Creek. Redhorse occur within Shooting Creek but do not occur within project area waters. Blacknose Dace have not been documented within any analysis area streams. Blacknose Dace were eliminated from further analysis due to absence from the analysis area. Any effects to the aquatic resources resulting from this project would dissipate prior to reaching habitats suitable to any Redhorse spp.; therefore, these species will not be evaluated further.

Management activities most likely to affect wild Brook Trout, wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, and Mottled Sculpin habitat would be changes in water quality or stream habitat quality. Therefore, the number of stream miles receiving sediment inputs typically serves as indicators for analysis of the effects of each alternative.

Effects of Alternatives on Communities

Coldwater Streams

MIS associated with the coldwater streams community includes the Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), and Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Approximately 43.1 miles of coldwater streams occur within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would involve no ground disturbing activities, herbicide applications, or fish and wildlife habitat improvements.

Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D: The proposed thinning, prescribed burning, log landings, skid trail and skid road construction, routine road maintenance, herbicide spraying of harvest unit skid trails, rehabilitation of wildlife openings, and invasive species removal would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas. In addition, any disturbed ground would

41 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

be seeded to prevent erosion. Skid trails would not require construction of a cut and fill slope; therefore, there would be very little ground disturbance that could produce sediment. Skid roads would manage runoff with water bars. Following timber harvest, skid trails and skid roads would be seeded and closed to prevent visible sediment from entering any streams. The routine road maintenance would involve minor road surface repair, placement of gravel, and reseeding. These actions are unlikely to increase measurable sedimentation because the work would be done during dry periods and the disturbed soil would be either hardened with gravel or seeded to control erosion. In-channel construction for improvement of aquatic organism passage at the four stream crossings may crush individual MIS if they are present during construction; however, most species should be able to move away from the construction site to avoid direct impacts. Restoration of aquatic organism passage at these sites may increase the species range and/or improve genetic diversity within previously isolated stream reaches. The proposed streambank stabilization on Dave Barrett Creek and Muskrat Branch may crush some individuals of the MIS if they occur, but would eliminate chronic sediment sources and provide improved habitat for the species by introduction of large woody debris to the channel. Any impacts to individuals would not affect the species’ viability.

In general, the duration of the effect of sedimentation depends upon stream type (stream energy available to move particles) and storm runoff magnitude and frequency. The effect could move downstream although it would dissipate the further removed it is from the source. Higher gradient stream channels may have these sediments scoured (i.e. flushed from the substrate and deposited in low velocity areas) and the effect would be dissipated throughout the stream channel.

A small quantity of sediments may enter four streams during aquatic organism passage (3 existing road crossings and one log-crib fish barrier) improvement activities; however, these effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below the stream crossings. Nine locations would be treated to improve watershed conditions by installing in-stream structures to stabilize stream banks and increase large woody debris for fish habitat improvements. These watershed treatments would involve approximately 1 day of instream construction at each site resulting in temporary increases in turbidity. The effects of the aquatic organism passage and watershed improvements would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter the streams. Eliminating the non-native salmonids from Little Buck Creek and restoring native Brook Trout would have no negative effects to the Coldwater Streams Community.

Approximately nine temporary stream crossings would be installed to access proposed treatment units. Additional culverts may be installed within the analysis area as needed for drainage. The

42 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

effects of these culverts would be the same as described for the culvert installations above but reduced because these culverts are typically placed in ephemeral stream channels which remain dry except during storm runoff events. Sedimentation from the stream crossing installation/removal and/or Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) projects and watershed improvements may reduce the quality of the habitat for the MIS within the analysis area streams by partially filling pools within the first 75 feet below the crossings (Jason Farmer, personal observations) if they occur within these streams. These effects may persist until the next bankfull flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 1.5 years). These effects would dissipate approximately 75 feet downstream of the culvert installation areas. The effects of the stream crossing improvements would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter the streams. The watershed improvements would result in a long- term reduction in chronic sediment sources.

The proposed activities within the aquatic analysis area would impact approximately 75 feet of stream below each in-stream treatment site (four AOP projects, nine watershed projects, and nine temporary road crossings) but these impacts would not change the forest-wide a trend for this habitat type because the small amount of sediment entering project area streams would be scoured from the channel during the next bankfull flow event.

Implementation of this project may cause direct impacts to individuals of these species by crushing individuals at the stream crossing locations during construction if they occur within these streams. There would be no long-term negative effects from aquatic organism passage projects because the new arch fills or ford approaches would be seeded and mulched to prevent off-site movement of sediment. Project design features would prevent adverse effects to the aquatic habitats. Installation of the crossings would increase turbidity for approximately two days. The sites may provide habitat for the MIS but effects of aquatic organism passage activities would dissipate after the construction is complete and newly planted vegetation stabilizes the sites. Any negative effects to this species would only occur during construction (e.g. crushing of individuals).

In accordance with the Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (VM- FEIS), herbicide spraying would not occur within 30 horizontal feet of water unless the herbicide has been approved for aquatic applications. The herbicide triclopyr (ester formulation) has the potential to cause direct mortality to aquatic organisms at a concentration of 0.74 parts per million (ppm). The amine formulation of triclopyr can be lethal at concentrations of 91 ppm (VM-FEIS). Concentrations of glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (VM-FEIS). Sub lethal effects, such as lethargy or hypersensitivity, have been observed in fish at concentrations of 0.1 mg/L – 0.43 mg/L. No adverse effects have been observed in fish or aquatic invertebrates from exposure to imazapic concentrations up to 100 mg/L. Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the lethal concentration – generally concentrations ≤ 0.0072 ppm in the adjacent streams (Durkin, 2003a; Durkin, 2003b; and Durkin and Follansbee, 2004). Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (VM-FEIS).

The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer

43 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sub lethal effects described above. Project area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the project area streams in measurable quantities. There would be no effects to the MIS because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

Riparian vegetation: Stream temperatures in analysis area waters would not be affected by timber harvest because harvest would not occur within the riparian areas of any streams. These no-harvest areas would protect stream temperatures and prevent sedimentation. Streambank vegetation would not be cut; therefore, there would be no reduction in potential large woody debris recruitment. Riparian areas within timber harvest units would be mapped by the interdisciplinary team prior to timber harvest activities if harvest is planned within 100 feet of any perennial water body. The proposed large woody debris introduction in Muskrat Creek would utilize non-commercial logs with root-wads attached from the nearby proposed timber harvest unit. Riparian vegetation would not be removed except where stream banks are over- steepened, requiring them to be reshaped to a 2:1 slope for stability. These reshaped banks would be re-vegetated using native seed and/or plant materials.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects: Previous activities within the Buck Project area include timber harvest and road construction. There may have been an increase in stream turbidity during culvert installations for previous timber projects. However, these effects were minimized by application of erosion and sedimentation control measures (e.g. silt fence, sediment traps, seeding, and mulch). Specifically, the effects of these actions would have included sedimentation from the ground disturbing activities (road construction, reconstruction, and culvert installations). All of these effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts on aquatic resources, and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the Buck analysis area. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the Buck analysis area as a result of past actions. As a result of the length of time since completion of these actions, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current affected environment. There are no existing effects to the aquatic resources resulting from these activities. The Buck Creek Watershed Project is ongoing. This project involves restoration of stream channels in Little Buck Creek, aquatic organism passage improvements, and stabilization of camp sites. These actions are reducing long-term sediment sources and improving fish population connectivity.

There are no other ongoing activities occurring on federal lands within the Buck Project aquatic analysis area. Private lands in the aquatic analysis area are primarily characterized as forested and residential. There may be sedimentation from private lands within the watershed but these effects would not be cumulative with the effects of most of the Buck Project because there would be no effects of the proposed timber management and watershed improvements beyond the project area streams. Portions of the Vineyard Creek and Jackie Cove were within the Boteler Fire of 2016. Containment lines were stabilized following completion of fire control activities. These lines are not a sediment source for analysis area streams. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands affecting the Buck Project area waters.

44 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

There are no other reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed for the Buck aquatic analysis area on federal lands; therefore, there would be no effects from future actions. There are no known future actions planned on private lands that would affect the Buck Project area waters.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D: There are no other past, ongoing, or planned activities on public lands within the project area that would cause adverse effects to the aquatic resources. Private lands within the analysis area are characterized as low density residential. There may be sedimentation from some of these private lands but these effects are widely dispersed and would not be cumulative with the Buck Project. The temporary increases in turbidity during stream crossing installation may cumulatively increase turbidity within project area streams but would dissipate after the project is completed. There would be no long-term cumulative effects to stream turbidity resulting from these actions.

The cumulative impacts resulting from this project (Table 3.2.1.1, page 46) and any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions and Alternative B would result in increased turbidity at approximately 22 in-stream treatments (four AOP projects, nine watershed projects, and nine temporary road crossings) and would affect approximately 0.32 miles of streams within the aquatic analysis area (approximately 0.7% of streams within the Buck Project analysis area). The project may negatively impact approximately 0.7% of the streams until the next bankfull flow event but this impact would not affect the forest-wide trends for the coldwater streams community because the effects of culvert installations would have short term negative effects and would be limited to short sections of the project area streams.

Alternative B-Modified would result in approximately one fewer stream crossing (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.01 mile less stream with elevated turbidity/sediment. Alternative C would result in approximately five more stream crossings (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.07 miles of additional streams with elevated turbidity/sediment. Alternative D would result in approximately four fewer stream crossings (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.06 miles reduction in streams with elevated turbidity/sediment. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would not affect the forest- wide trends of the coldwater streams community (Table 3.2.4, page 40).

Implementation of either Alternative B or Alternative B - Modified would affect approximately 0.19 miles of streams within the ORW of the Buck Creek watershed (approximately 1.2% of the watershed) with temporary increases in turbidity and sediment at the in-stream construction sites but would not result in long-term negative effects to the coldwater streams community (see Dodd and Jones, 2018). Alternative B would improve AOP in approximately 2.5 miles of Barnards Creek and eliminate chronic sediment sources in approximately 0.1 miles of streams in the Buck Creek watershed (approximately 0.6% of the watershed). Alternative C would result in approximately five more stream crossings (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.07 miles of additional streams with elevated turbidity/sediment within the Buck Creek watershed. Alternative D would result in approximately two fewer stream crossings (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.03 mile reduction in streams with elevated turbidity/sediment within the Buck Creek watershed.

Under Alternative D, AOP projects would not be completed for Dave Barrett Creek or Barrett Branch. The following watershed improvements would also not be completed: Dave Barrett

45 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Creek bank erosion repair, Loggy Branch ford repair, Glade Branch dispersed campsite stabilization, Glade Branch 4 x 4 road obliteration (two locations), and Barnards Branch road slide repair. These sites would continue to be sources of sedimentation to project area waters and the two undersized stream crossings would continue to impair aquatic organism passage.

Table 3.2.1.1. Summary of effects to streams within the Buck Project. + Number + Miles of of locations stream Activity Type Summary of Effects of instream potentially work affected Alternative A No change from existing conditions Alternative B New/Replacement 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 4 0.06 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 8.3 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.13 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Alternative B – Modified New/Replacement 8 0.11 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 4 0.06 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 8.3 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.13 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Alternative C New/Replacement 14 0.20 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 4 0.06 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 8.3 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.13 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Alternative D New/Replacement 5 0.07 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 2 0.03 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 4.0 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 5 0.07 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.07 Long-term reduction of sediment sources

46 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.2.1.2. Trend analysis for each alternative on the evaluated communities Effect Community Alt B Alt A Alt B - Modified Alt C Alt D Coldwater No change Temp increase Temp increase Temp increase Temp increase Streams in forest – in turbidity in in turbidity in in turbidity in in turbidity in wide trend. approximately approximately approximately approximately 9 streams. No 8 streams. No 14 streams. No 5 streams. No change in change in change in change in forest –wide forest –wide forest –wide forest –wide trend. trend. trend. trend.

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

Wild Brook Trout, Wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, Mottled Sculpin

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would produce no direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS because there would be no ground disturbing activities proposed for this alternative. This alternative would meet Forest Plan standards by maintaining the existing MIS populations.

Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D: The effects of each of these alternatives on the project MIS would generally be the same as those described for the Biological Communities discussion for coldwater streams. The proposed culvert installations would cause a temporary increase in turbidity and sediment in four streams (see discussion for Coldwater Streams Community above). There would be no other direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS from the Buck Project because the proposed timber harvest activities (including skid trail construction and herbicide treatments) would not be located near any streams containing fish. Implementation of this project would not change the current forest wide trend for wild Brook Trout, wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, or Mottled Sculpin. The current forest wide trends for wild Brook Trout, wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, and Mottled Sculpin are stable and implementation of Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D would not affect these population trends because the project design features would prevent visible sediment from entering any stream with fish populations.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D: The cumulative effects of this project would be temporary sedimentation and increased turbidity within approximately nine (Alternative B), eight (Alternative B – Modified), 14 (Alternative C), or five (Alternative D) coldwater streams. Implementation of this alternative would not change the forest-wide trends for any of the aquatic MIS (Table 3.2.1.3, page 47).

47 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.2.1.3. Results of trend analysis of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species Effect Species Alternative Alternatives B & B - Alternative D Alternative C A Mod Wild Brook No change No change No change No change Trout Wild Rainbow No change No change No change No change Trout Wild Brown No change No change No change No change Trout Mottled Sculpin No change No change No change No change

3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

All Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests management indicator species (MIS) and special habitats found within proposed activity areas that may be affected by this proposal were evaluated (Table 3.2.2.1). The effect of proposed activities on biological diversity is assessed by evaluating MIS population trends and their associated biological communities. In addition, the effects of activities on biological diversity is assessed by evaluating the presence and diversity of special habitat components (e.g. old forests and early successional) and their associated MIS (e.g. bear and ruffed grouse) within proposed project areas and across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Biological communities, special habitats, and associated MIS present in the proposed Buck project area include Rich Cove Forests, forests ≥100 years old, and associated American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) as well as Northern Hardwood Forest and associated ramps (Allium tricoccum). To determine cumulative effects, the effects to botanical resources within the proposed activity areas were compared with the total amount of resources in the Buck project area. This analysis was completed by the incorporation of modeled ecological zones (Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV)) and the forest silvicultural database (Forest Service Vegetation (FSVEG)). As a result, the total amount of acres for special habitats and biological communities is an approximation.

For information about forest-wide MIS species and associated habitats reference the Forest MIS report (Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends).

Effects to Biological Communities by Alternative

Analyses for direct and indirect effects are confined to proposed activity areas because the impacts to plants within biological communities would unlikely extend beyond activities directly related to the implementation of silvicultural and non-silvicultural treatments. Proposed management activities considered in this analysis include two aged shelterwood and thinning. To accurately estimate potential effects to desired future conditions, results were calculated based on

48 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

potential natural vegetation modeling rather than existing stand conditions due to their departure from historic variation.

RICH COVE FORESTS Direct & Indirect Effects: Since there are no proposed management activities under Alternative A, this alternative would not directly or indirectly affect any Rich Cove Forest in the proposed Buck project area.

Alternative B proposes shelterwood with reserves timber harvests across approximately 124 acres of Rich Cove forest (108/20 - 25 acres, 111/32 –24 acres, 111/40 – 25 acres, 111/41 – 25 acres, and 114/7 – 25 acres). The proposed shelterwood with reserves timber harvest would directly affect the Rich Cove Forest community by reducing the amount of canopy cover and basal area due to the removal of canopy trees. In addition, the proposed timber harvest would increase light at the forest floor thereby reducing the rich herbaceous understory due to an increase in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) would likely increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Potential indirect effects include an increase in the shrub layer and reduction in herbaceous species, which could shift the Rich Cove Forest community type to Acidic Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Also, indirect effects could include an invasion by non-native invasive plants.

Alternative B - Modified proposes shelterwood with reserves timber harvests across approximately 124 acres of Rich Cove forest (108/20 - 25 acres, 111/32 –24 acres, 111/40 – 25 acres, 111/41 – 25 acres, and 114/7 – 25 acres). The proposed shelterwood with reserves timber harvest would directly affect the Rich Cove Forest community by reducing the amount of canopy cover and basal area due to the removal of canopy trees. In addition, the proposed timber harvest would increase light at the forest floor thereby reducing the rich herbaceous understory due to an increase in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) would likely increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Potential indirect effects include an increase in the shrub layer and reduction in herbaceous species, which could shift the Rich Cove Forest community type to Acidic Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Also, indirect effects could include an invasion by non-native invasive plants.

Alternative C proposes shelterwood with reserves timber harvests across approximately 146 acres of Rich Cove forest (108/20 - 25 acres, 108/21 – 22 acres, 111/32 –24 acres, 111/40 – 25 acres, 111/41 – 25 acres, and 114/7 – 25 acres). The proposed shelterwood with reserves timber harvest would directly affect the Rich Cove Forest community by reducing the amount of canopy cover and basal area due to the removal of canopy trees. In addition, the proposed timber harvest would increase light at the forest floor thereby reducing the rich herbaceous understory due to an increase in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) would likely increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Potential indirect effects include an increase in the shrub layer and reduction in herbaceous species, which could shift the Rich Cove Forest community type to Acidic Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Also, indirect effects could include an invasion by non-native invasive plants.

49 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative D proposes shelterwood with reserves timber harvests across approximately 74 acres of Rich Cove forest (111/32 –24 acres, 111/40 – 25 acres, and 111/41 – 25 acres). The proposed shelterwood with reserves timber harvest would directly affect the Rich Cove Forest community by reducing the amount of canopy cover and basal area due to the removal of canopy trees. In addition, the proposed timber harvest would increase light at the forest floor thereby reducing the rich herbaceous understory due to an increase in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) would likely increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Potential indirect effects include an increase in the shrub layer and reduction in herbaceous species, which could shift the Rich Cove Forest community type to Acidic Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Also, indirect effects could include an invasion by non- native invasive plants.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects to Rich Cove Forests, there would be no cumulative effects.

Past effects to Rich Cove Forests can be summarized by the existing condition of the Rich Cove Forests in the entry area. Past effects are most evident in forests ≤50 years old since it takes approximately 50-60 years for the effects of past management to dissipate (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). According to the Potential Natural Vegetation Model, there are approximately 1,918 acres of Rich Cove Forest in the Buck project area. Out of 1,919 acres, 22 acres of Rich Cove Forest are <50 years old in the Buck botanical analysis area. As a result, approximately 1% of the Rich Cove Forests within the Buck project area have been impacted by past regeneration harvests.

Under Alternative B, the 124 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in Rich Cove Forest in the Buck project plus the 22 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the past, equals approximately 146 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the project area, which is a total of 0.5% of the 34,516 acre Buck project area. There are no ongoing actions or projects that would impact Rich Cove Forests in the Buck project area.

Under Alternative B – Modified, the 124 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in Rich Cove Forest in the Buck project plus the 22 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the past, equals approximately 146 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the project area, which is a total of 0.5% of the 34,516 acre Buck project area. There are no ongoing actions or projects that would impact Rich Cove Forests in the Buck project area.

Under Alternative C, the 146 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in Rich Cove Forest in the Buck project plus the 22 acres of Rich Cover Forest affected in the past, equals approximately 168 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the project area, which is a total of 0.6% of the 34,516 acre Buck project area. There are no ongoing actions or projects that would impact Rich Cover Forests in the Buck project area.

Under Alternative D, the 74 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in Rich Cove Forest in the Buck project plus the 22 acres of Rich Cover Forest affected in the past, equals approximately 96

50 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the project area, which is a total of 0.2% of the 34,516 acre Buck project area. There are no ongoing actions or projects that would impact Rich Cover Forests in the Buck project area.

Forest-Wide Trend: Due to the LRMP’s goal to harvest high-value hardwood sawtimber, a substantial amount of timber management has occured in Rich Cove Forests since 1987 (Draft Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, 2013). However, Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests appear stable (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Approximately 18% of Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests occur in existing designated areas. The proposed Buck Project should not substantially alter the current trend for Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST Direct & Indirect Effects: Since there are no proposed management activities under Alternative A, this alternative would not directly or indirectly affect any Northern Hardwood Forest in the Buck project area.

Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C propose shelterwood with reserves timber harvests across approximately 85 acres of Northern Hardwood forest (104/19 - 25 acres, 104/23 – 25 acres, 109/7 – 25 acres, and 110/22 – 10 acres). The proposed shelterwood with reserves units would directly affect the Northern Hardwood Forest community by reducing the amount of canopy cover and basal area due to the removal of canopy trees. In addition, the proposed timber harvest would increase light at the forest floor thereby reducing the herbaceous understory due to an increase in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) would likely increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Potential indirect effects include an increase in the shrub layer and reduction in herbaceous species. Also, indirect effects could include an invasion by non-native invasive plants.

Alternative D proposes no acres of shelterwood with reserves timber harvests in Northern Hardwood forest.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternatives A and D would produce no direct or indirect effects to Northern Hardwood Forests, there would be no cumulative effects.

Past effects to Northern Hardwood Forests can be summarized by the existing condition of the Northern Hardwood Forests in the AA. Past effects are most evident in forests ≤50 years old since it takes approximately 50-60 years for the effects of past management to dissipate (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). According to the Potential Natural Vegetation Model, there are approximately 2,571 acres of Northern Hardwood Forest in the Buck project area. Out of 2,571 acres, 47 acres of Northern Hardwood Forest are <50 years old in the Buck botanical analysis area. As a result, approximately 1% of the Northern Hardwood Forests within the Buck project area have been impacted by past regeneration harvests.

51 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C, the 85 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in Northern Hardwood Forest in the Buck project plus the 47 acres of Northern Hardwood Forest affected in the past, equals approximately 132 acres of Northern Hardwood Forest affected in the project area, which is a total of 0.4% of the 34,516 acre Buck project area. There are no ongoing actions or projects that would impact Northern Hardwood Forests in the Buck project area.

Forest-Wide Trend: The trend for northern hardwood forest on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is stable over approximately 49,000 acres (USFS, 2001, pg. 23). The cumulative effects in the activity areas represent a reduction of <1% of the northern hardwood forests across the national forests, persisting for a 40 year period. As a result, the Buck Project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for northern hardwood forests.

Effects of Alternatives on Special Habitat Components

FOREST COMMUNITIES > 100 YEARS OLD In the absence of catastrophic natural disturbance, the age class of a forest community is primarily affected by timber harvest activities. As a result, analyses for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old will be confined to the proposed regeneration treatments.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A proposes no management activities and this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects to forested communities ≥ 100 years old in the Buck botanical analysis area.

Alternative B proposes regeneration harvests across approximately 173 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 years old (109/7 – 12 acres, 109/11 – 12 acres, 109/35 – 25 acres, 110/18 – 23 acres, 110/22 – 14 acres, 111/34 – 19 acres, 113/1 – 25 acres, 114/6 – 18 acres, and 114/7 – 25 acres). Removal of canopy trees reduces canopy cover and basal area, allowing new growth to occupy a plurality of acres in treated stands and changes the age class structure from communities ≥100 years old into the zero to ten year category. Regeneration harvests in the Buck Project area include shelterwood with reserves harvest treatments. Regeneration harvests affect forested communities ≥ 100 years old by reducing the number and size of forest herbs; decreasing structural diversity; and secondarily increasing shade as the canopy closes as the new stand develops. These effects persist for 100 years following harvest.

Alternative B - Modified proposes regeneration harvests across approximately 148 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 years old (109/7 – 12 acres, 109/11 – 12 acres, 109/35 – 25 acres, 110/18 – 23 acres, 110/22 – 14 acres, 111/34 – 19 acres, 114/6 – 18 acres, and 114/7 – 25 acres). Removal of canopy trees reduces canopy cover and basal area, allowing new growth to occupy a plurality of acres in treated stands and changes the age class structure from communities ≥100 years old into the zero to ten year category. Regeneration harvests in the Buck Project area include shelterwood with reserves harvest treatments. Regeneration harvests affect forested communities ≥ 100 years old by reducing the number and size of forest herbs; decreasing structural diversity; and secondarily increasing shade as the canopy closes as the new stand develops. These effects persist for 100 years following harvest.

52 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative C proposes regeneration harvests across approximately 205 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 years old (107/11 - 25 acres, 109/7 – 12 acres, 109/11 – 12 acres, 109/35 – 25 acres, 110/18 – 23 acres, 110/22 – 14 acres, 111/34 – 19 acres, 113/1 – 25 acres, 114/6 – 25 acres, and 114/7 – 25 acres. Removal of canopy trees reduces canopy cover and basal area, allowing new growth to occupy a plurality of acres in treated stands and changes the age class structure from communities ≥100 years old into the zero to ten year category. Regeneration harvests in the Buck Project area include shelterwood with reserves harvest treatments. Regeneration harvests affect forested communities ≥ 100 years old by reducing the number and size of forest herbs; decreasing structural diversity; and secondarily increasing shade as the canopy closes as the new stand develops. These effects persist for 100 years following harvest.

Alternative D proposes regeneration harvests across approximately 62 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 years old (109/11 – 12 acres, 109/35 – 25 acres, and 114/6 – 25 acres). Removal of canopy trees reduces canopy cover and basal area, allowing new growth to occupy a plurality of acres in treated stands and changes the age class structure from communities ≥100 years old into the zero to ten year category. Regeneration harvests in the Buck Project area include shelterwood with reserves harvest treatments. Regeneration harvests affect forested communities ≥ 100 years old by reducing the number and size of forest herbs; decreasing structural diversity; and secondarily increasing shade as the canopy closes as the new stand develops. These effects persist for 100 years following harvest.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects to forest communities > 100 years old, there would be no cumulative effects.

Past effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in the area considered for cumulative effects. There are approximately 5,560 acres (16% of the total botanical analysis area of 34,516 acres) of forest communities ≥ 100 years old in the Buck botanical analysis area.

Treatments proposed under Alternative B, would reduce forest communities ≥ 100 years old by 173 acres for a total loss of approximately 0.5% in the area considered for cumulative effects.

Treatments proposed under Alternative B - Modified, would reduce forest communities ≥ 100 years old by 148 acres for a total loss of approximately 0.4% in the area considered for cumulative effects.

Treatments proposed under Alternative C, would reduce forest communities ≥ 100 years old by 205 acres for a total loss of approximately 0.6% in the area considered for cumulative effects.

Treatments proposed under Alternative D, would reduce forest communities ≥ 100 years old by 62 acres for a total loss of approximately 0.2% in the area considered for cumulative effects.

There are no foreseeable future actions that would impact forest communities ≥ 100 years old in the project area. There are no ongoing projects in the Buck project area that would impact forest communities ≥ 100 years old.

53 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Forest-Wide Trend: Overall, the trend for forest communities ≥100 years old on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is increasing. The amount of forested communities ≥100 years old went from 47,591 acres in 1980 to 166,078 acres in 2000 (USFS, 2001, pg. 23). The loss of 173 acres of forested communities ≥ 100 years old in Alternative B, 148 acres in Alternative B – Modified, 205 acres in Alternative C, or 62 acres in Alternative D would not appreciably change the forest wide trend across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Table 3.2.2.1: The effects of alternatives on forest community types.

Biological Alt B - Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Community Modified

Fraser fir forests None None None None None affected. affected. affected. affected. affected. Northern None None 85 acres 85 acres 85 acres hardwood forests affected. affected. Carolina hemlock None None None None None bluff forests affected. affected. affected. affected. affected. Rich cove forests None 124 acres 124 acres 146 acres 74 acres affected. Yellow pine None None None None None forests affected affected affected. affected. affected. Forest None Communities ≥ 173 acres 148 acres 205 acres 62 acres affected 100 years old

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

AMERICAN GINSENG (Panax quinquefolius) American ginseng is a slow growing, long lived plant that occurs in rich, moist deciduous forests in well-drained soils (Van der Voort et al. 2003). Ginseng typically occurs in Rich Cove Forests in the Southern Appalachian region due to the higher base content, soil moisture, and nutrients that occur in this community type. Because ginseng is a long-lived perennial, it does not reach reproductive age until after a lengthy juvenile period, which makes this species more susceptible to overharvesting (Van der Voort et al. 2003). Since ginseng harvesters gather the entire portion of root, vegetative regeneration from remaining fragments rarely occurs (Van der Voort et al. 2003).

Harvest pressure has increased due to the increase in the monetary value of ginseng roots across the region in general and the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in particular. As a result, the age structure and reproductive potential of ginseng populations may be decreasing. In some states, the annual average number of dried wild roots per pound has increased. These results suggest that the size of roots have decreased, which in turn, suggests that the age structure and reproductive potential of ginseng has declined (Van der Voort et al. 2003, Robbins 2000). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, population sizes appear smaller than normal

54 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

with fewer than 50 individuals per population (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Ginseng was located in some locations which currently support a Rich Cove Forest community during the botanical survey of the Buck treatment sites. In the Buck project area, individuals and populations of ginseng were located in multiple stands proposed for timber harvest.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would not directly or indirectly affect any ginseng populations in the proposed Buck project area.

Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D individuals may be directly impacted by mechanical crushing from skidding logs or felled trees and by the construction of skid roads. Indirectly, ginseng may be impacted by the increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. In addition, individuals may be impacted by an increase in vegetative competition from early successional plants and non-native invasive plants. Also, ginseng may be negatively affected due to the reduction in gene flow among and between neighboring plants, which may lead to decreased seed set and inbreeding.

Cumulative Effects: Activities in the past that have affected American ginseng include both the permitted and illegal harvest of roots. In addition, this species likely has been affected by past timber harvests within habitat across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. The harvesting of roots for human consumption is having the greatest negative impact on American ginseng populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effect to American ginseng populations growing in Rich Cove Forests, there would be no cumulative effects from this alternative. The cumulative effect of Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would decrease the population size of American ginseng in proposed activity areas containing the known populations of American ginseng for approximately 20-40 years. Outside of illegal harvesting of ginseng roots, there are no ongoing or foreseeable future actions that would impact this species in the Buck botanical analysis area.

Forest Wide Trend: The estimated population trend for American ginseng is gradually decreasing across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests primarily due to the commercial harvest of roots, both legal and illegal (USFS, 2001, pg. 818). Ginseng is most commonly associated with cove forests, totaling approximately 110,000 acres across the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forests (determined by modeling Rich Cove Forest), but occurs in Mesic Oak forest in the Buck project. The 173 acres (Alternative B), 124 acres (Alternative B – Modified), 205 acres (Alternative C), and 74 acres (Alternative D) of Rich Cove Forest proposed for forest management activities would not substantially alter the current trend for American ginseng across the forest.

RAMPS (Allium tricoccum) Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would not directly or indirectly affect any ramps populations in the proposed Buck project area.

Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D, individuals may be directly impacted by mechanical crushing from skidding logs or felled trees and by the construction of skid roads. Indirectly, ramps may be impacted by the increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest

55 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

floor post-timber harvest. In addition, individuals may be impacted by an increase in vegetative competition from early successional plants and NNIP. Also, ramps may be negatively affected due to the reduction in gene flow among and between neighboring plants, which may lead to decreased seed set and inbreeding.

Cumulative Effects: Activities in the past that have affected ramps include both the permitted and illegal harvest of ramps. In addition, this species likely has been affected by past timber harvests within habitat across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effect to ramps populations growing in Northern Hardwood Forests, there would be no cumulative effects from this alternative. The cumulative effect of Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would decrease the population size of ramps in proposed activity areas containing the known populations of ramps for approximately 40-60 years. Outside of harvesting of ramps, there are no ongoing or foreseeable future actions that would impact this species in the Buck botanical analysis area.

Forest Wide Trend. The trend for ramps is considered stable, despite some harvest for commercial sale (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Ramps are associated with northern hardwood forests, which totals approximately 49,000 acres across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (USFS, 2001; pg. 23). Proposed forest management in the Buck Project and past forest management represents an impact of <1% to northern hardwood forest across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. As a result, the Buck Project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for ramps across the forest.

3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

Boundaries of the Wildlife Analysis Area

The terrestrial wildlife analysis area used for this proposal is approximately the same as the Buck Project area. The wildlife analysis area consists of approximately 20,638 acres of National Forest System land. The potential for direct or indirect effects to wildlife resources are contained within the areas where treatments are proposed; thus, all potential direct and indirect effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the activity area boundaries. All potential cumulative effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the larger wildlife analysis area.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

All management indicator species (MIS) whose habitat would be potentially affected by proposed project activities were evaluated (Table 3.2.3.1, page 57).

56 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.2.3.1. Special Habitats and associated Management Indicator Species (MIS) evaluated for the Buck Project. Species Type Associated Habitat Indicator For Further Analyzed Black Bear Mammal Old forest communities, hard mast-production, and Yes large contiguous forest areas with low levels of human disturbance White-tailed Deer Mammal Permanent grass/forb habitat Yes Pileated Woodpecker Bird Snag abundance No* Ovenbird Bird Large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest No* Eastern Towhee Bird Early successional habitat (0-10 years) Yes Pine Warbler Bird Xeric yellow pine forests No Acadian Flycatcher Bird Alluvial forests No* Ruffed Grouse Bird Early successional habitat (11-20 years), soft mast Yes production *Habitat is present in the AA, but would not be affected by proposed project activities.

Management activities are not proposed in old forest communities or riparian forests. LRMP direction sets aside interior patches with large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest which would not be affected by the proposed activities. Snag abundance is protected by LRMP direction and the terms and conditions of the BO. Thus, these special habitats and their associated species, excluding black bear, will not be discussed further in this report.

Effects of Alternatives on Special Habitats associated with Management Indicator Species

Regeneration activities in Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D would result in some new habitat for early successional associates and less habitat for mature forest associates. The creation of new regeneration areas would provide some suitable habitat for Neotropical migratory birds of management concern, such as the chestnut-sided warbler and the GWWA. These areas would also provide soft mast for use by bear, deer, turkey, and other species.

Early Successional Communities (0-10 years)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Overall, the analysis area has very limited amounts of ESH and younger age classes. Openings are needed to provide age-class diversity in these areas and improve habitat quality for wildlife. Species that would benefit from the creation of openings include black bear, eastern wild turkey, white-tailed deer, and ruffed grouse, which find tender browse, fruit and hiding cover in dense young stands. Neotropical migratory birds such as chestnut-sided and golden-winged warblers also breed in these regeneration openings. There are few young stands of upland hardwoods and almost no young stands of cove hardwoods. Regenerating cove stands would benefit the area and have less effect on hard mast production. Regenerating upland hardwood stands would provide for future hard mast production. Alternative A would result in a lack of early successional habitat in the project area. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D would result in the creation of new early successional habitat through two-age harvest, 845 acres for Alternative B, 770 aces for Alternative B – Modified, 953 acres

57 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

for Alternative C, and 497 acres for Alternative D. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatment would not measurably affect early successional habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A, the no action alternative would contribute to a cumulative decrease in early successional habitat through lack of management across the landscape. Many past activity areas, where this special habitat was created, have progressed out of early successional habitat. There are currently 111 acres of ESH in the 0-10 year age class within the project area. In Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D the proposed actions would result in a cumulative increase of early successional habitat within the analysis area to 956 acres, 881 acres, 1,064 acres, and 608 acres, respectively. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the amount of forest in the 0-10 year age class in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for early successional habitat is decreasing due to the increase in the amount of the forest excluded from active management and to the reduction in the number and extent of silvicultural prescriptions. Alternative A would contribute to this downward trend, while Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D would slightly offset this decreasing trend by creating new early successional habitat.

Early Successional Communities (11-20 years)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would result in a lack of ESH (11-20 years) in the analysis area. The 18 acres of of ESH in the 11 - 20 year age class in the Buck AA would continue maturing out of this special habitat type. Alternative B would result in an eventual increase in this habitat as the harvested units mature past 10 years, resulting in approximately 845 acres, Alternative B – Modified would result in approximately 770 acres, Alternative C would result in an increase of approximately 953 acres, and Alternative D would result in an increase of approximately 497 acres after 10 years. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatment would not measurably affect mid successional habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would contribute to a phasing out of this habitat within the analysis area. By the time the proposed treatments in Alternative B, B – Modified, C, and D become 11-20 year age class ESH, most of the 18 acres of this habitat in the Buck AA would no longer be in that stage of succession. However, by the time vegetation management treatments proposed in the action alternatives are fully implemented, the 111 existing acres of 0-10 year habitat will have entered the 11-20 year age class. Ten years after implementation, any ESH in the 0 – 10 year age class would cumulatively increase the amount of 11-20 year ESH within the analysis area to 956 acres in Alternative B, 881 acres in Alternative B – Modified, 1,064 acres in Alternative C, and 608 acres in Alternative D. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect the amount of forest in the 11-20 year age class in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for early successional habitat in the 11-20 year age class is decreasing due to the increase in the amount of the forest excluded from active management and to the reduction in the number and extent of silvicultural prescriptions.

58 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative A would contribute to this downward trend, while Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D would modestly offset this decreasing trend by creating new early successional habitat.

Soft Mast Producing Species

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would result in a loss of soft mast producing species in the near future. Soft mast production is primarily associated with forest communities less than 20 years old. The proposed activities would create approximately 845 acres in Alternative B, 770 acres in Alternative B – Modified, 953 acres in Alternative C, or 497 acres in Alternative D of brushy areas as a result of shelterwood with reserves harvest and some additional habitat from the 50 acres of thinning or and the slashing in the serpentine barrens. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatment would not measurably affect soft mast production.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would cumulatively contribute to a decrease in soft mast- producing species as these species are associated with forests younger than 20 years. In Alternative B, there would be 974 acres of potential soft mast production, 899 acres in Alternative B - Modified, 1,082 acres in Alternative C, and 626 acres in Alternative D. However, after approximately 10 years, what is now 11-20 will have matured out of potential habitat and only 956 acres (Alt B), 881 acres (Alt B – Modified), 1,064 acres (Alt C), and 608 acres (Alt D) would remain available for soft mast production for each alternative respectively. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect soft mast-producing habitat in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The recent trend for soft mast-producing species is increasing due to timber harvesting in the past. Alternative A would reduce this upward trend by allowing forests to mature out of early successional habitat. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D would contribute to offsetting the downward trend caused by reductions in harvesting and would contribute to the recent upward trend by creating new 0-10 year old habitat and future 11-20 year old habitat.

Hard Mast Producing Species

Direct and Indirect Effects: Hard mast producing species are associated with mature forest communities greater than 40 years old with productivity declining generally after 80 years. Currently, 14,222 acres (69% of the analysis area) are over 81 years old. Under Alternative A, there would be an increase in mature forest communities within the 40-80 year productive stage, but a greater percentage of the analysis area will age beyond 80 years and hard mast productivity will likely decline. Any short-term increases in hard mast production will be lost over time as the analysis area overall becomes more senescent and shade tolerant, non-mast-producing trees become more dominant. Because all of the proposed harvest units are in hard mast producing forest types and are greater than 40 years old, the proposed project would decrease the amount of area available for hard mast production by 845 acres in Alternative B, 770 acres in Alternative B – Modified, 953 acres in Alternative C, and 497 acres in Alternative D. This reduction is less than 4.5% of analysis area under each of the action alternatives. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatments would not measurably affect soft mast producing species.

59 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would lead to a cumulative long term increase in hard mast producing species by allowing the forest within the analysis area to further mature, followed by a more intense decline in hard mast-producing trees that age out of the 40-80 year window of optimum mast production potential. In Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D, the cumulative decrease would be offset to some degree by the maturation of other forest communities into the greater-than-40-year age class. Currently, there are 1,703 acres (8.3% of the analysis area) less than 40 years old. The proposed activities, at the time of implementation, would increase the number of acres in stands less than 40 years old in Alternative B to a total of 12.3% (2,548 acres) of the analysis area, to 11.98% (2,473 acres) in Alternative B – Modified, to a total of 12.87% (2,656 acres) in Alternative C, or 7.6% (1,570 acres) of the analysis area in Alternative D. However, as forests mature within the analysis area after implementation, within 10 years stands less than 40 years old would represent approximately 2,000 acres of the Buck AA and within 20 years that figure would be approximately 1,100 acres. With no additional vegetation management, the amount of the analysis area acreage greater than 80 years old will increase by 16.97% (3,589 acres aged between 71-80 years old) 10 years after project implementation. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect hard mast-producing habitat in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend for hard mast-producing species is increasing due to the aging of young stands. Alternative A would add to this increasing trend until a higher percentage of stands age beyond 80 years through time. Due to the small amount of ideal hard mast production habitat (stands aged 40-80 years old) impacted by the proposed activities (4.38% over the entire analysis area) and the aging of current young stands, the proposed project implemented as Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, or D would not affect this trend.

Permanent Grass/Forb Openings

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would have no direct or indirect effect on grass/forb habitat. Under this alternative, these openings would be maintained at the current level. Herbicide sapling control on cutting unit skid trails would not create permanent grass/forb habitat. The prescribed burn treatments proposed in Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D may enhance this special habitat. If approved, the temporary road segment used to access stands 113/1 and 113/11 would be maintained as a new linear grass/forb wildlife strip, but would not appreciably increase the amount of permanent grass/forb openings in the Buck AA. The remainder of the temporary road construction and stream restoration activities would not measurably affect grass/forb openings.

Cumulative Effects: Due to a lack of direct or indirect effects under Alternative A, there would be no cumulative effects on grass/forb communities as a result of this alternative. Some treatments under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would contribute cumulatively with older burn units and existing wildlife openings within the analysis area to benefit this special habitat by enhancing its open and herbaceous characteristics. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect grass/forb habitat in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend for permanent grass/forb openings is slightly increasing as additional habitat is created. However, this trend will stabilize, because these openings in general

60 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

are no longer being created but maintained. Alternative A would not affect this trend. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would not directly affect this trend but would contribute to these areas being maintained at the current level.

Table 3.2.3.2: Summary of effects on special habitats within the Buck Project by alternatives Alt B - Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Modified ESH (0-10 Direct Increase Direct Increase Direct Increase Direct Increase Indirect Decrease years) 845 acres 770 acres 953 acres 497 acres ESH (11-20 Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Indirect Increase Indirect Increase Indirect Increase years) Soft Mast Producing Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Indirect Increase Indirect Increase Indirect Increase Species Hard Mast Indirect Producing Indirect Increase Indirect Decrease Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Decrease Species Permanent Modest Direct Modest Direct Modest Direct Modest Direct Grass/Forb No change Increase Increase Increase Increase Openings

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Direct and Indirect Effects: Ruffed grouse are strongly associated with early successional (five to 20 years old) forest habitats characterized by thick, shrubby growth. Ruffed grouse often use downed woody debris of various sizes for drumming. The creation of new regeneration areas and brushy openings would provide new ESH to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. The availability of grass/forb habitat on seeded roads improves the quality of the existing habitat by providing bugging areas for broods. The creation of brushy borders around the existing wildlife openings would particularly benefit grouse. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Effects of the alternatives on ruffed grouse are based on the change in five to 20 year old forest. The direct and indirect effects based on change in this habitat would be the similar to what is described above for 0-10 year old and 11-20 year old early successional communities. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, and herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on ruffed grouse.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impact on ruffed grouse based on the associated early successional habitat would be the same as the cumulative effects described above for 0-10 year old and 11-20 year old early successional communities. Cumulatively, Alternative A would decrease associated habitat for the ruffed grouse while Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would cumulatively increase associated early successional habitat. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to roughed grouse habitat in the Buck AA.

61 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Forest-wide Trend: According to annual breeding bird surveys for the past 15 years, ruffed grouse population levels have remained stable. Across the forest, habitat for this species has increased recently as previously cut stands entered the suitable age classes. With the decreasing level of timber harvest in recent years however, habitat for this species will be greatly reduced in the near future. There are a few young stands available to replace existing habitat. Alternative A would indirectly lend to the future downward trend of the associated habitat, but Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would add to this recent increase and reduce the future downward trend by creating additional new habitat.

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Direct and Indirect Effects: White-tailed deer are associated with both ESH and hard-mast production. This species uses the stems and leaves of woody and herbaceous green plants, fungi and fruits. Deer require hard mast for reproductive success and subsequent fawn survival. Grass/forb plantings can help to buffer the effects of a poor mast crop by providing nutritious grazing in the early spring. This helps to compensate for the loss of the chestnut in the mountains. The creation of new regeneration areas and brushy openings would provide new early successional habitats to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. White-tailed deer utilize a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Effects on white-tailed deer, based on early successional and grass/forb habitat would be beneficial in Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D due to the creation of new early successional habitat and potentially enhancement of grass/forb habitat through prescribed fire. In Alternative A, which leads to a less diverse landscape, effects would be overall unfavorable for the white-tailed deer habitat while at the same time beneficial for white-tail deer foraging through the indirect increase in hard mast production until a greater proportion of the analysis area hard mast-producing stands age beyond the optimum mast production range. The amount of early successional habitat created is less than 4.5% of the analysis area under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, or D; and under the four action alternatives grass/forb habitat would be enhanced for foraging; thus, the disadvantageous effect of reducing hard-mast producing species locally in Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would be negligible over the analysis area. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatments would not measurably affect white-tailed deer.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impact for white-tailed deer would be closely tied with early successional habitat and hard-mast producing species. These effects would be similar to those described above for these habitats. Under Alternative A, there would be a cumulative change in hard mast production over time as hard mast-producing stands age beyond 80 years and cumulative decrease in early successional habitat as the forest ages. Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D, there would not be a measurable cumulative impact on hard mast production and there would be a slight cumulative increase in early successional habitat paired with creation of grass/forb habitat as well. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect white-tailed deer habitat in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: Across the forest, white-tailed deer populations are fairly stable. According to North Carolina Wildlife Commission data over the last 20 years, populations have decreased with decreased timber harvest. On the Nantahala National Forest for the past 5 years, total bucks

62 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

and harvest have slightly increased while on the Pisgah National Forest total bucks and harvest have slightly decreased. While hard mast capability has increased in recent years, the amount of ESH has declined. Grass/forb planting has probably not increased significantly. Within the range of deer densities and overstory conditions that exist on public lands in the Southern Appalachians, timber harvesting is not likely to significantly improve the nutritional quality of the winter diet of deer. The proposed project would be unlikely to have a great impact on the fairly stable trend of white-tailed deer, but may slightly offset the downward trend over the last 20 years.

Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Direct and Indirect Effects: Black bears require a mix of habitat types including forest stands that produce hard mast (Quercus, Carya, and Fagus spp.), soft mast-producing ESH, as well as species that occur under closed canopy forest such as soft mast-producing species such as blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp), cherries (Prunus spp), mountain holly (Ilex montana), and serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.). Bears in much of the eastern United States depend on hard mast for the energy needed for reproduction and hibernation. Grass/forb plantings help to buffer the effects years of poor mast crops by providing nutritious grazing in the early spring, helping to compensate for the loss of American chestnut. This species utilizes a variety of habitat types and benefits from a diverse forest landscape. The creation of new regeneration areas and brushy openings would provide new early successional habitats to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. Although some brushy areas are created from the senescence and loss of individual mature trees and clumps of trees, and although some habitat may be created from prescribed burns and wildfire, this probably does not compensate for the lack of active management. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Effects on black bear under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D, which would create new ESH and soft mast-producing species, would be overall beneficial. Under Alternative A there would be a less diverse landscape which would not be beneficial for the black bear. The amount of ESH created is around 4% under Alternative B, 3.7% under Alternative B – Modified, 4.6% under Alternative C, and 2.4% under Alternative D. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatments would not measurably affect black bears.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impact on black bears based on creation of new ESH would be similar to the effects described above for that habitat. The cumulative increase in early successional habitat would be approximately 4.1% of the analysis area under Alternative B and Alternative B – Modified, 4.62% in Alternative C, and 2.41% in Alternative D. Approximately 7.44% of the analysis area would be older than 20 years but younger than 40 years. Thus, cumulatively, the analysis area would still have approximately 21.71% in ideal hard mast production areas under Alternatives B and B – Modified, 19.12% in Alternative C, and 23.51% under Alternative D. The cumulative impact based on soft mast producing species would be tied to the creation of ESH. Alternative A would result in a cumulative decrease in these areas as forests age within the analysis area, and Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D would result in a cumulative increase in soft mast production. Consequently, the overall effects of Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D on black bear would be beneficial, and the overall effects of Alternative A would be adverse.

63 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect black bear habitat in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: Across the Forest, black bear populations have increased due to factors not related to habitat management, including effective enforcement of hunting season length, harvest limits, and other regulation-based protection measures as well as increased human social acceptance of bears on the landscape. Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of regeneration activities, which leads to both a decline in mast-producing oaks as stands age beyond 80 years and a decrease in available soft mast. Alternative A may negatively impact population increases for black bear by reducing the amount of ESH available. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, or D would continue the trend of improving conditions for black bear by creating new ESH for foraging.

Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) Direct and Indirect Effects: Eastern towhees are associated with ESH. Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of regeneration activities. Although some brushy areas are created from the senescence and loss of individual mature trees and clumps of trees, and although some habitat may be created from prescribed burns and wildfire, this probably does not compensate for the lack of active management. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Effects on eastern towhees based on change in ESH would be indirectly related to the effects described above for that special habitat. Alternative A would result in a loss of this habitat in the near future, while Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D would result in an increase in ESH. Temporary road construction, stream restoration activities, prescribed burning, and herbicide treatments would not measurably affect the eastern towhee.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative impacts for this species, being associated with ESH, would be similar to the cumulative effects described above for this special habitat. Alternative A would result in a cumulative adverse effect as this habitat phases out throughout the analysis area. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would result in a beneficial cumulative effect by creating new early successional habitat. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect Eastern towhee habitat in the Buck AA.

Forest-wide Trend: Across the Forest, eastern towhee populations are in decline. With the decreasing level of timber harvest, habitat for this species has been greatly reduced. There are few young stands available to replace existing young forest habitat. Alternative A would add to this downward trend. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would reduce this trend by creating new ESH.

3.2.4. Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats

Most of the biological communities and special habitats in the project area are not affected by management activities proposed by the preferred alternative. What changes that are anticipated to occur, and discussed above, are consistent with the Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan. Most of

64 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project the projected habitat changes are needed to accomplish the multiple-use goals of the Plan. The cumulative effect of the implementation of this project, along with other similar projects, would change habitats in amounts close to/consistent with forest-wide averages of the recent past. Therefore, population trends of MIS related to habitat changes on the Forest would continue as cited in the most recent update of the MIS assessment.

Table 3.2.4.1 Communities and special habitats: estimated change by alternative Special Alt B - Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Habitats Modified Rich Cove None affected. 124 acres 124 acres 146 acres 74 acres Forests Northern Hardwood None affected 85 acres 85 acres 85 acres None affected Forests Yellow Pine None None None None None affected. Forests affected. affected. affected. affected. None None None None Reservoirs None affected. affected. affected. affected. affected. Coldwater 0.32 miles 0.3 miles 0.39 miles 0.17 miles None affected Streams affected affected affected affected Coolwater None None None None None affected. Streams affected. affected. affected. affected. Warmwater None None None None None affected. Streams affected. affected. affected. affected. Forest ≥ 100 173 acre 148 acre 205 acre 62 acre None affected Years reduction reduction reduction reduction No change; 111 ESH (0-10 845 acres 770 acres 953 acres 497 acres acres exist years) created created created created currently 845 acres 770 acres 953 acres 497 acres ESH (11-20 created 11 created 11 created 11 created 11 Absent years) years post- years post- years post- years post- harvest harvest harvest harvest Decline due to Soft mast Direct Direct Direct Direct aging of species (< 20 increase 845 increase 770 increase 953 increase 497 existing yrs) acres acres acres acres communities Increase due to Hard mast aging of 845 acre 770 acre 953 acre 497 acre species (> 40 existing decrease decrease decrease increase yrs) communities Permanent grass/forb No change No change. No change No change No change openings Down woody Increase on Increase on Increase on Increase on None affected material 1,311 acres 1,311 acres 1,311 acres 1,311 acres

65 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

See the Biological Evaluation in Appendix 5.1 of this Environmental Assessment for a detailed analysis of effects to proposed, endangered and threatened species.

3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species

None of the Alternatives of the Buck Project would affect any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no aquatic Proposed, Threatened, or Endangered species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species

None of the Alternatives of the Buck Project would affect any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species because there would be no disturbance that would affect the plants or their habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.

3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Alternative A of the Buck Project would have no effect to any proposed, endangered, or threatened terrestrial wildlife species. Implementation of Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat because all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, dated April 10, 2000, would be followed. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the northern long-eared bat because all requirements of the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016 for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat would be followed. The final 4(d) rule allows this consultation to be in the form of notification if all requirements of the rule are met. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D of the Buck project may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) because the species may be present in the AA and because potential impacts from treatments are not well documented at the present time. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for terrestrial wildlife resources.

3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species

Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August 2001, updated 2018). See the Biological Evaluation in Appendix 5.1 for a detailed analysis of effects to Region 8 Sensitive Species.

66 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species

One sensitive aquatic species, Hiwassee headwaters crayfish (Cambarus parrishi), occurs in analysis area waters. Alternative A would have no effects to any sensitive aquatic species because no management treatments would occur. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after the in-stream construction activities are completed.

3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species

Seven sensitive plant species - - Drepanolejeunea appalachiana (a liverwort), Euphorbia purpurea (glade spurge), Frullania appalachiana (a liverwort), butternut (Juglans cinerea), serpentine ragwort (Packera serpenticola), highlands moss (Schlotheimia lancifolia), and Rhiannon’s aster (Symphyotrichum rhiannon) - - occur in the Buck Project analysis area. Alternative A of the Buck Project would have no impact to any of these species. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing and would have beneficial impacts to habitat for glade spurge, serpentine ragwort, highlands moss, and Rhiannon’s aster by increasing the amount of light.

3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive Species

Five sensitive wildlife species - - seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), eastern small- footed bat (Myotis leibii), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexipplus), and bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) - - occur in the Buck Project analysis area. Alternative A of the Buck Project would have no impacts to any of these species. Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project may impact individual seepage salamanders, eastern small-footed bats, tri-colored bats, and monarch butterflies, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

3.5. Forest Concern Species

Forest concern species considered in this analysis are those included in the National Forests in North Carolina species list (January, 2002, updated 2018). These are species that occur or are likely to occur on the Forests and are identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as significantly rare. The objective is to manage habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species across the planning area (LRMP, Appendix K). All forest concern species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence records of sensitive animals as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and field data on the activity areas. Effects are analyzed by resource type. See the Biological Evaluation in Appendix 5.1 for a detailed analysis of effects to Forest Concern Species.

67 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species

Determination of Effect: Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the following aquatic forest concern species but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after the in-stream construction activities are completed.

Table 3.5.1: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No Impact May impact individuals Cambarus nodosus No Impact May impact individuals Cambarus sp. A No Impact May impact individuals

3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species

Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the forest concern botanical species in the AA.

Table 3.5.2: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species. Species Alt A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Agastache nepetoides No Impact No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Brachyelytrum aristosum No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Carex cherokeensis No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Carex woodii No Impact toward Federal listing. Cypripedium parviflorum var. No Impact No Impact parviflorum Deschampsia cespitosa var. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact glauca toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Elymus trachycaulus ssp. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact trachycaulus toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Frasera caroliniensis No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Gentianopsis crinita No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Lonicera canadensis No Impact No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Muhlenbergia glomerata No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Parnassia grandifolia No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat.

68 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Alt A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Pedicularis lanceolata toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Platanthera grandiflora No Impact No Impact No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Poa saltuensis toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Polygala senega toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Smilax hugeri toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Sporobolus heterolepis toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Thalictrum macrostylum toward Federal listing. No Impact May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Viola walteri var. appalachiensis toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat.

3.5.3 Wildlife Forest Concern Species

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the following forest concern terrestrial wildlife species but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

69 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Hermit thrush No Impact May impact individuals* (Catharus guttatus) Black-billed cuckoo No Impact May impact individuals* (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Cerulean warbler No Impact May impact individuals* (Setophaga cerulea) Golden-winged warbler No Impact May impact individuals* (Vermivora chrysoptera) Northern bush katydid No Impact May impact individuals* (Scudderia septentrionalis) Diana fritillary No Impact May impact individuals* (Speyeria diana) Golden-banded skipper No Impact May impact individuals* (Autochton cellus) Dusky azure No Impact May impact individuals* (Celastrina nigra) Gorgone checkerspot No Impact May impact individuals* (Chlosyne gorgone) Mottled duskywing No Impact May impact individuals* (Erynnis martialis) Tawny crescent No Impact May impact individuals* (Phyciodes batesii maconensis) Gray comma No Impact May impact individuals* (Polygonia progne) Hickory hairstreak No Impact May impact individuals* (Satyrium caryaevorus) Edwards’s hairstreak No Impact May impact individuals* (Satyrium edwardsii) a noctuid moth No Impact May impact individuals* (Melanapamea mixta) Serrulate melanoplus No Impact May impact individuals* (Melanoplus serrulatus) Southern rock vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus No Impact May impact individuals* carolinensis) Southern water shrew No Impact May impact individuals* (Sorex palustris punctulatus) Southern rock shrew No Impact May impact individuals* (Sorex dispar blitchi) Least weasel No Impact May impact individuals* (Mustela nivalis) Little brown bat No Impact May impact individuals* (Myotis lucifugus) Eastern spotted skunk No Impact May impact individuals* (Spilogale putorious) Appalachian cottontail rabbit No Impact May impact individuals* (Sylvilagus obscurus) Dark glyph No Impact May impact individuals* (Glyphyalinia junaluskana)

70 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Pink glyph No Impact May impact individuals* (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia) Blue-footed lancetooth No Impact May impact individuals* (Haplotrema kendeighi) Open supercoil No Impact May impact individuals* (Paravitrea umbilicaris) Dwarf proud globe No Impact May impact individuals* (Patera clarki clarki) Oar tooth bud No Impact May impact individuals* (Pilsbryna nodopalma) Appalachian Gloss No Impact May impact individuals* (Zonitoides patuloides) *May impact individuals but would not be likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest.

3.6. Invasive Species, Natural Heritage Areas, & Old Growth

3.6.1 Invasive Species

Boundaries of Analysis Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to non-native invasive plants (NNIP) were confined to areas with proposed USFS management activities and within a ½ mile along open corridors (e.g. roads and wildlife openings) referred to as the Buck NNIP Analysis Area (AA) in this report. There is no future boundary for effects because NNIP can increase across the landscape.

Existing Condition Surveys for nonnative invasive plants (NNIP) were conducted within meander survey paths and along roads adjacent to and within proposed management units. Pathways of proposed roadway construction and wildlife openings adjacent to proposed management stands were inventoried as well. For assessment purposes, the area of coverage and the percent cover of NNIP were noted upon locating infestations in the proposed management area. NNIP surveys were conducted by Forest Service staff and in some stands by Copperhead Environmental consulting (Brewer, S., A. Prater, H. Braunreiter, C. Richardson, and C. McNees. 2016).

Eight NNIP species were located in the Buck NNIP AA (Table 3.6.1.1 page 72). Most of the NNIP detected in the project area occurred along state and forest roads with occasional patches of NNIP in stands away from roadways. All eight of the NNIP found in the Buck project area are considered highly invasive are prioritized and tracked by the Forest Service, these include silktree (Albizia julibrissin), autumn olive (Elateagnus umbellata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Kudzu (Pueraria montana), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica). Of all the species detected Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum) and multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora) were the most abundant species, occurring mostly along roadways.

71 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.6.1.1 NNIP in the Buck NNIP Analysis Area Species Common Name Species Common Name Albizia julibrissin Silktree Microstegium vimineum Japanese Stiltgrass Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn Olive Pueraria montana Kudzu Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Spiraea japonica Japanese Meadowsweet

Known non-native invasive plant species affecting the Nantahala National Forest and their relative risk of spread to adjacent areas (Gary Kauffman 2010).

Level of Risk Treatment Areas Number of Invasive Species of Spread Wildlife Openings 16 Highest Roads 16 Highest Riparian Forest 12 High Rich Cove Forest 12 High Trails 14 High Prescribed Burns 5 Lower

NNIP Effects in the proposed Buck NNIP activity area

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: With no silvicultural treatments, temporary road construction, post silvicultural treatments, road daylighting, and wildlife opening treatment activities, the potential habitat for the outbreak and spread of NNIP infestations would be small in comparison with the action alternative. However, NNIP species already present within the proposed activity area would likely increase without further disturbance. With no control, NNIP infestations would continue to spread in existing disturbed areas along Forest Service roads, wildlife openings and linear wildlife openings.

Alternative B: Under alternative B, the acreage suitable for the spread of NNIP would increase. The areas at a higher risk for NNIP infestation include proposed silvicultural treatments, roadside thinning, wildlife opening work, prescribed burning control line construction, brush cutting, and proposed temporary road construction. The NNIP found in or adjacent to proposed activity areas would likely increase across the project area along Forest Service roads.

Alternative B – Modified: Under alternative B, the acreage suitable for the spread of NNIP would increase, but be less than Alternative B and C. The areas at a higher risk for NNIP infestation include proposed silvicultural treatments, roadside thinning, wildlife opening work, prescribed burning control line construction, brush cutting, and proposed temporary road construction. The NNIP found in or adjacent to proposed activity areas would likely increase across the project area along Forest Service roads.

72 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative C: Under alternative C, the acreage suitable for the spread of NNIP would increase, and would be greater than Alternatives B, B – Modified, and D due to more acres being treated in Alternative C. The areas at a higher risk for NNIP infestation include proposed silvicultural treatments, roadside thinning, wildlife opening work, and proposed temporary road construction. The NNIP found in or adjacent to proposed activity areas would likely increase across the project area along Forest Service roads.

Alternative D: Under alternative D, the acreage suitable for the spread of NNIP would increase, but be less than Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C due to less overall disturbance. The areas at a higher risk for NNIP infestation include proposed silvicultural treatments, roadside thinning, wildlife opening work, prescribed burning control line construction, brush cutting, and proposed temporary road construction. The NNIP found in or adjacent to proposed activity areas would likely increase across the project area along Forest Service roads.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A would create no disturbance, and therefore produce no cumulative effects for NNIP.

There is a long land use history in the Buck NNIP analysis area that has contributed to the density and abundance of NNIP. Past actions that have contributed to the spread of NNIP species include the construction of roads and trails, the construction and maintenance of electrical transmission lines, and the management of timber. Currently, there are no known actions that are contributing to the NNIP spread in the Buck analysis area.

Alternative B: Suitable habitat for most NNIP species can be defined as areas with ground disturbing activities such as road construction, recent timber regeneration (0-10 years) areas, and wildlife field construction. Therefore, this proposal would generate up to 2,401 acres of NNIP suitable habitat due to thinning and shelterwood with reserves timber harvest (845 acres), non- commercial slashing (1,500 acres) as well as 9 miles of temporary road construction (30.6 acres). To determine the amount of area of soil disturbance contributed by road construction the following multiplier was used: 3.9 acres/mile for new construction; temporary road construction/reconstruction = 3.4 acres/mile (the multiplier is based on a 28-foot wide disturbance area for temporary construction). It was assumed that 100% of the road footprint area would have some level of soil disturbance. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects within the analysis area that would appreciably affect NNIP.

Alternative B – Modified: Suitable habitat for most NNIP species can be defined as areas with ground disturbing activities such as road construction, recent timber regeneration (0-10 years) areas, and wildlife field construction. Therefore, this proposal would generate up to 2,319 acres of NNIP suitable habitat due to thinning and shelterwood with reserves timber harvest (770 acres), non-commercial slashing (1,500 acres) as well as 6.9 miles of temporary road construction (23.5 acres). To determine the amount of area of soil disturbance contributed by road construction the following multiplier was used: 3.9 acres/mile for new construction; temporary road construction/reconstruction = 3.4 acres/mile (the multiplier is based on a 28- foot wide disturbance area for temporary construction). It was assumed that 100% of the road

73 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

footprint area would have some level of soil disturbance. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects within the analysis area that would appreciably affect NNIP.

Alternative C: Suitable habitat for most NNIP species can be defined as areas with ground disturbing activities such as road construction, recent timber regeneration (0-10 years) areas, and wildlife field construction. Therefore, this proposal would generate up to 2,488 acres of NNIP suitable habitat due to thinning and shelterwood with reserves timber harvest (953 acres), non- commercial slashing (1,500 acres) as well as 10.2 miles of temporary road construction (34.7 acres). To determine the amount of area of soil disturbance contributed by road construction the following multiplier was used: 3.9 acres/mile for new construction; temporary road construction/reconstruction = 3.4 acres/mile (the multiplier is based on a 28-foot wide disturbance area for temporary construction). It was assumed that 100% of the road footprint area would have some level of soil disturbance. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects within the analysis area that would appreciably affect NNIP.

Alternative D: Suitable habitat for most NNIP species can be defined as areas with ground disturbing activities such as road construction, recent timber regeneration (0-10 years) areas, and wildlife field construction. Therefore, this proposal would generate up to 1,974 acres of NNIP suitable habitat due to thinning and shelterwood with reserves timber harvest (497 acres), non- commercial slashing (1,500 acres) as well as 0.63 miles of temporary road construction (2.1 acres). To determine the amount of area of soil disturbance contributed by road construction the following multiplier was used: 3.9 acres/mile for new construction; temporary road construction/reconstruction = 3.4 acres/mile (the multiplier is based on a 28-foot wide disturbance area for temporary construction). It was assumed that 100% of the road footprint area would have some level of soil disturbance. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects within the analysis area that would appreciably affect NNIP.

D. Recommendations for the Control of NNIP and other Non-native Species

Woody species that occur in smaller discrete population in the Buck project area, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), silktree (Albizia julibrissin), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica), are obvious targets since these infestations may be relatively easy to treat at this stage. More widespread species, such as Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Kudzu (Pueraria montana), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are pervasive within the project area and would be much more difficult to control at this point.

Non-native invasive plant control and prevention efforts in the Buck project area should focus on the following areas: • All off-road logging equipment should be clean and free of soil and vegetation prior to entering stands. Off-road equipment should be re-cleaned if moved away from the stand and then brought back to the stand. • Areas of the stand with known NNIP occurrences should be harvested last to avoid moving these known infestations around the stand. • All areas of soil disturbance (log landing and temporary road construction) will be seeded with a native, weed-free seed mix. Local native seed genotypes are preferred.

74 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

• All tracked and some of the non-tracked NNIP should be treated prior to timber harvest activities to avoid further spread. The amount of control accomplished will be based on time and funding available. The following is the order of priority for accomplishing treatments: o The woody species that occur in smaller discrete population such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), silktree (Albizia julibrissin), and Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica). o The more widespread tracked NNIP species populations of Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Kudzu (Pueraria montana), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). o Any other NNIP that occur in the project area, but that have not yet been inventoried. • Stands should be treated for at least two years post timber harvest to control any NNIP that was introduced to the site or expanded due to the additional soil disturbance and light availability.

3.6.2 North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas

The Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens and Chunky Gal/Riley Knob are known special interest areas (SIA) recognized by the current Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) within stands or areas proposed for management in the Buck project area. The Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens, and Chunky Gal/Riley Knob are Natural Heritage Natural Areas (NHNA) that are located in stands or areas proposed for management in the Buck project area. Portions of the Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens and Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNAs are identified as SIAs in the current LRMP.

Prescribed fire and brush cutting activities proposed in Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D in the Buck project within the Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens and Chunky Gal/Riley Knob SIAs and NHNAs will be beneficial and be used to improve habitat for Regionally Sensitive and Forest Concern plant and animal species. For an analysis of prescribed fire and brush cutting activity impacts to plant and animal species please review the Biological Evaluation for the Buck Project.

Prescribed fire and brush cutting activities are proposed for the entire Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNA in Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D and would be beneficial to the plant and animal species that occur in this NHNA. For Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D, a portion of the Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNA (490 total NHNA acres) is located within the uphill or eastern portion of compartment/stand 108/20. Compartment 108 Stand 20 is proposed for a shelterwood with reserves timber harvest in Alternatives B and C of the Buck project. Activities proposed in compartment/stand 108/20 would affect approximately 2 acres (0.4% of the entire NHNA) of the Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNA. The timber harvest activities would impact the values of the NHNA, which are listed as rich cove forest and high elevation white oak forest. For alternative C, a portion of the Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNA is located within compartment/stand 108/21. Compartment/stand 108/21 is proposed for shelterwood with reserves timber harvest in only alternative C of the Buck project. Activities proposed in compartment/stand 108/21 would affect approximately 22 acres (4.5% of the entire NHNA) of

75 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

the Chunky Gal/Riley Knob NHNA. The timber harvest activities would impact the values of the NHNA, which are listed as rich cove forest and northern hardwood forest.

Prescribed fire and brush cutting activities are proposed for the entire Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens NHNA and would be beneficial to the plant and animal species that occur in this NHNA. A portion of the Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens NHNA (1,340 acres) is located within compartment/stand 104/23. The 1,340 acre Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens NHNA surrounds the 93.5 acre Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens SIA identified in the LRMP. Compartment 104 Stand 23 (28.1 acres) is in the NHNA portion of the Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens and is proposed for thinning and shelterwood with reserves timber harvest in alternatives B, B – Modified, and C. The proposed harvest actions would affect a 28.1 acre (2% of the entire NHNA) portion of the NHNA. The shelterwood with reserves timber harvest activities along with prescribed burning would increase the amount of open area in the NHNA and would improve habitat in the higher elevation or southern portion of the stand which is adjacent to more open serpentine barrens habitat by allowing more light to reach the forest floor and stimulate fire adapted barrens species to grow. The lower elevation or northern portion of the stand is a dry cove forest where prescribed fire and a thinning timber harvest is proposed. The prescribed fire and harvest activity would retain a portion of the forest canopy and maintain some of the forest plants that need partial shade (see the Buck Project Biological Evaluation for effects of the project on plants and animals). Overall, the activities proposed in the Buck project for the Buck Creek Serpentinized Olivine Barrens NHNA would be beneficial.

3.6.3 Old Growth

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, recognizes old-growth forests as a valuable natural resource worthy of protection, restoration, and management. Old- growth forests provide a variety of values, such as biological diversity, wildlife habitat, recreation, esthetics, soil productivity, water quality, aquatic habitat, cultural values, and high- value timber products. Old-growth communities are rare or largely absent in the southeastern forests of the United States. The management of old-growth forests in the Southeast is a challenging issue. Today, old-growth forests are limited in area and distribution on the southern landscape due to past natural events and human disturbances. For this reason, strategies addressing old-growth forest communities primarily address the restoration of existing second- growth forests to develop old-growth attributes over time (USDA FS R8 1997).

The operational definition for old-growth is defined in the Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region also known as the R8 Old-Growth Guide (USDA-FS 1997). The R8 Old-Growth Guide is not a policy document with substantive and procedural requirements that must be met, but is rather a reference document developed by the Southern Region to assist National Forests with implementing the legal requirements in their forest plans. The LRMP for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests establishes the substantive and procedural requirements for old-growth management on pages III-26 through III-27. The Buck Project complies with the LRMP across the AA as a whole and the desired conditions for old-growth as defined in the Forest Plan have been met and are being maintained within the AA as a whole.

76 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Direction in the LRMP (III-26) defines standards and guidelines for the management of large, medium, and small patch old-growth across the landscape. Additionally, the direction indicates the importance of old-growth patches which are representative of sites, elevational gradients, and landscapes found in the Southern Appalachians and on the Forest that are well dispersed and interconnected by forested lands. The considerations of existing, future, and possible old-growth as they are distributed across forest community types are important determinations in order to meet defined desired future conditions identified in the LRMP.

Large and medium patch old-growth have been previously designated as directed in the LRMP. Small patch old-growth was evaluated for the project area based on the LRMP direction as follows:

“SMALL PATCHES: In each compartment containing more than 250 acres of national forest land, select a small patch for future old-growth management. If 5% of the compartment acres are already part of the large or medium patch, an additional small patch is not needed. Whenever possible, areas should incorporate some riparian habitat to enhance old-growth values. “

The LRMP sets further direction for small patch old-growth with the following standard:

“Select a contiguous area at least 5% the size of the national forest land in the compartment or at least 50 acres, whichever is greater. Management area 14 and 18 can contribute to old-growth acreage when they are included within a selected area. Compartments containing part of a large or medium patch do not need an additional small patch.”

Table 3.6.3.1 on page 78 presents the areas of old-growth designated by project area compartment.

The Buck Project area includes 34,507 acres of land, of which 20,638 acres is under USFS management. The Buck project AA includes large areas of forested land that have been set aside for other resource values and are not actively managed. Additionally, large, medium, and small patch designations have been made for the project area. Within the project area there are 3,247 acres designated as large or medium patch old-growth, and 255 acres as small patch. In addition 2,804 acres which are designated for other resources values also meet old-growth guidance (MA’s 5, 7, 13, and 14). While the selection of small patch old-growth is discussed, it is not part of the decision to be made.

77 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.6.3.1 Designated Old Growth in the Buck Project Analysis Area Acres of Large, Small Medium, and Small Acres of patch patch OG. Does not USFS acres in Old-growth Compartment proposed 5% or 50 include other MA Compartment Summary management acre designations minimum contributing to OG conditions. No Management 100 307 0 N/A 0 proposed No Management 101 1,888 0 N/A 421 proposed Existing medium 102 2,014 64 N/A and large patch 923 designated No Management 103 739 0 N/A 230 proposed Designated SIA Designated SIA provides 104 1,700 117 N/A provides OG OG conditions conditions Portions of stands 1,16 & 17 have 106 1,585 194 80 105 been designated totaling 105 acres Designated SIA provides OG conditions & a 107 877 78 50 26 portion of Stand 4 has been designated totaling 68 acres Existing small, 108 1,100 56 N/A medium, and large 166 patch designated Existing medium 109 1,122 111 N/A and large patch 59 designated Existing medium 110 1,436 78 N/A and large patch 520 designated Existing medium 111 2,019 100 N/A and large patch 1052 designated Designated SIA Designated SIA provides 112 1,012 6 N/A provides OG OG conditions conditions Inventory roadless Inventory roadless area 113 1,821 77 N/A area provides OG provides OG conditions conditions Inventory Roadless Inventory Roadless area 114 1,737 94 N/A area provides OG provides OG conditions conditions No Management 115 979 0 N/A 0 proposed No Management 116 799 0 N/A 0 proposed

78 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

The following figure represents the land base designations relating to old-growth across the project area landscape.

As indicated earlier in this section, it is important to consider a representative distribution of old- growth across the landscape. The following table shows the distribution of old-growth acres by ecozone type. Within the 3,502 acres of old-growth designated in the project area all the ecozones present in the project area are represented.

The management of old-growth resources is a persistent management strategy in which the continued evaluation of conditions, resources, and designation opportunities is an important part of the process. The AA will continue to be evaluated for old-growth management opportunities.

79 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.7. Soil and Water Resources

3.7.1 Soil Resources

Existing Condition: The project activities would occur in Clay County North Carolina. Treatments are proposed within the Blue Ridge Belt which is composed primarily of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, including biotite gneiss, and has an inclusion of mafic (basic) rocks around the Buck Creek area, including Corundum Knob and the Serpentine Barrens. None of the geologic parent materials are known to produce acidic runoff.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey tool (Version 2.3) was used on February 9, 2018 and September 27, 2018 to determine the soil types in the proposed project activity areas and their suitability for management treatments. The Web Soil Survey tool is available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm and provides the most up-to- date soil survey information available from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The compartments that comprise the Buck Project analysis area were examined and custom soil series reports were generated and reviewed. Findings are summarized below. The common soil series and distributions are presented in Table 3.7.1.

Table 3.7.1 Commonly Occurring Soils in the Buck Project Analysis Area by Soil Series and Relative Abundance. Map Percent Map Unit Name Symbol of AA EvE Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 13% EdE Edneyville-Chestnut complex, high precipitation, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 10% CuE Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 9% CuD Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony 8% CmF Chestnut-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony 8% PwF Plott fine sandy loam, high precipitation, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony 8% EdF Edneyville-Chestnut complex, high precipitation, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony 8% PwE Plott fine sandy loam, high precipitation, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 8% EvD Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 4% CmE Chestnut-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 3% EvF Evard-Cowee complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony 3% TrE Trimont gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 2% TsC Tuckasegee-Cullasaja complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, stony 2% SoF Soco-Stecoah complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes 2% Ud Udorthents, loamy 1% TgD Tate gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony 1% EdD Edneyville-Chestnut complex, high precipitation, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony 1%

The most abundant soil series in the AA are the Evard-Cowee complexes, the Edneyville- Chestnut complexes, the Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complexes, and the Chestnut-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex. The Evard Cowee complexes consists of fine-loamy, parasesquic, mesic Typic

80 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Hapludults soil orders, the Edneyville-Chestnut complexes consists of coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudepts soil orders, the Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complexes consists of loamy-skeletal, isotic, mesic Typic Humudepts, and the Chestnut-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex consists of coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudepts on steep rocky slopes. All of the soil series in the AA are best suited for woodland. There are few floodplain and no prime farmland soils in the project area. All soil series in the AA have high erosion potential, largely due to their location on mountainsides.

Soil Productivity

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: Because no management treatments would occur, there would be no new soil disturbance. Areas of existing soil compaction, e.g. old woods roads, would continue to improve as compaction is reduced by natural processes, such as frost heave and disturbance by roots and ground dwelling animals, thus slowly improving soil productivity. There would be no new effects to soil resources as a result of management activities. Forest Service roads would not receive the benefits incurred from roadside thinning which results in increased sunlight to the roadbed, and thus more road drying during inclement weather. Existing culverts that need maintenance or replacement would not have this work accomplished.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Soil disturbance can occur as a result of heavy equipment use during logging, and does occur during reconstruction and construction of temporary roads and establishing log landings. Areas of concentrated use, such as log landings and skid roads are most affected. Compaction of these areas would increase the bulk density of the soils and result in a decrease in pore space, soil air, infiltration rate, and the water holding capacity of the soils and would increase water runoff. These effects are considered detrimental to plant growth. The degree and depth of compaction depends on the number of passes the equipment makes and the moisture content of the soil at the time the passes are made. Changes in pore space do not normally occur on well-drained soils, such as those that occur over most of this project area, until three or more passes have occurred.

The action alternatives have the potential to affect soil resources as a result of commercial treatment activities and the development of the temporary road network. The effects of these activities on soil resources in the activity area can be described in terms of short- and long-term effects on the productivity of the soils. Short-term effects are those lasting three years or less, and are associated with the recovery period in which disturbed soils become reestablished with natural vegetative cover. Short-term effects imply that the existing soil profile is left intact. Surface disturbances, such as displacement of vegetation over a small area of ground, are the primary impacts. In contrast, long-term effects are associated with activities that displace the topsoil and upper portions of the soil profile or alter soil structure, e.g. compaction. Many years are needed for the soil to recover its original productivity when the surface layers are removed. Also considered a short-term impact are segments of temporary access roads when they are obliterated after harvest activities are completed. Obliteration would restore the displaced soil back into the road cut to re-contour the slope. Although soil horizons would be mixed in the process, soil productivity would be largely restored with the help of soil amendments (lime and fertilizer), sowing of native seed and the placement of vegetative material on the surface.

81 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Effects to the soils from management activities are considered not significant when 85 percent of the treatment area is unaffected and retains its potential long-term soil productivity (Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards). In other words, no more than15 percent of the activity area and each individual harvest unit can be affected and lose potential long-term soil productivity.

Log landings and temporary roads allowed to remain would be promptly stormproofed. Skid roads, trails, and log skidding in the ground-based logging harvest units would cause some soil disturbance and compaction in about 10% of each unit. The skid roads and trails would be seeded or covered with scattered brush and/or would have brush barriers placed in key locations, as needed, upon harvest unit closure, and these locations could be reused in the event that silvicultural treatments are proposed in the future. Reusing temporary road prisms reduces the amount of soil disturbance over time. Erosion and sedimentation from temporary road segments would be managed through the use of BMPs both passive, using slash filter strips, and if needed, active control features such as silt fences, straw bales, and/or coir matting.

All silvicultural activities would be conducted according to LRMP standards and guidelines, to the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to preventing soil erosion, and to NFsNC BMPs. Six existing culverts would be replaced with new ones to facilitate stream flow. The small amount of sediment that may reach water would be diluted by additional tributary water entering the stream channels. The proposed activities should have no adverse impacts on soil productivity or water uses downstream of the project area because the effects are expected to stay on-site within the activity area.

Other management treatments, such as prescribed fire, fireline construction and stream rehabilitation are also not likely to adversely impact soil long-term productivity. Prescribed fire is expected to burn with varying intensities across the landscape, resulting in a mosaic pattern of soil burn severity. Monitoring of past prescribed burns and wildfires show that fire typically does not consume the entire soil surface duff layer due to high moisture content in this layer. Although prescribed burning would largely have a low soil burn severity, there is likely to be small patches where the fire burns more intensely due to dryer and/or heavier fuels. It is unlikely that these areas would have adverse impacts to soil structure and productivity. Containment lines for prescribed fire would remove the forest duff layer down to near mineral soil but retain larger roots at the surface. Disturbance is likely to heal quickly as roots grow back into the disturbed area. Stream rehabilitation would require heavy equipment in the streamside zone to access streams proposed for work under the action alternatives Since soil disturbance, such as compaction, would be mitigated as the equipment leaves the area, soil impacts would be short- term and productivity would be improved by restoring riparian and floodplain areas.

Temporary road reconstruction, whether on new or on existing prisms, would have long-term impacts to soil productivity. Where roads can be constructed on existing, abandoned road corridors, they would be considered reconstruction with improvements to drainage and runoff control. Any improvements to soil productivity that occurred since the road prism was abandoned (possibly on road fill slopes) would be eliminated with the reconstruction and construction. New temporary road construction would be a long-term disturbance in the action alternatives.

82 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Soil Moisture

Alternative A (No Action): There would be no new effects to soil moisture from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Soil moisture content in the harvested areas is expected to increase initially during the post-harvest period (Swank and Vose 1988). Soil moisture would return to pre-harvest levels as the vegetative canopy re-closes and evapotranspiration increases. The higher soil moisture regime would benefit all vegetation growing on the sites by contributing more available moisture to plants during the growing season. It would also increase germination of native seeds present onsite. Surface soil temperatures during the growing season would also increase until canopy closure. Short-term increases of 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit would be expected at the litter-soil layer with complete canopy removal (Swank and Vose 1988). Conversely, surface soil temperatures would be lower than normal during the winter months as a result of canopy reduction. No changes would be expected below a depth of six inches. The degree of change in soil moisture and temperature would be a function of the extent of vegetative removal. Shading by leave trees would reduce temperature extremes. Surface soil temperatures are not expected to reach levels lethal to plant growth. Soil moisture and temperature effects would be short-term impacts, as canopy closure is expected to occur within ten years after harvest.

Soil Nutrients

Alternative A (No Action): There would be no new effects to soil nutrients from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened (Knoepp and Swank 1997). The increase in soil moisture, surface soil temperatures and organic debris would produce ideal conditions for accelerated organic matter decomposition. This would result in the increased availability of nutrients in the upper part of the soil profile. The existing root systems, along with new plant germinations, would take advantage of the increased availability of nutrients. A surge of plant growth would occur. Likewise, many soil-borne organisms such as detritivores and predatory animals further up the food chain would take advantage of the increased nutrient availability, temperature, and soil moisture availability. Possible losses of nutrients to groundwater through leaching (Knoepp and Swank 1994) and volatilization are expected to be offset by additions of nutrient-rich leafy material and small woody debris left onsite after harvest. Nutrient cycling would continue in the project area, with very little expected loss from plant removal or nutrient leaching, due to the rapid regrowth of the vegetation on the treated areas and the existing root systems already in place.

Soil Erosion

Alternative A (No Action): There would be no new effects to soil disturbance from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Erosion can occur on long unimpeded slopes with grade, where mineral soil material is exposed to raindrop impact and overland water flow (Dunne and Leopold 1978). Soil movement can affect soil productivity when soil is transported

83 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

by water offsite. Soils on upper slopes can lose productive topsoil if it moves downslope with water. Soil erosion may occur where bare soil is exposed on a slope as a result of equipment tracking difficulties (spinning wheels), bladed skid roads and landings, or where logs are dragged across the soil repeatedly (Pritchett 1979). The placement of the landings on gentle topography prevents long unimpeded erosion surfaces. The presence of a natural organic surface layer covering the soil and logging debris, which is commonly found on harvested areas, also prevents long unimpeded erosion surfaces.

Soil disturbance and compaction during timber harvest vary depending upon both the type of soil and harvest method (Swank et al. 1989). Design features associated with this project include (1) using a skyline system where appropriate, (2) using existing skid roads where possible and practical, and (3) directional felling and winching, which would decrease skid road construction and the need to operate on steeper slopes to move trees to landings. Also, if an action alternative is selected, erosion control treatments would be applied to minimize soil movement. Full skyline and partial skyline logging (combined with ground-based on low slopes) would be utilized consistent with direction in the LRMP for harvesting. The skyline logging system has been found to greatly reduce soil erosion because of less ground disturbance (USFS 2012).

A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey Site (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/) shows that the analysis area has soil types characterized by a hazard of soil loss ranging from “slight” to “very severe”. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D propose treatment in areas that are rated “severe” and “very severe” for erosion hazard. This NRCS erosion rating stems from logging activities that expose 50 to 75 percent of the surface area. Although there is a high potential for soil erosion from ground-based logging operations, BMP effectiveness monitoring in compliance with the LRMP shows a high rate of implementation that minimizes soil loss (USFS 2018a, USFS 2018b) and exposes far less mineral soil than expressed in the NRCS erosion hazard rating.

Therefore, the potential for soil movement from Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D is expected to be short-term and limited to the recovery period time of approximately one to three years. Prompt implementation of erosion control measures (seeding, waterbars, ripping compacted surfaces, logging slash on skid roads, etc.) of the disturbed areas helps prevent continued soil movement after harvest area closure (Swift 1984).

Roads

There would be no change to network of Forest Service roads under Alternative A. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, which would result in approximately 9.1 miles, 7 miles, 10.06 miles, and 3.3 miles of reconstructed and constructed temporary road, respectively. All of these temporary roads would be stormproofed at the conclusion of management activities to minimize soil and water damage, with culverts removed and the road prism stabilized to have no adverse impacts from storm events. Once vegetation is established within the first year after use there should be very little erosion from the road surface. Additionally, many system roads would be “daylighted” by reducing the basal area of roadside vegetation, as necessary, to reduce drying times in wet weather to promote resource protection and reduce maintenance costs.

84 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey report shows that the analysis area is comprised of soil types formed on slopes predominantly over 30 percent and have been assigned a “severe” hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

An assessment of the existing road network reveals that erosion would likely be an issue if mitigation measures have not been implemented, such as road closures, graveled surfacing and frequent drainage features. System roads used under this analysis would be improved with such measures to effectively control storm runoff and minimize erosion before the timber sale activities begin, and then erosion control features would be refreshed following use to leave them in a stable state.

Landslides

Landslides are not often triggered by silvicultural treatments in the Appalachian Mountains because of limited impacts to the living root system of the hardwood-conifer forests (Neary et al. 1986). Rapid revegetation from these roots maintains the stability of the soils and a relatively rapid return to pre-harvest hydrologic conditions (Swank, et al. 2001). However, where compacted surfaces, such as roads and log landings, concentrate heavy precipitation from storms, surface runoff can increase the risk of landslides. A review of damage from hurricanes Frances and Ivan from 2004 and the more recent storm of January 2013 on the Nantahala National Forest confirm this since roads were the major cause of landslides.

No landslides were identified in the analysis area. Furthermore, road improvements are proposed that are designed to improve drainage of storm runoff, minimize erosion and hydrologic connectivity of roads to streams, and in general make the road prism more stable on the landscape. Therefore, it is unlikely that Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, or D would increase the risk of landslides on the project area.

Sulfidic Rock

The geology in the AA is made up entirely of strata in the Blue Ridge Belt, which is dominated by sedimentary and metamorphic rock, and includes pockets that contain mafic minerals with a basic pH. The geology of the entire AA is not considered to have a high potential to produce acidic runoff when rocks are exposed during excavation. Therefore, special mitigation measures to address sulfidic rock would not be necessary.

Timber Harvest

A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey report shows that the AA has soil types characterized by a rating for Harvest Equipment Operability for each proposed harvest unit. Portions of the activity areas are considered “poorly” suited for ground- based methods, and caution in harvest layout of skid roads and trails would need to be practiced, as well as special attention in implementing effective BMPs. When BMPs are implemented correctly and operations are monitored consistent with agency direction, timber harvest operations would have minimal impacts to soil erosion.

85 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Additionally, BMP implementation and effectiveness on the National Forests in North Carolina over the past decade is considered highly successful, at a rate of 98.5 percent for both implementation and effectiveness. This is a very good implementation and effectiveness rate, indicating that the application of BMPs is working in harvested areas, including skid roads and log landings, and sediment or other pollutants are generally not reaching streams (USFS 2018b). Effectiveness of BMPs at skid road stream crossings was 95.3 percent. Because it is difficult not to contribute some sediment to the stream at skid road stream crossings, these practices are avoided to the extent possible during timber sale planning. Where BMPs are found to be ineffective at controlling erosion, corrective action is taken. With the continued implementation of effective BMPs on the ground, timber management proposed in this analysis would continue to meet Forest Plan standards, State standards, and the Clean Water Act.

Cumulative Effects to Soil Resources Common to All Alternatives: This project is proposed in small areas across 20,638 acres of the Nantahala National Forest. The short-term minor effects to soil resources experienced during past projects conducted in the project area are no longer occurring. These effects, as would be expected with Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D of this project, included some surface exposure, soil compaction on parts of previous harvest units, and minor sedimentation on the days culverts were installed. Long-term impacts from features such a permanent system roads, old temporary road prisms, and old log landings, would continue to affect soil resources in the AA. There are no known projects occurring on private lands currently or in the foreseeable future which would affect soil resources on National Forest System lands in the Buck AA. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact soils in the AA, however any future work that could occur during the next Forest Service entry into the AA would be subject to the same analysis and BMP implementation as described in this EA.

Considering both past and reasonably foreseeable future actions, soil productivity would be reduced on a small percentage of the AA. Based on past experience with similar projects on the Nantahala National Forest, cumulative effects to soil productivity are expected to be well within LRMP standards (Soil Quality Standards, Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards). The standard is that 85% of an area will retain its potential long-term soil productivity. The estimated cumulative effects to soil productivity above show this standard would be met in the AA for these proposed project alternatives.

3.7.2 Water Resources

Please also refer to section 3.2.1 for additional analysis and disclosure of potential effects to water resources. Buck Creek and many of its tributaries are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C; Tr; ORW waters. Muskrat Branch, Ledford Creek, Dave Barrett Creek, Vineyard Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, and Shooting Creek are classified as C; Tr waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are “unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses”

86 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

(N.C. Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 2B.0303). The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications). The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Buck Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of boulders, cobble and large gravel. Analysis area streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2011).

Five aquatic MIS potentially affected by the proposed project are fully evaluated. The following streams provide habitat for wild Brook Trout: Buck Creek, Johnson Branch, and Muskrat Branch. The following streams provide habitat for wild Rainbow Trout: Buck Creek, Glade Branch, Barnard Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, Shooting Creek, and Vineyard Creek. The following streams provide habitat for wild Brown Trout: Shooting Creek and Buck Creek. Mottled Sculpin occur within Buck Creek, Eagle Fork Creek, Shooting Creek, Muskrat Branch, and Vineyard Creek. Redhorse occur within Shooting Creek but do not occur within project area waters. Blacknose Dace have not been documented within any analysis area streams. Blacknose Dace were eliminated from further analysis due to absence from the analysis area. Any effects to the aquatic resources resulting from this project would dissipate prior to reaching habitats suitable to any Redhorse spp.; therefore, these species will not be evaluated further.

The proposed temporary road reconstruction and construction, harvest treatments, thinning, log landings, skid trail and skid road construction, routine road maintenance, herbicide spraying of harvest unit skid trails, rehabilitation of wildlife openings, and invasive species removal would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas. In addition, disturbed ground would be seeded, as needed and per the BMPs, to prevent erosion. Skid trails would not require construction of a cut and fill slope; therefore, there would be very little ground disturbance that could produce sediment. Skid roads would manage runoff with water bars, brush barriers, or other measures proven to be effective at minimizing erosion and sedimentation. Following timber harvest, skid trails and skid roads would be seeded, and/or have brush barriers installed and slash scattered, as needed, and would be closed to prevent visible sediment from entering any streams. The routine road maintenance would involve minor road surface repair, placement of gravel, and reseeding. These actions are unlikely to increase measurable sedimentation because the work would be done during dry periods and the disturbed soil would be either hardened with gravel or seeded to control erosion. In-channel construction for improvement of aquatic organism passage at the four stream crossings may crush individual crayfish if they are present during construction; however, most crayfish should be able to move away from the construction site to avoid direct impacts. Restoration of aquatic organism passage at these sites may increase the species range and/or improve genetic diversity within previously isolated stream reaches. The proposed streambank stabilization on Dave Barrett Creek and Muskrat Branch may crush some individuals of the Hiwassee headwaters

87 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

crayfish if they occur, but would eliminate chronic sediment sources and provide improved habitat for the species by introduction of large woody debris to the channel. Any impacts to individuals would not affect the species’ viability.

Additionally, portions of the Buck Creek watershed were harvested previously and monitored during the 2013 BMP monitoring cycle. In 2013 the overall BMP implementation rate was 96.7% and BMP effectiveness was 97.1% (Dodd and Jones, 2013). A benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station downstream of the confluence of Buck Creek and the Nantahala River has been monitored since 1984 by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. This site was surveyed in 2010, prior to the last timber harvest activity (circa 2012), in 2014 and again in 2017. The benthic macroinvertebrate community received an “Excellent” bioclassification in each of the three sample years (NCDENR, online data accessed on September 6, 2018). Based upon these monitoring data, previous timber harvests within watersheds with Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) have had no negative effects upon the stream habitat or the benthic macroinvertebrate community. The actions proposed for the Buck Project are similar to previous projects; therefore, no negative effects to the ORW of Buck Creek are anticipated. The Tusquitee Ranger District has successfully implemented a number of projects in the Buck Analysis Area dating back to the 1980s without impairing water resources, including ORW streams, despite working on the same slopes, same soils, and using ground-based equipment as proposed for the Buck Project. The BMP effectiveness study (Dodd and Jones, 2018) demonstrates that when timber harvest operations are designed and implemented according to forest plan standards with BMPs in place, sedimentation effects are immeasurable.

A small quantity of sediments may enter the four streams during aquatic organism passage improvement activities; however, these effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below the stream crossings. The effects of the stream crossing improvements would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter the streams. Additional culverts may be installed within the analysis area as needed for drainage. The effects of these culverts would be the same as described for the culvert installations above but reduced because these culverts are typically placed in ephemeral stream channels which remain dry except during storm runoff events.

88 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Sedimentation from the culvert installations may reduce the quality of the habitat for the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish within the four streams by partially filling pools within the first 75 feet below the crossings (Jason Farmer, personal observations) if they occur within these streams. These effects may persist until the next bankfull flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 1.5 years). These effects would dissipate approximately 75 feet downstream of the culvert installation areas.

The proposed activities within the aquatic analysis area would impact approximately 75 feet of stream below each crossing (four crossings) but these impacts would not change the forest-wide a trend for this habitat type because the small amount of sediment entering project area streams would be scoured from the channel during the next bankfull flow event.

Implementation of this project may cause direct impacts to individuals of these species by crushing individuals at the stream crossing locations during construction if they occur within these streams. There would be no long-term negative effects from aquatic organism passage projects because the new arch fills or ford approaches would be seeded and mulched to prevent off-site movement of sediment. Project design features would prevent adverse effects to the aquatic habitats. Installation of the crossings would increase turbidity for approximately 2 days. The sites may provide habitat for the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish but effects of aquatic organism passage activities would dissipate after the construction is complete and newly planted vegetation stabilizes the sites. Any negative effects to this species would only occur during construction (e.g. crushing of individuals).

The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sub lethal effects described above. Project area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the project area streams in measurable quantities. There would be no effects to the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

89 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Riparian vegetation: Stream temperatures in analysis area waters would not be affected by timber harvest because harvest would not occur within the riparian areas of any streams. These no- harvest areas would protect stream temperatures and prevent sedimentation. Streambank vegetation would not be cut; therefore, there would be no reduction in potential large woody debris recruitment. Riparian areas within timber harvest units would be mapped by the interdisciplinary team prior to timber harvest activities if harvest is planned within 100 feet of any perennial water body. The proposed large woody debris introduction in Muskrat Creek would utilize non-commercial logs with root-wads attached from the nearby proposed timber harvest unit. Riparian vegetation would not be removed except where stream banks are over- steepened, requiring them to be reshaped to a 2:1 slope for stability.

Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects: Previous activities within the Buck Project area include timber harvest and road construction. There may have been an increase in stream turbidity during culvert installations for previous timber projects. However, these effects were minimized by application of erosion and sedimentation control measures (e.g. silt fencing, sediment traps, seeding, and mulch). Specifically, the effects of these actions would have included sedimentation from the ground disturbing activities (road construction, reconstruction, and culvert installations). All of these effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts on aquatic resources, and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the Buck AA. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the Buck AA as a result of past actions. Given the length of time since completion of these actions, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current affected environment. There are no existing effects to the aquatic resources resulting from these activities. The Buck Creek Watershed Project is ongoing. This project involves restoration of stream channels in Little Buck Creek, aquatic organism passage improvements, and stabilization of camp sites. These actions are reducing long-term sediment sources and improving fish population connectivity.

Private lands in the aquatic analysis area are primarily characterized as forested and residential. There may be sedimentation from private lands within the watershed but these effects would not be cumulative with the effects of most of the Buck Project because there would be no effects of the proposed timber management and watershed improvements beyond the project area streams. Portions of the Vineyard Creek and Jackie Cove were within the Boteler Fire of 2016. Containment lines were stabilized following completion of fire control activities. These lines are not a sediment source for analysis area streams. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands affecting the Buck Project area waters.

There are no other past, ongoing, or planned activities on public lands within the project area that would cause adverse effects to the aquatic resources. Private lands within the analysis area are characterized as low density residential. There may be sedimentation from some of these private lands but these effects are widely dispersed and would not be cumulative with the Buck Project. The temporary increases in turbidity during stream crossing installation may cumulatively increase turbidity within Dave Barrett Creek but would dissipate after the project is completed. There would be no long-term cumulative effects to stream turbidity resulting from these actions.

90 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative D would result in increased turbidity at approximately 14 stream crossings under Alternatives B and B – Modified, and approximately 15 stream crossing s under Alternative C, affecting up to approximately 0.5 miles of streams (+0.5% of streams within the analysis area).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: Water quality would be affected by a variety of natural factors (examples include type and extent of vegetative cover; precipitation events influencing baseflow, peakflow, and stormflow; leaching; and background levels of sedimentation consistent with forested environments), and human-induced factors (examples include airborne pollutants; vehicular traffic; and road maintenance). Currently, erosion and sedimentation from the existing road network is minimal, except during large storm runoff events such as the 2004 hurricane flooding. These events can produce relatively large volumes of sediment. In the absence of major disturbances, no change to the existing condition is anticipated under Alternative A.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There would be minor, short duration effects to water quality as a result of management activities under Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D. All silvicultural activities would be conducted according to LRMP standards and guidelines, to the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality, and to NFsNC BMPs. Maintenance and use of the existing road network would have limited direct impacts to water resources because cut banks and fill slopes are currently stable and because maintenance work in these areas would largely be limited to mowing, regrading, and/or applying gravel to existing road surfaces. These effects would be minimized, however, by implementing project design features (e.g. out slope drainage, brush barriers, broad- based dips, seeding, sediment traps) to control storm water runoff from road surfaces. Due to the erosion control techniques designed into the project, sedimentation from these roads would be unmeasurable at the confluence of these tributaries with larger streams in the Buck AA. Swift (1985) recorded sediment deposition below road fills ranging from 75 feet to 150 feet. Although deposition of greater distances can occur on grassed road fills with brush barriers, sediments from this type of road construction are typically filtered effectively within 20 feet below the fill slope (Swift, 1986). Erosion from road surface runoff would be filtered before reaching any perennial water sources.

Watershed research to-date indicates that there would be little short or long-term adverse effects of the proposed silvicultural work on water, soil, and vegetation sustainability and health (Swank, Vose, and Elliott 2001). Several different measures of stream health are expected to show little change as a result of the proposed activities. These would include stream chemistry, stream temperature, sediment accumulation, and quantity of streamflow after storms (Swank, Vose, and Elliott 2001). Implementation of past projects using the NC BMPs and FS design criteria has demonstrated that these practices are an effective means of controlling erosion and sedimentation from management activities. Tusquitee Ranger District staff and timber sale administrators would continue to monitor the effects of activities in an ongoing basis and as part of timber sale implementation and progress. Sales progress on a unit-by-unit basis and purchasers are not allowed to proceed to each new unit until all the required practices are completed and accepted by Forest Service administrators.

91 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

BMP effectiveness monitoring in 2018 found that the overall effectiveness of BMPs in preventing sedimentation of streams from timber sales was 97.2% and BMP’s were successfully implemented 97.0% of the time (Dodd and Jones, 2018). With the implementation of Best Management Practices for Nonpoint-Source Water Pollution (BMPs) and design criteria presented in Chapter 1, the proposed road work would not adversely impact water quality.

Proposed stream restoration and rehabilitation work under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D would result in improved conditions for aquatic organisms and would improve the resilience of aquatic organisms by restoring access to habitat and populations that are currently isolated by perched culverts and other barriers.

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D: The short-term minor effects to soil and water resources experienced during past projects conducted in the project area are no longer occurring. These effects, as would be expected with Alternatives B and B - Modified, included some surface exposure, soil compaction on parts of previous harvest units, and minor sedimentation on the days culverts were installed. Activities occurring on private lands currently or in the foreseeable future could affect the project area waters. The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over activities on private property. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect water resources in the Buck AA, however any future work that could occur during the next Forest Service entry into the AA would be subject to the same analysis and BMP implementation as described in this EA.

There are no remaining effects from previous management activities in the project area, and no effects from any adjacent projects, private land, or anticipated future actions. Thus, the cumulative effects of this project are the expected direct and indirect effects of the actions proposed in Alternatives B, B - Modified, and D as described above.

3.8 Air Resources

Existing Condition

The Buck AA is designated as a Class II air quality area. It currently meets national ambient air quality standards (Bill Jackson, NFsNC Air Quality Specialist (retired), personal communication).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D are not expected to result in large direct or indirect effects to air resources. There would be minor emissions associated with heavy equipment use in the proposed project activities, but these are temporary and would not be abnormal for the general area. Smoke would be produced on the afternoons the prescribed burns are conducted under Alternatives B, B – Modified, and D. Prescribed burn plans would be designed to encourage smoke movement away from populated areas. Smoke would be temporary in duration and is expected to disperse within twelve hours after the burns are ignited.

Cumulative Effects: There are no effects to air quality from past projects in this AA. No ongoing projects are occurring that would affect air quality. Also, there are no additional Forest Service projects currently planned in this AA.

92 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

On adjacent private lands, there may be very small, localized, and short-term effects to air quality (such as smoky air) from individuals burning brush piles on their property. This would most likely occur during the spring and fall seasons, when property owners conduct yard cleanup work. Thus, with the temporary effects from burning on national forest and private land and minor temporary vehicle emissions, there would be no cumulative effects.

3.9 Timber and Vegetation Management

Existing Condition

All proposed harvesting activities would occur in the suitable timber base lands. The timber harvest activities proposed for the Buck Project occur on all slope aspects. Species composition in the project area compartments consists primarily of mixed hardwood dominated stands with inclusions of white and pitch pine. Total federally managed land within the Buck Project area consists of 20,638 acres. Of that land base a total of 14,222 acres, or 69%, of the vegetation in the AA is over 80 years old.

Past disturbances in the compartments include exploitive logging which was conducted prior to acquisition as National Forest lands, and the chestnut blight, which occurred in the area in the 1930s. These two disturbances account for the majority of the stands being in the >81 year age classes, and also gave rise to the two-aged character of some stands. Two-aged stands are those in which trees that remained following disturbance now comprise a mature overstory of large trees scattered or clumped throughout younger stems.

There have been multiple entries into these compartments over the past several decades. The most recent entry into the project area occurred in the 1990s and 2000s. All regenerated stands have been certified as successfully reforested. Currently there are 111 acres inventoried to be in the ESH age class of 0-10 years. There are some natural openings and managed wildlife openings that are not represented in the project inventory. These areas are currently providing a very small amount of open and early seral habitat.

Mortality is significant across the hemlock populations in this project area due to damage caused by the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A: This alternative would allow vegetation to continue in its current state. No new forest regeneration through timber management activities would be initiated. Some mortality of older trees which are showing signs of decline would be expected in the near future. Stand compositions would likely trend toward higher concentrations of shade tolerant, non-fire adapted species, conditions which are outside of the range of natural variation.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Regeneration of the proposed stands would initiate approximately 845 acres of stands aged 0-10 in Compartments 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, and 114 under Alternative B and 770 acres of stands aged 0-10 in Compartments 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 114 under Alternative B - Modified. Regeneration would originate from a combination of advanced reproduction, stump sprouts and, where indicated, hardwood seedlings. Treating competing vegetation in the form of undesirable tree

93 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

species would reduce competition to the newly-established regeneration and would help ensure a desirable species composition into the future. Residual trees and snags in the two-aged stands would provide structural diversity, aesthetic value, hard mast production, and wildlife habitat. Favoring long-lived oaks and hickories as leave trees would help ensure the continued presence of these species in the two-aged hardwood stands.

There could be lumber quality degrade in some residual trees in the two-aged hardwood stands following treatment due to epicormic branching along the boles of trees exposed to increased sunlight. This is of little concern though since the residual trees are designed to remain in the stand for at least the next rotation. The occurrence of epicormic branching is also reduced by clumping the residual trees and thereby reducing the number of boles exposed to increased sunlight.

The 845 acres of ESH produced by the silvicultural treatments under Alternative B and the 770 acres under Alternative B – Modified are located on National Forest System lands in the 20,638 acre AA. Alternative B would create new ESH on 4.1% of the Federal lands in the AA while Alternative B – Modified would result in new ESH on 3.7% of the AA. The LRMP states (page III-31) that the minimum amount of ESH required for MA 3B is 5% and the maximum allowed is 15%, and is not to exceed 10% in MA 4D. Since there are currently 111 acres in the AA in the 0-10 age class ESH habitat, and 111 acres of 0-10 moving into the 11-20 age class over the next decade, the proposed action would result in there being a maximum of 4.6% of this type of habitat 10 years following the regeneration harvests under Alternative B. Given that the project proposes this small percentage of ESH to be achieved by timber stand regeneration, there would be a substantial amount of older forest remaining for black bears and other species that prefer older forests. Many wildlife species rely on the soft mast and structure provided by younger habitat. Per the LRMP general standards and guides (page III-23), all snags that are not hazardous would be retained, as well as retaining all existing and potential den trees. Open road density would not change as a result of implementing the proposed actions. In addition, periodic regeneration insures there would be a flow of mast production in the future resulting from a mix of age classes.

Alternative C would result in 953 acres of new ESH (4.62%) on National Forest System lands in the AA in Compartments 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, and 114, . Combined with the 111 acres of existing forest in the 0 – 10 year age class, Alternative C would result in 5.1% of new ESH in the AA.

Alternative D would result in 497 acres of new ESH (2.41%) on National Forest System lands in the AA in Compartments 106, 107, 109, 111, and 114, . Combined with the 111 acres of existing forest in the 0 – 10 year age class, Alternative C would result in 2.9% of new ESH in the AA.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A: The cumulative effect for this alternative would be an interruption in the periodic regimen of forest regeneration by management activities conducted to achieve a more balanced age class distribution and sustain an even flow of habitats and resources in the project compartments.

94 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There are no ongoing projects within the Buck AA that would appreciably alter timber resources. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact timber resources in the AA. The effects of Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D, combined with previous silvicultural treatments, would be the maintenance of growth and vigor in project stands. Regeneration of the proposed stands, combined with previous regeneration of the stands in the prior sales, would create and maintain a more balanced age class distribution than the current condition by shifting 845 acres of mature stands (Alternative B), 770 acres (Alternative B – Modified), 953 acres of mature stands (Alternative C), or 497 acres (Alternative D) into the age 0-10 class. In addition, the combination of Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D, combined with stand regeneration activities and past harvests, would help to provide for a continuous and sustainable flow of forest products and habitats over time. Activities on private lands are not anticipated to affect the National Forest System lands.

3.10 Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

Four heritage resource inventories were completed for the proposed project (Commonwealth Heritage Group 2016; New South 2017; Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas 2017, and USFS 2018). Previous cultural resource surveys have also been conducted in the analysis area (Forest Service 1986, 1987, 1991, 1997; Espenshade 2009) in proximity to and included within portions of the Buck treatment units.

Approximately 28 archeological sites have been recorded within the Buck AA; none have been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The finished reports for the current project have been sent to the NC State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for comment in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and 36CFR800, as amended 1991.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A: The no action alternative has no potential for direct impacts to NRHP eligible or non-eligible sites. Sites would be preserved or subject to natural deterioration.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Direct effects to cultural resources are not expected to result from any of the action alternatives because no actions would occur in areas recommended for avoidance.

If any previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during project activities, operations would be suspended until an evaluation is completed by a Forest Service archeologist in consultation with the THPO and SHPO and appropriate mitigation measures are applied.

Indirect and cumulative effects to cultural resources are not expected, however, action alternatives that include increased access and ground disturbance exposing artifacts could result in damage to sites and possibly of artifacts. These concerns would be addressed, if needed, by monitoring of the area during and after project implementation.

95 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.11 Recreation Resources

Existing Condition

The Buck Project AA is located in the southeastern portion of Clay County, North Carolina. There are no developed Forest Service recreation facilities in the AA. The Appalachian Trail is at the eastern end of the AA and Chunky Gal Trail cuts across the AA along the main ridge of Chunky Gal Mountain. The majority of recreational use occurs at dispersed camp sites along Buck Creek and Deep Gap Road, in and adjacent to the rockhounding area at Glade Gap, with hunting and fishing occurring throughout the AA near open and closed National Forest System roads. All proposed treatment sites were subjected to analysis to ensure that visual quality objectives (VQOs) would be met so the area continues to support dispersed and backcountry recreation opportunities.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: Alternative A would cause no direct or indirect effects on recreation resources. The cumulative effect of taking no action would be a loss of recreational opportunities (such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing) in the project area since there would be no new ESH or restored riparian areas provided by management activities.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There would be no negative effects to day use visitors, campers, anglers, hunters, rock hounds, or to hikers on the Appalachian Trail and Chunky Gal Trail. For effects of proposed project activities on scenery resources, refer to the Scenery Analysis in Section 3.13.

Direct effects to recreation resources would be possible displacement of some dispersed recreational users during project activities. This effect would be temporary in duration, lasting until project activities were completed, and minor in nature.

Indirect effects to recreation resources would result from differences in recreational opportunities associated with habitat change. Hunters would probably find the regenerating stands more suitable for ruffed grouse hunting than squirrel hunting following project completion. Bird watchers might be more likely to see or hear Eastern towhees, chestnut-sided warblers, and indigo buntings in the new ESH following regeneration. Blackberries would increase in the regenerated stands while they support ESH, with a resultant increase in berry picking opportunities. Habitat improvements would create new opportunities for wildlife viewing and hunting, particularly in wildlife openings. Stream restoration treatments would create more opportunities for fishing.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: There would be no cumulative effects for Alternative A.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Effects of Alternative B would be the creation of recreational opportunities associated with approximately 845 new acres of ESH (Alternative B) 770 acres of ESH (Alternative B – Modified), 953 new acres of ESH (Alternative C), or 497 new acres of ESH (Alternative D), such as better hunting and increased wildlife viewing. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect recreation resources in the Buck Project AA.

96 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

3.12 Scenery

Existing Condition

The project area encompasses approximately 20,638 acres, with the majority of the treatments proposed in MA 4D, which has a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Partial Retention (PR) in foreground and middleground Sensitivity Level 1 and Modification (M) in all other distance zones of Sensitivity Levels 1, 2, and 3. Direction for the PR VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within two growing seasons after treatment. Direction for the M VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within three to five growing seasons after treatment.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenery resources.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: All proposed treatment units would meet their assigned VQOs for MA 4D and 3B. Openings would be irregularly shaped, straight lines and geometric forms would be avoided; edges of units would be feathered where necessary; log landings, temporary roads, and skid trails would be screened from view. Under Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C, stand 110/7 may be visible from the Appalachian Trail during leaf off months. To ensure this stand meets VQOs, the Forest Service would retain 25 – 30 square feet of basal area per acre to meet the PR standard.

Cumulative Effects: The effects of past management activities on the visual resource are manifested in the current condition. These effects are minor, as the appearance of past management activities have blended into the overall forest canopy. The proposed actions would result in some changes to portions of the vegetation; these would blend in to the overall canopied appearance of the National Forest System lands within two or three full growing seasons. Because the proposed activities for Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D would meet their assigned VQOs, there would be minor effects to the visual resource from these proposed actions. There are no ongoing projects within the AA that would appreciably affect scenery, and there are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the potential to affect scenery. There are actions on private lands that are affecting the scenery resource when viewed from portions of national forest lands in the project area, but the Forest Service has no jurisdiction over them.

3.13 Social and Economic Considerations

Existing Condition

Economic return is not an objective of the Buck Project. Rather, the main purpose of the treatments are to increase the resiliency of vegetation communities, water resources, and the wildlife species that rely on them for habitat. The LRMP does not list timber production as one of the ten main forest goals, and also does not require that receipts from timber sales recover the costs of conducting environmental review, sale layout, sale administration, and reforestation. Implementing silvicultural treatments by commercial timber sale and conducting stand improvement and stream restoration treatments would have direct effects on social and economic

97 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project environment for this project in the local vicinity, which includes communities near the AA. Indirect effects would apply to any secondary processing facilities outside the surrounding area.

Social and Economic Consequences: Alternative A - This No Action alternative would provide no direct or indirect economic benefits or any new social benefits. The opportunity to establish interior forest ESH vegetation and improve habitat for game and non-game wildlife, implement stream restoration treatments, and their associated economic benefits would be foregone.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D - The project would benefit the local economy by directly providing work between 2020 and 2030 for local logging companies and one or more site preparation/stand improvement contractors. There would be indirect benefits to industries involved in the primary and secondary manufacture of forest products, including the supply of raw materials and employment opportunities. There would be indirect economic benefits to local service industries which support forest workers, and to the local, state, and federal governments through silvicultural treatment generated income taxes.

An estimated 21,125 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawtimber and pulpwood would result from silvicultural activities under Alternative B, an estimated 19,250 CCF under Alternative B – Modified, an estimated 23,825 CCF would result under Alternative C, and an estimated 12,425 CCF under Alternative D as the sawtimber and pulpwood is sold in local markets. The stumpage price of the timber would generate approximately $718,250.00 (Alternative B), $654,500.00 (Alternative B – Modified), $810,050.00 (Alternative C), or $422,450 (Alternative D) which would be reinvested into resource improvement projects in the AA. By comparison, Alternative E, not analyzed in detail, could result in approximately 50,000 CCF and $1,700,000 in stumpage.

Table 3.13.1 Comparison of CCF and Stumpage for All Alternatives Alt A Alt B Alt B – Mod Alt C Alt D Acres 0 845 770 953 497 CCF 0 21,125 19,250 23,825 12,425 Stumpage $0.00 $718,250 $654,500 $810,050 $422,850

Monetary and non-monetary costs associated with the project include, but are not limited to:

• The steps to identify stands suitable for silvicultural treatments; • Surveys to determine environmental and heritage effects; • Research and analysis to inform and develop the EA in general and Chapter 3 in particular; • Timber sale layout, marking, and administration; • Site preparation layout, implementation, and administration; • Planting seedlings; • Conducting vine control and crop tree release treatments; • Implementing stream improvement projects; • Implementing wildlife opening rehabilitation treatments; • Implementing treatments to slash and burn to restore woodland conditions in the serpentine barrens and • Associated activities such as long term monitoring and implementing future prescribed burns.

98 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Nonmonetary benefits include the short- and long-term effects to the forest that would result from reestablishing ESH and the benefits to game and non-game wildlife, the positive impacts to native pollinators that rely on woodland conditions in the serpentine barrens to complete their life cycles; benefits to fisheries resources from the proposed stream improvement work, and the benefits of young hard mast-producing mixed hardwood vegetation communities.

3.14 Road Management

Existing Condition

Current access to the area is via U.S. Highway 64, state roads, and Forest Service roads. Several of the Forest Service roads are open to public vehicular use, but the majority are closed to public vehicles year-round consistent with LRMP direction for MA 4D. Some of these closed roads and road segments are seeded in a wildlife grass-forb mixture. Please see also the analysis in Section 3.7.1.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no change in current road management practices or open road density. Therefore, there would be no effects from implementation of this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There would be no change in current road management practices or open road density. Therefore, there would be no effects to the permanent National Forest Road system from implementation of Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, or D.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be no changes to current road management practices, there would be no cumulative effects to long-term road management from implementing any project alternative. Because no permanent changes are proposed to the Forest Service road system, a separate Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP) is not required for this project. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect road management in the Buck AA.

3.15 Climate Change

Climate change is discussed here in two ways: (1) how climate change affects AA resources, and (2) how the project area alternatives affect climate change. Some material in this section is adapted from and references the Cherokee National Forest Big Creek EA, July 2009.

Existing Condition, and How Climate Change Affects Analysis Area Resources

Existing conditions are typical of the southern Appalachians, with a range of elevations from approximately 2,400 feet to 4,000 feet. Climate change models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate-change conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the United States. However, the models differ considerably. One predicts little change in precipitation until 2030, followed by much drier conditions over the next 70

99 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years, followed by increased precipitation.

Either of these climate scenarios with their attendant changes could affect forest productivity, forest pest activity, vegetation types, major weather disturbances (droughts, hurricanes), and streamflow. These effects would likely be seen across the entire National Forest System in the United States. In the Southern Appalachians, it is possible that in the long run, a warmer climate will result in certain species’ ranges, such as cold-adapted vegetation in the northern hardwood community, moving northward. In turn, species that currently have a more southerly range might start appearing here. In general, concerning both vegetation and wildlife, species that are generalists and can tolerate a wider range of habitat conditions will probably fare better than those with a set of narrow habitat requirements and conditions.

Buck Project Effects on Climate Change

Scope of Analysis: The scope of this analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on climate change includes the 20,638 acres of national forest lands in the compartments that comprise the AA. The timeframe used in this analysis is up to ten years after completion of the project activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: Alternative A (No Action) would result in no change to the current trend for carbon storage or release. Forested stands are expected to be less resilient to possible climate change impacts, such as changes in productivity or insect and disease.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: It is not expected that Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The regeneration in the areas to be harvested would provide more structural diversity to the area and establish young, vigorous stands that may be more resilient to the changes in climate than those ages 61 and older. In addition, it is anticipated that the existing forest types in the stands to be regenerated would, under uninterrupted natural disturbance regimes, regenerate naturally to these same forest types; changes in climate will make little difference.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D would remove biomass as a result of timber harvest. This would reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated stands. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period of time in wood products. Regeneration harvests would reduce existing carbon stocks at the harvest sites. The harvest of live trees, combined with the increase in down dead wood, would temporarily convert stands from a carbon sink that removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits, to a carbon source that emits more carbon through respiration than it absorbs. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. The stands would likely remain a carbon source for several years depending on the amount of dead biomass left onsite and new trees’ growth rates once reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the carbon source would change to a carbon sink. The strength of the carbon sink would increase until peaking at approximately 85 years of age (Vose 2009) and then would gradually decline but remain positive.

100 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Recent scientific literature confirms this general pattern of changes in net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and carbon stocks over the period of forest stand development. The Net ecosystem productivity, or NEP, is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER).

When NEP is positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with a positive NEP are referred to as a carbon sink. When NEP is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon than they absorb. Ecosystem with a negative NEP are referred to as a carbon source.) Most mature and old stands remained a net sink of carbon.

Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) synthesized results from 120 separate studies of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes for boreal, temperate, and tropical biomes. They found that in temperate forests NEP is lowest, and most variable, in young stands (0-30 years), highest in stands 31-70 years, and declines thereafter as stands age. These studies also reveal a general pattern of total carbon stocks declining after disturbance and then increasing rapidly during intermediate years and then at a declining rate over time until another significant disturbance (timber harvest or tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insects, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees and again converts the stands to a carbon source where carbon emissions from decay of dead biomass exceed that amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the stand.

The impacts of the action alternatives on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are miniscule. However, the forests of the United States significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel emissions. The forest and wood products of the United States currently sequester approximately 200 teragrams (200 teragrams, or Tg, equals 196,841,306 U.S. tons.) of carbon per year (Heath and Smith, 2004). This rate of carbon sequestration offsets approximately 10% of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels (Birdsey et al., 2006). U.S. Forests currently contain 66,600 teragrams of carbon.

The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage. The currently large carbon sink in US forests is a result of past land use changes, including the re-growth of forests on large areas of the eastern U.S. harvest in the 19th and 20th centuries, and 20th century fire suppression in the western U.S. (Birdsey et al. 2006). The continuation of this large carbon sink is uncertain because some of the processes promoting the current sink are likely to decline and projected increases in disturbance rates such as fire and large-scale insect mortality may release a significant fraction of existing carbon stocks (Pacala et al. 2008; Canadell et al. 2007).

Management actions - - such as those proposed - - that improve the resilience of forest to climate-induced increases in frequency, and utilize harvested trees for long-lived forest products and renewable energy sources may help sustain the current strength of the carbon sink in U.S. forests (Birdsey et al. 2007).

101 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Cumulative Effects to Climate Change: The contribution of the proposed project activities to the carbon cycle is extremely small under Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D. Conducting regeneration harvesting on approximately 845 acres (Alternative B), 770 acres (Alternative B – Modified), 953 acres (Alternative C), or 497 acres (Alternative D) would result in new ESH on approximately 4.1%, 3.7%, 4.5%, or 2.4%, respectively, of the 20,638 analysis area acres.

The long-term ability of forests to sequester carbon depends in part on their resilience to multiple stresses, including increasing probability of drought stress, high-severity fires, and large-scale insect outbreaks associated with projected climate change. Thus, even though some management actions may in the near-term reduce total carbon stored below current levels, in the long term they may improve the overall capacity of the forest to sequester carbon. Sustainable forestry practices can increase the ability of forests to sequester atmospheric carbon while enhancing other ecosystem services. Planting new trees and improving forest health through thinning and prescribed burning, for example, are some of the ways to increase forest carbon in the long run. Harvesting and regenerating forests can also result in net carbon sequestration in wood products and new forest growth.

When combined, the carbon from this and past projects in the analysis area has a minimal cumulative effect not only at the local level, but at the larger level. When implemented, the rate of carbon release through timber regeneration would be minimal for the reasonably foreseeable future. There are no ongoing projects within the analysis area that would appreciably contribute to climate change, although the 129 acres of existing ESH in the 0 – 20 year age classes on National Forest System lands in the AA are still net carbon producers as described in the direct effect section previously, and no reasonably foreseeable future Forest Service actions that would affect climate change in the Buck AA.

102 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

4 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4.1. List of Preparers

This document was prepared by Steverson Moffat, Nantahala National Forest Natural Resources Planner and Matt Bushman, Acting Nantahala National Forest Natural Resources Planner. The Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared by Jason Farmer, Nantahala National Forest Fisheries Biologist, Matt Bushman, Nantahala National Forest Botanist, and Johnny Wills, Nantahala National Forest Wildlife Biologist.

4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted

The following additional persons have provided input or participated in the planning and/or analysis of this project:

Sarah Bridges, Silviculturist, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger District Matt Bushman, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Brady Dodd, Hydrologist, National Forests in North Carolina Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Angela Gee, Former District Ranger, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger Districts Andrew V. Gaston, District Ranger, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger Districts Greg Heide, Acting Archaeologist, Nantahala National Forest Brandon Houck, Acting District Ranger, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger Districts Heather Luczak, NEPA Coordinator, National Forests in North Carolina Steverson Moffat, NEPA Planning Team Leader, Nantahala National Forest Eric Pullium, GIS Specialist, Nantahala National Forest Ben Spatola, Timber Management Assistant, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger District David Stiles, Technician, Beech Creek Seed Orchard (Retired) Andrew Triplett, Former Archaeologist, Nantahala National Forest Johnny Wills, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest

103 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

4.3 Literature Cited

Bakermans, M.H., J.L. Larkin, B.W. Smith, T.M. Fearer, and B.C. Jones. 2011. Golden-winged Warbler Habitat Best Management Practices for Forestlands in Maryland and Pennsylvania. American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, Virginia. 26 pp.

Biological Opinion for the Indiana Bat, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. April 2000, as amended April 2005 and February 2009.

Birdsey, Richard A.; Pregitzer, Kurt; Lucier, Alan. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600-2100. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:1461-1469.

Birdsey, Richard A.; Jenkins, Jennifer C.; Johnston, Mark; Huber-Sannwald, Elisabeth; Amiro, Brian; de Jong, Ben; Etchevers Barra, Jorge D.; French, Nancy; Garcia-Oliva, Felipe; Harmon, Mark; Heath, Linda S.; Jaramillo, Victor J.; Johnsen, Kurt; Law, Beverly E.; Marin-Spiotta, Erika; Masera, Omar; Neilson, Ronald; Pan, Yude; Pregitzer, Kurt S. 2007. North American forests. In: King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, D.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J., eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC: 117-126, 173-176.

Blanton, John. 2002. Two-aged Management With Residual Clumps. Personal communication. Tusquitee Ranger District, Murphy, North Carolina.

Canadell JG, Pataki D, Gifford R, Houghton RA, Lou Y, Raupach MR, Smith P, Steffen W. (2007) in Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World, eds Canadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L (IGBP Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), pp 59-78.

Climate Change Impacts on the United States. 2001. James J. McCarthy, Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A. Leary, David J. Dokken, and Kasey S. White, eds. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Clark, Stephen R. and J.T. Nowak. 2009. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 49. Southern Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service.

Clinton, B.D., and J.M. Vose. 2000. Plant succession and community restoration following felling and burning in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Pages 22-29 in W. Keith Moser and Cynthia F. Moser (eds.). Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.

Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. W. H. Freeman and Company. Pages 510-517.

104 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Elliott, Katherine J. 2016. Personal communication with Steverson Moffat.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Greenberg, Cathryn H., Beverly S. Collins, and Frank R. Thompson, III. 2011. Sustaining Young Forest Communities – Ecology and Management of Early Successional Habitats in the Central Hardwood Region, USA. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York.

Jackson, Bill. 2002. Personal communication regarding air quality classification for areas on the Nantahala National Forest. Asheville, NC.

Knoepp, Jennifer D. and Wayne T. Swank. 1994. Long-Term Soil Chemistry Changes in Aggrading Forest Ecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:325-331.

Knoepp, J.D., and W.T. Swank. 1997. Forest management effects on surface soil carbon and nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 61(3): 928-935.

McNulty, Stephen G., P.L. Lorio, Jr., M.P. Ayres, and J.D. Reeve. 1998. Predictions of Southern Pine Beetle Populations Using a Forest Ecosystem Model. Pages 617-634 in R.A. Mickler and S. Fox, eds. The Productivity and Sustainability of Southern Forest Ecosystems in a Changing Environment. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc.

Mohr, Helen. 2016. Personal communication with Steverson Moffat.

Moorhead, D.J., C.T. Bargeron, G.K. Douce. 2015. Stand Visualization for Southern Pine Beetle Management and Decision Making - A Visual Guide for Managing Existing Pine Stands. USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Internet site. Accessed January 2016.

NCDWQ. 2007. Assessing and controlling acid rock drainage on projects requiring section 401 water quality certification. Memorandum Letter, Dec 14, 2007.

Neary, D.G., L.W. Swift, Jr., D.M. Manning, R.G. Burns. 1986. Debris avalanching in the Southern Appalachians: An influence on forest soil formation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:465-471.

North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale 1:500,000, in color.

Nowak, John. 2015. Southern Pine Beetle County Hazard Rating Maps. Internet site accessed January 2016.

Pacala, S., et al. 2007. The North American carbon budget past and present, in The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR), edited by A. W. King et al., pp. 29–26, NOAA Natl. Clim. Data Cent., Asheville, N. C.

105 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Pregitzer, Kurt S. and Eugenie S Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology (2004) 10, 2052–2077.

Price, T. 1994. Southern Pine Beetle in the Southern Appalachians. In: C. Ferguson and P. Bowman. Threats to Forest Health in the Southern Appalachians. Gatlinburg, TN.: Southern Man and the Biospehre Cooperative: 21-26.

Pritchett, W.L. 1979. Properties and management of forest soils. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Page 445.

Roth, A.M., R.W. Rohrbaugh, T.Will, and D.A. Buehler, editors. 2012. Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. www.gwwa.org/

Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S. 2004. Carbon Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in the United States, 1952-2040. Environmental Management. 33(4): 433-442.

Swank, W.T., and J.M. Vose. 1988. Effects of cutting practices on microenvironment in relation to hardwood regeneration. In Guidelines for regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands: proceedings of a workshop, 24-26 May 1988, Morgantown, WV. SAF Publication 88-034. West Virginia University Books, Office of Publications, Morgantown, WV.

Swank, Wayne, DeBano, Leonard, and Nelson, Devon. 1989. Effects of Timber Management Practices on Soil and Water. Pages 79-106. From the Scientific Basis for Silvicultural and Management Decisions in National Forest System. General Technical Report WO-55.

Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose, and K.J. Elliott 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management, 143 (2001). 163-178.

Swift, L.W. Jr. 1984. Gravel and grass surfacing reduces soil loss from mountain roads. Forest Science 30: 657-670.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Forest Health Protection Website: Herbicide Risk Assessments. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml

USFS. 2012. FY 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. National Forests in North Carolina. Page 48.

USFS. 2018a. 2018 Forestry Best Management Practices Monitoring. National Forests in North Carolina.

USFS. 2018b. 2018 Best Management Practices Monitoring, Ten Year Summary Report (2009- 2018). National Forests in North Carolina.

USFS. 2019. Panther Branch Road Decommissioning Monitoring Report, 2019. National Forests in North Carolina.

106 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Waldrop, Thomas A. 1997. Four Site-Preparation Techniques for Regenerating Pine-Hardwood Mixtures in the Piedmont. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 21, No. 3.

Xi, Weimin; Coulson, Robert N.; Waldron, John D.; Tchakerian, Maria D.; Lafon, Charles W.; Cairns, David M.; Birt, Andrew G.; Klepzig, Kier D. 2008. Landscape Modeling for Forest Restoration Planning and Assessment: Lessons from the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of Forestry, Volume 106, Number 4, pp. 191-197(7).

107 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

5 APPENDIX

5.1 Biological Evaluation

1.0 Species Considered

All federally proposed, endangered, and threatened (PET) species, Region 8 sensitive (S) species and National Forests in North Carolina forest concern (FC) species that occur or could occur on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were considered in this analysis.

2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES

2.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area: This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Buck Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts (direct and indirect effects) on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not necessarily overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters, the analysis area encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities when considered within the watershed context (cumulative effects). The aquatic analysis areas for the Buck Project consist of the following watersheds: Buck Creek, Muskrat Branch, Ledford Creek, Dave Barrett Creek, Jackie Cove, and Vineyard Creek.

Existing Conditions: Buck Creek and many of its tributaries are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C; Tr; ORW waters. Muskrat Branch, Ledford Creek, Dave Barrett Creek, and Vineyard Creek are classified as C; Tr waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are “unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses” (N.C. Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 2B.0303). The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications).

The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Buck Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of boulders, cobble and large gravel. Analysis area streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2011).

Previous Survey Information: Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including threatened and endangered aquatic species is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for threatened and endangered aquatic species have been conducted within the Buck aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

108 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS.

No aquatic T and E species have been found during previous surveys within the aquatic analysis area. Furthermore, the analysis area does not provide suitable habitat for any aquatic T and E species.

Species Evaluated and Rationale: Four aquatic federally threatened or endangered species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of T and E species in Clay County. Three aquatic T and E species remained after this initial filter (spotfin chub, Cyprinella monacha, Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana, and little – wing pearlymussel, Pegias fabula). These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Both of the mussel species occur within the Little Tennessee River and the Hiwassee River but do not occur within the tributaries. The spotfin chub occurs within the Little Tennessee River but do not occur within the analysis area. Streams within the Buck project area are typically small, high gradient streams which do not provide suitable habitat for any proposed, threatened or endangered aquatic species. No suitable habitat exists within any of the proposed treatment areas. Based upon the results of this filtering process no proposed, endangered, or threatened aquatic species were evaluated further for this analysis (Attachment 1b). Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis. No aquatic T and E species were considered further in this analysis because they do not occur within the areas affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect any aquatic T and E species.

Table 2.1.1: Known and potential threatened and endangered aquatic species in Clay County evaluated for the Buck Project Species Type Habitat Occurrence None

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted: The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for T and ES Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for T and E species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available for any aquatic threatened or endangered species. Existing data were used in this analysis because previous surveys for federally threatened and endangered aquatic species have been conducted and the Buck Project would be implemented to prevent visible sediment from entering analysis area streams.

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: No aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened aquatic species or their habitats from implementing Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D. There would be no cumulative effects resulting from any past ongoing, or

109 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

foreseeable future actions to any aquatic T and E species resulting from implementation of the Buck Project because there would be no direct or indirect effects of the Buck Project on any aquatic T and E species and because there are no aquatic T and E species within the aquatic analysis area.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

Table 2.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened aquatic species for the Buck Project Species Alternatives A, B, B – Modified, C, and D None Present No Effects

2.2 Botanical Resources

Existing Conditions: The Buck Project area contains plant communities, such as Acidic Cove Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, Montane-Oak Hickory Forest, Rich Cove Forest, High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Montane Seep, Montane Rhododendron Thicket and Low Montane Red Oak Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The elevation ranges from approximately 2,400-4,400 feet. Most prevalent plant communities present in the proposed project are Northern Hardwood Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, and Chestnut Oak Forest.

Species Evaluated and Rationale: All Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened (PET), Region 8 Sensitive (S), and Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Forest Concern (FC) plant species were initially considered in this analysis. PET, S, and FC plant species with the greatest likelihood of occurring in the proposed activity area were determined by:

• Reviewing the list of PETS and FC plants species that occur across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests and their habitat preferences. • Reviewing PETS and FC element occurrence (EO) records that occur in the Buck Project botanical analysis area. • Reviewing the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program element occurrence (EO) records for PETS and FC plant species that occur in Clay and Macon Counties, North Carolina. • Reviewing the Natural Areas Inventory for Clay and Macon Counties, North Carolina. • Consulting with individuals knowledgeable of the area and associated flora (Gary Kauffman, Botanist/Ecologist, National Forests in North Carolina). • Performing botanical field surveys in the proposed activity areas.

110 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests and County PETS and FC Plant Occurrences: There are 413 PETS and FC species across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Within Clay and Macon counties, there are 62 PET, S, and FC plant species known or historically known to occur (Attachment 2 in the BE, Appendix B).

Botanical Analysis Area: The botanical analysis area or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is defined as the total area within 1.2 miles (two kilometers) of any proposed treatment unit or activity area. The botanical analysis area definition was selected because it is analogous to NatureServes' (2017) habitat-based population delimitation guidelines for plant occurrences. The two kilometer delimitation guideline is used for rare plant populations because pollen exchange and/or seed dispersal could extend beyond the immediate extent of the population, but not likely beyond two kilometers. The botanical analysis area helps determine which federally proposed, threatened and endangered, Region 8 sensitive, and forest concern plant species have the highest likelihood of occurring in the proposed activity areas. In addition, the Buck project botanical analysis area is used to access the potential cumulative effects on botanical resources. Because plants are rooted species that must be present in proposed activity areas to undergo effects, potential direct and indirect effects were evaluated for PET species, S and FC plant species that occur within proposed activity areas.

The botanical analysis area for the Buck Project consists of approximately 27,400 acres, occurring in Clay and Macon Counties, North Carolina and Towns County Georgia. Approximately 21,000 of the acres in the botanical analysis area occur on the Nantahala National Forest. The botanical analysis area includes land outside the National Forest System boundary because the botanical analysis area includes the total area within two kilometers or 1.2 miles of proposed project activities.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Records: There are no known PET plant species on access roads, within or immediately adjacent to stands proposed for management in the Buck project area. There are five Region 8 Sensitive species in the project area reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program: Appalachian threadwort (Drapanolejeunea appalachiana), Glade spurge (Euphorbia purpurea), Buck Creek ragwort (Packera serpenticola), Highlands moss (Schlotheimia lancifolia), and Rhiannon’s aster (Symphyotrichum rhiannon) that are known to occur in the botanical analysis area. There are twenty-one Forest Concern plant species in the botanical analysis area as reported by the NC Natural Heritage Program: Yellow Hedge Hyssop (Agastache nepetoides), Northern shorthusk (Brachyelytrum aristosum), Porter’s reedgrass (Calamagrostis porteri var. porteri), Cherokee sedge (Carex cherokeensis), Wood’s sedge (Carex woodii), small yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum), Tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus), American columbo (Frasera caroliniensis), Fringed gentian (Gentianopsis crinita), American fly-honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis), spiked muhly (Muhlenbergia glomerata), large-leaved Grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia grandifolia), swamp lousewort (Pedicularis lanceolata), large purple fringed orchid (Platanthera grandiflora), a bluegrass (Poa saltuensis), Seneca snakeroot (Polygala senega), Huger’s carrion flower (Smilax hugeri), prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), small-leaved meadowrue (Thalictrum macrostylum), and Appalachian violet (Viola walteri var. appalachiensis).

111 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Botanical Surveys Conducted: Botanical surveys focused on PETS and FC plant species within the botanical analysis area, all 413 PETS and FC species were searched for during botanical surveys. Botanical field surveys were conducted by a meander search pattern to survey habitat variability within each proposed unit (Goff et al. 1982). Proposed activity areas with specialized habitat (e.g. rock outcrops and seeps) and/or high plant diversity were surveyed more intensively due to a higher probability of containing PETS and FC plant species. Overall, survey intensity varied depending on botanical diversity, presence of indicator species, and presence of PETS and FC plant species.

All stands in the project area were surveyed during the growing season in order to identify new occurrences of rare plant species. Botanical surveys were conducted by Copperhead Environmental Consulting under contract for the U.S. Forest Service during July and August 2016. Surveys were conducted in 39 stands totaling 1,209 acres. Botanical surveys were also conducted by Matt Bushman – Nantahala Zone Botanist on some of the stands proposed for management in the project area during May and June 2018. In addition, botanical surveys were paid for by Mountain True and conducted by Ed Schwartzman of Joe Pye Ecological Consulting during May and June 2018.

No federally proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species were found during botanical surveys. Three Region 8 Sensitive plant species were found during botanical surveys including: Appalachian threadwort (Drapanolejeunea appalachiana), A Liverwort (Frullania appalachiana), and butternut (Juglans cinerea). Nine Forest Concern plants were found during botanical surveys and included: Cherokee sedge (Carex cherokeensis), Wood’s sedge (Carex woodii), small yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum), American columbo (Frasera caroliniensis), American fly-honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis), large purple fringed orchid (Platanthera grandiflora), Seneca snakeroot (Polygala senega), Huger’s carrion flower (Smilax hugeri), and Appalachian violet (Viola walteri var. appalachiensis).

Plants Analyzed in Detail for the Biological Evaluation: All Federally Endangered and Threatened plant species that occur in Clay and Macon counties will be analyzed in this Biological Evaluation. Thorough botanical surveys of each of the stands and temporary roads proposed for management in the Buck project area were conducted. These surveys had a high likelihood of detecting PETS and FC in the Buck project area. Therefore, only those Region 8 Sensitive and Forest Concern plants detected in the 2016 and 2018 botanical surveys or listed in the North Carolina Natural Heritage element occurrence database and occur in stands, prescribed burn areas or on access roads proposed for management will be analyzed in detail within the botanical Biological Evaluation.

112 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 2.2.2: Documented T&E plant species in Clay and Macon Counties within the Botanical Analysis Area for the Buck Project. Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Species Natural Community/Habitat Local Occurrence Gymnoderma High Elevation Rocky Summit, The plant is known from Macon lineare Moist Rock Outcrop in Acidic County from a rocky mountain summit Cove in Gorge, High Elevation approx. 2.7 kilometers from the edge of Granitic Dome, Spruce-Fir a stand proposed for management and Forest outside the Botanical AA.

Isotria White Pine Forest, Mesic Oak- One known historic site occurs in medeoloides Hickory, Acidic Cove Forest, Macon County approximately 16 Rich Cove Forest, and Dry- kilometers from the edge of a stand Mesic Oak Forest proposed for management. This is outside the botanical analysis area. Sarracenia Low Elevation Southern The plant is known from a low oreophila Appalachian Bog elevation southern Appalachian bog in Clay County approx. 12.4 kilometers west of the edge of a stand proposed for management and outside the Botanical AA.

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

ROCK GNOME LICHEN (Cetradonia linearis – formerly Gymnoderma lineare and still listed as Gymnoderma lineare with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Rock Gnome Lichen occurs on shady rock often with mosses in areas of high humidity on either high elevation cliffs which are frequently bathed in fog or in deep river gorges at lower elevation. At these locations it can be found on vertical rock faces with water seepage from above forest soils and on large stream side boulders where it receives moderate amounts of light USFWS 2000). Threats to this species include habitat change from the loss of Fraser-fir forests and heavy recreational use in the areas where it grows (USFWS 2000).

Rock Gnome Lichen is known in Macon County from a rocky mountain summit approx. 2.7 kilometers from the edge of a stand proposed for management and outside the botanical analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

113 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Determination of Effect: Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives would not impact Gymnoderma lineare and would have a “No Effect” determination on Gymnoderma lineare.

SMALL WHORLED POGONIA (Isotria medeoloides) Small Whorled Pogonia occurs in acidic soils of dry to mesic second-growth, deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forests. The habitat preference usually has light to moderate leaf litter, an open herb layer, a light to moderate shrub layer, and a relatively open forest canopy on flats or slope bases near canopy breaks (FNA 2017).

Small Whorled Pogonia is known from five historic sites in Macon County. There is one historic location within 16 kilometers from a stand proposed for treatment in the Buck project area and well outside the botanical analysis area. Small whorled pogonia was not located during plant surveys and suitable habitat for small whorled pogonia was not located in the stands proposed for management in the Buck project area.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives would not impact small whorled pogonia and would have a “No Effect” determination on Isotria medeoloides.

GREEN PITCHERPLANT (Sarracenia oreophila) Green pitcherplant is a montane-piedmontane relation of the Sarracenia flava that is known form southwest North Carolina, southeastern Tennessee (extirpated), north Georgia, and central and southeast Alabama (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in seepage bogs and on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests the plant is known from Southern Appalachian Bogs habitat (Weakley 2015).

Globally the species is imperiled (G2) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Green pitcherplant is known from no sites on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There is one population of green pitcherplant on lands adjacent to National Forest land in Clay County, North Carolina.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

114 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Determination of Effect: Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternative would not impact Sarracenia oreophila and would have a “No Effect” determination on green pitcherplant.

Table 2.2.4: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened botanical species for the Buck Project Species Alternatives A, B, B – Modified, C, and D Gymnoderma lineare No Effect Isotria medeoloides No Effect Sarracenia oreophila No Effect

2.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area: The terrestrial wildlife analysis area used for this proposal is the same as defined in the EA for the Buck Project. The wildlife analysis area consists of approximately 34,508 acres of National Forest land, including additional areas beyond the 20,638 acre AA to analyze species with large territories that extend beyond the primary AA. The potential for direct or indirect effects to wildlife resources are contained within the areas where treatments are proposed; thus, all potential direct and indirect effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the activity area boundaries. All potential cumulative effects on wildlife resources were analyzed using the larger wildlife analysis area.

Existing Condition: Historical records of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (Endangered) occur within Clay County, and within the wildlife analysis area for this project. The Biological Opinion (USFWS 2000, as amended in 2005, 2009, and 2010) for this species includes terms and conditions applicable to this project to minimize potential effects to the Indiana bat.

Northern long-eared bats (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) (Threatened) occur within the analysis area. This species is widespread across the United States and Canada, although less common in the southern part of its range. There is one known hibernacula for NLEB within the analysis area (Figure 2.3.1, page 116).

Potentially affected PET wildlife species were identified by: (1) reviewing the rare species list for wildlife species that may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 3a to the BE) and their habitat preferences; (2) evaluating element occurrence records of these species as maintained by the NCNHP; (3) consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its fauna; (4) conducting field surveys as necessary.

115 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Figure 2.3.1: Buck Project NLEB Hibernaculum Location

116 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species were filtered by those that may occur in Clay and Macon Counties, according to the NCNHP, and then by those that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on NCNHP GIS element occurrence records. Species that are not tracked by the NCNHP and could potentially occur in these counties were added to the list of species to be analyzed. These species were then filtered further by habitat information and availability of that habitat within proposed activity areas. Species with habitats that do not occur within proposed activity areas are not discussed further, because without habitat present within the area of influence of the proposed actions, no direct or indirect effects would result on these species. The federally listed species evaluated in this analysis are listed below in Table 2.3.1.

Survey Information: Modeling of forest types and potential species presence was completed for the Indiana bat. No surveys were completed for NLEB, however, guidelines for vegetation management found in the LRMP for protection of the Indiana Bat and conservation measures required by the interim 4(d) rule for this species would be followed to protect the NLEB.

Table 2.3.1: PET wildlife species evaluated for the Buck Project Species Type Habitat Occurrence Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark May occur Indiana bat and snags (warmer months); in caves (Endangered) (winter months) Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark May occur Northern long-eared bat and snags (warmer months); in caves (Threatened) (winter months) Bombus affinis Insect Areas that provide food (nectar and pollen May occur rusty patched bumble from flowers), nesting sites (underground bee (Endangered) and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil)

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the Indiana bat, because no actions would be taken.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Direct and indirect effects to the Indiana bat from this alternative would be the 845 acres or 770 acres of two-aged silvicultural treatments, respectively. Herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on the Indiana bat.

Tree felling occurring between April 15 and October 15 may cause disturbance and/or mortality if individuals are roosting in the trees to be cut. Indiana bats are hibernating in caves outside of this period. Tree felling may also indirectly remove potential roosting and foraging habitat. To reduce the likelihood of direct effects to Indiana bats and indirect effects to Indiana bat habitat, this proposal would comply with the Terms and Conditions of the BO and the standards set forth

117 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

in Amendment 25 to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (LRMP).

These standards include retention of standing trees with more than 25% exfoliating bark, shellbark and shagbark hickories, snags greater than three inches dbh, and hollow, den, or cavity trees as practicable. Within the first 30 feet of perennial streams and other permanent water bodies, no standing trees (green, dead, dying, or leaning) shall be removed or felled, and for the remainder of the riparian area, retain 60 percent canopy cover. To maintain the existing contiguity of forest canopy along intermittent streams, no harvest would occur within 15 feet of such streams. Per Amendment 25 of the LRMP, when removal is needed for hickories, removal may only occur between August 15 and April 15.

Snags with no bark, crevices or cavities need not be retained. To provide partial shade, buffer one-third of all hardwood snags greater than 12 inches dbh or conifer snags greater than nine inches dbh with exfoliating bark, in the early stages of decay. Where these snags occur, select in clumps for buffering, meaning retain living residual trees where all or part of the tree is within 30 feet of the snag.

To prevent disturbance of known Indiana bat maternity colonies, no road construction/ reconstruction/daylighting, timber harvesting, or other activities that use heavy equipment would occur within 1.5 miles of any known maternity trees between April 15 and August 15. No prescribed burning would occur within this time frame. Based on the most current surveys, there are no known maternity colonies within 1.5 miles of the Buck project area. Pre-harvest and post- harvest evaluations of the implementation of the terms and conditions will be conducted.

Complying with these standards, it would be unlikely that an immediate roost tree would be impacted; thus, direct effects to individuals roosting are unlikely as Indiana bats are known to use highly altered and fragmented landscapes. Implementation of these activities would not decrease the amount of suitable habitat substantially. No newly constructed wildlife openings are proposed; however, log landings may be maintained as wildlife openings. If so, the total new openings from this alternative would not exceed two acres. The BO restricts newly constructed wildlife openings to ten acres annually between the five bat counties. Newly constructed openings are monitored to ensure that construction levels do not exceed this limit.

Dormant season burns, taking place between October 15 and April 15, would not directly harm individuals. Prescribed fire may indirectly remove some potential roost trees, but at the same time, future roosting habitat may be created by the burns. The larger wildlife analysis area would provide ample numbers of roost trees and suitable habitat for these bats. To reduce the likelihood of indirect burn effects to Indiana bat habitat, the annual prescribed burn program for the Nantahala National Forest will be reviewed each year to ensure that not more than a rolling five- year average of 3,500 acres is burned annually between the Cheoah, Nantahala, and Tusquitee Ranger Districts. In addition, these proposed burns would comply with the standards set forth in Amendment 25 of the LRMP.

These standards include conducting prescribed burns between August 15 and April 15, preferably after October 15th, to prevent potential harm to non-volant young.

118 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Indiana bats may respond positively to habitat disturbance, particularly where forest are even- aged and closed-canopied. A diverse landscape may benefit Indiana bats, because dense overstory and understory inhibit bat movement and foraging. Prescribed burning would provide restoration and maintenance of an uncluttered, open forest thus providing pathways and allowing bats to reach roost trees more easily. In addition, insect populations would increase in burned areas in the years following the prescribed burn. Stream restoration activities and herbicide treatments would not measurably affect the bat.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the Indiana bat from this alternative would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified from two-age harvest and group selection, except 953 acres would receive two-aged silvicultural treatments. Herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on the Indiana bat.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the Indiana bat from this alternative would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B – Modified from two-age harvest and group selection except 497 acres would receive two-aged silvicultural treatments. Herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on the Indiana bat.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: in the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Indiana bat from the no action alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: A coarse filter habitat suitability analysis based on Indiana bat habitat characteristics described in the BO was used to estimate cumulative habitat change from the baseline within the Buck Project area. The coarse filter incorporates habitat characteristics such as forest type, stand age, and canopy structure. Estimated change from baseline habitat condition is maximized by using the maximum treatment alternative (Alternative C) as input into the model. The resultant output illustrates the maximum percent change from baseline habitat suitability within the analysis area based on Alternative C in combination with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

According to the HSM, the maximum alternative of the Buck Project would result in a cumulative 1.8% decrease in suitable habitat within the analysis area, which is less than the 5% threshold site-specific projects are restricted to by the BO and Amendment 25 of the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the Indiana bat.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat because all standards and guides for the protection of this species, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis)

119 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

The greatest threat to the NLEB is white-nose syndrome (WNS). WNS is an emerging infectious disease responsible for the unprecedented mortality in some hibernating insectivorous bats including the northern long-eared bat. Since its discovery in New York in 2006, WNS spread rapidly throughout the Northeast and is expanding through the Midwest. As of April 2014, this disease has been confirmed in 25 states, including North Carolina, and five Canadian provinces and suspect in two additional states due to presence of the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans which causes the disease. The northern long-eared has experienced a sharp decline since the onset of WNS in 2006 which is estimated to be approximately 99 percent in the northeastern part of the species’ range. This bat is highly susceptible to WNS due to the species ecology. Northern long-eared bats roost in the more humid parts of caves where the fungus thrives, and individuals will group together which facilitates bat to bat spread of fungal spores.

Vegetation management projects have effects of varying degree on NLEB. Though, according to the USFWS 12-month Finding “These activities alone do not have significant, population-level effects” on this species and have more effect where habitat is permanently lost or fragmented. Timber management, on this scale, would not have a measureable effect on the species or its habitat. Some beneficial impacts from timber management include the creation of more open conditions within the forest conducive to bats foraging for flying insects, and it has been demonstrated in some instances that thinning improves maternity roost fecundity through increased solar radiation aiding pup development.

Common forest management activities, including timber harvest, timber stand improvements, forest road construction, non-native invasive species treatment, and wildlife opening maintenance and improvement are not a threat to this species locally nor will it adversely affect the species as a whole. In addition, timber management activities, including road construction, would be unlikely to have any direct effects on individuals during the winter months. Northern long-eared bats arrive at hibernacula in August or September, entering hibernation in October and November, and emerge March or April (USFWS 2013). Consequently, dormant season activities between October 15 and April 15 would be unlikely to have any direct impacts on the northern long-eared bat.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the NLEB because no actions would be taken.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Direct and indirect effects to the NLEB from this alternative would be the 845 acres and 770 acres, respectively, of two-aged silvicultural treatments. Herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on the NLEB.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the NLEB from this alternative would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified from two-age harvest and group selection, except 953 acres would receive two-aged silvicultural treatments. Herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on the NLEB.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the NLEB from this alternative would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified from two-age harvest and group selection,

120 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

except 497 acres would receive two-aged silvicultural treatments. Herbicide treatment would not have a measurable impact on the NLEB.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of the Buck Project upon this species would be negligible as stands are expected to regenerate and no net loss of habitat as other previously harvested stands are returning to potential habitat and because all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. With negligible direct and indirect or possibly beneficial indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative effects that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the NLEB.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: This project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the NLEB because all standards of the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016 for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat would be followed. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)

On September 22, 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published the proposed rule to list the rusty patched bumble bee (RPBB) (Bombus affinis) as endangered in the Federal Register. The USDA Forest Service Southern Region is currently conferencing, at a regional scale, with the FWS on RPBB. At this time, the only county with a documented extant population on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is Swain County.

RPBB live in colonies made up of a single queen and female workers. Males and new queens are produced in late summer. Queens are the largest sized bees in the colony, while workers are the smallest. All rusty patched bumble bees have entirely black heads, but only workers and males have a rusty reddish patch centrally located on the back – on the second abdominal segment.

Historically, the RPBB occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper Midwest and Northeast, many of which have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses. This bumble bee needs areas that provide food (nectar and pollen from flowers), nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens (undisturbed soil).

RPBB colonies experience an annual cycle. In spring, a solitary queen finds a suitable nest site, collects nectar and pollen from flowers and begins laying eggs, which are fertilized by sperm she has stored since mating the previous fall. Workers hatch from these first eggs and the colony grows as workers collect food, defend the colony, and care for young. The queen remains within the nest and continues laying eggs. In late summer, new queens and males also hatch from eggs. Males disperse to mate with new queens from other colonies. At the end of the season the queen dies and only new queens go into diapause (a form of hibernation) over winter. The cycle begins again in spring.

121 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Historically, the RPBB was broadly distributed across the eastern United States and Upper Midwest, from Maine in the U.S. and southern Quebec and Ontario in Canada, south to the northeast corner of Georgia, reaching west to the eastern edges of North and South Dakota. Its range included 28 states, the District of Columbia and one provinces in Canada. Since 2000, this bumble bee has been reported from only 12 states and one province: Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin – and Ontario, Canada.

Most of the prairies and grasslands of the Upper Midwest and Northeast have been converted to monoculture farms or developed areas, such as cities and roads. Grasslands that remain tend to be small and isolated. Increases in farm size and technology advances improved the operating efficiency of farms but have led to practices that harm bumble bees, including increased use of pesticides, loss of crop diversity which results in flowering crops being available for only a short time, loss of hedgerows and the flowers that grew there, and loss of legume pastures. Pathogens and parasites may pose a threat to rusty patched bumble bees, although their prevalence and effects in North American bumble bees are not well understood. The rusty patched bumble bee may be vulnerable to pesticides used across its range. Pesticides are used widely on farms and in cities and have both lethal and sublethal toxic effects. Bumble bees can absorb toxins directly through their exoskeleton and through contaminated nectar and pollen. Rusty patched bumble bees nest in the ground and may be susceptible to pesticides that persist in agricultural soils, lawns and turf.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: If RPBB is present in the AA, this alternative could have negative direct and indirect effects on the RPBB because sites currently providing grassy areas likely to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RPBB would continue succeeding into shrubby and woody conditions.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: If RPBB is present in the AA, direct and indirect effects to the RPBB from this alternative would be the treatments in wildlife openings, linear wildlife strips, roadsides, and other grassy areas likely to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RPBB. Because these treatments would increase grassy habitat, they may benefit the RPBB.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of the Buck Project upon this species would be negligible due to the low likelihood of the species occurring outside of Swain County. With negligible direct and indirect or possibly beneficial indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative effects that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative is likely to have no effect on the RPBB.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: This project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the RPBB because the species may be present in the AA and because potential impacts from treatments are not well documented at the present time. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

122 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 2.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened wildlife species for the Buck Project Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D

Myotis sodalis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect Indiana bat Myotis septentrionalis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect Northern long- eared bat Bombus affinis rusty patched No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect bumble bee

2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project would have no effects to any aquatic PET species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no aquatic PET species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

Implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project would have no effects to any federally PET plant species because none occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.

Implementation of Alternatives B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project would not likely adversely affect the Indiana bat, the NLEB, or the rusty patched bumble bee. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for terrestrial wildlife resources.

3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES

3.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area: The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.

Existing Conditions: The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.

Species Evaluated and Rationale: Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August, 2001). Twelve aquatic species listed by the Regional Forester as Sensitive are either known to occur or

123 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of aquatic Sensitive species in Clay County. Nine species remained after this filter. These species were then filtered by available habitat. Two aquatic Sensitive species remained after this initial filter (Attachment 1b).

Previous Survey Information: Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including regionally-sensitive aquatic species, is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for sensitive aquatic species have been conducted within the Buck aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS. Aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations within the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2011).

Table 3.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Clay County evaluated for the Buck Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Cryptobranchus Amphibian Rivers and large streams in May Occur alleganiensis Tennessee and Savannah River systems Hiwassee Headwaters Crayfish Streams in Hiwassee River basin May Occur Crayfish

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted

The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for PETS Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for sensitive aquatic species were conducted for this project because current inventories of the species are adequate to guide project design. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that conservation of the species would be met.

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Effects of alternatives described below encompass potential effects on both crayfish species.

Hellbender, (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)

Hellbenders typically inhabit “rocky, clear creeks and rivers, usually where there are large shelter rocks” (NatureServe, 2017). Hellbenders have home ranges of approximately 198 square meters and utilize rocks at a mean depth of 32.6 cm (Humphries and Pauley, 2005). Lower Buck Creek and Eagle Fork Creek are the only streams within the Buck Project that could provide suitable habitat for this species. The nearest downstream occurrences of hellbenders are approximately 3.5 miles downstream of the Buck Creek – Barnards Creek confluence and

124 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

approximately 2 miles downstream of the proposed aquatic organism passage project on Dave Barrett Creek. Buck Creek in the vicinity of Davenport Branch is predominantly a gravel bed stream with a low component of boulders (Figure 3.1.1). This stream type is not the preferred habitat for hellbenders; therefore, they are unlikely to occur within this stream reach.

Figure 3.1.1. Pebble count distribution for a Buck Creek riffle near the Davenport Branch confluence – 2016.

cumulative % # of particles

silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder 100% 20 90% 18 80% 16 70% 14 particles of number 60% 12 50% 10 40% 8

percent finer than 30% 6 20% 4 10% 2 0% 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 particle size (mm)

Hiwassee Headwaters Crayfish, (Cambarus parrishi)

The Hiwassee headwaters crayfish occurs within Shooting Creek, Fires Creek, and Tusquitee Creek. The species may also inhabit other streams within the upper Hiwassee River watershed, including those within the Buck Aquatic Analysis Area. Activities proposed within the Buck Creek watershed would have no impacts to the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish because they do not occur within this watershed. This species typically occurs in high-gradient stream reaches with boulder and cobble substrates – often associated with woody debris (Simmons and Fraley 2010). This species is found within larger streams within the aquatic analysis area but has not been found within the small first order streams which are typical of the Buck project area.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: There would be no effects to any sensitive aquatic species resulting from implementation of this alternative because the existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The proposed thinning, log landings, skid trail and skid road construction, routine road maintenance, herbicide spraying of harvest unit skid trails,

125 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

rehabilitation of wildlife openings, and invasive species removal would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas. In addition, any disturbed ground would be seeded to prevent erosion. Skid trails would not require construction of a cut and fill slope; therefore, there would be very little ground disturbance that could produce sediment. Skid roads would manage runoff with water bars. Following timber harvest, skid trails and skid roads would be seeded and closed to prevent visible sediment from entering any streams. The routine road maintenance would involve minor road surface repair, placement of gravel, and reseeding. These actions are unlikely to increase measurable sedimentation because the work would be done during dry periods and the disturbed soil would be either hardened with gravel or seeded to control erosion. In-channel construction for improvement of aquatic organism passage at the 4 stream crossings may crush individual crayfish if they are present during construction; however, most crayfish should be able to move away from the construction site to avoid direct impacts. Restoration of aquatic organism passage at these sites may increase the species range and/or improve genetic diversity within previously isolated stream reaches. The proposed streambank stabilization on Dave Barrett Creek and Muskrat Branch may crush some individuals of the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish if they occur, but would eliminate chronic sediment sources and provide improved habitat for the species by introduction of large woody debris to the channel. Any impacts to individuals would not affect the species’ viability. Given the distance between the proposed actions and the nearest downstream occurrence of hellbenders, direct/indirect effects to this species are unlikely to occur.

Most of the proposed activities would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas and adverse effects of timber management would be avoided by implementation of the project design features and BMP’s. BMP effectiveness monitoring found that the overall effectiveness of BMPs in preventing sedimentation of streams from timber sales was 97.2% and BMP’s were successfully implemented 97.0% of the time (Dodd and Jones, 2018). Additionally, portions of the Buck Creek watershed were harvested previously and monitored during the 2013 BMP monitoring cycle. In 2013 the overall BMP implementation rate was 96.7% and BMP effectiveness was 97.1% (Dodd and Jones, 2013). A benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station downstream of the confluence of Buck Creek and the Nantahala River has been monitored since 1984 by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. This site was surveyed in 2010, prior to the last timber harvest activity (circa 2012), in 2014 and again in 2017. The benthic macroinvertebrate community received an “Excellent” bioclassification in each of the three sample years (NCDENR, online data accessed on September 6, 2018). Based upon these monitoring data, previous timber harvests within watersheds with Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) have had no negative effects upon the stream habitat or the benthic macroinvertebrate community. The actions proposed for the Buck Project are similar to previous projects;

126 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

therefore, no negative effects to the ORW of Buck Creek are anticipated. The Tusquitee Ranger District has successfully implemented a number of projects in the Buck Analysis Area dating back to the 1980s without impairing water resources, including ORW streams, despite working on the same slopes, same soils, and using ground-based equipment as proposed for the Buck Project. The BMP effectiveness study (Dodd and Jones, 2018) demonstrate that when timber harvest operations are designed and implemented according to forest plan standards with BMPs in place, sedimentation effects are immeasurable.

Approximately 9 temporary stream crossings would be installed to access proposed treatment units. Additional culverts may be installed within the analysis area as needed for drainage. The effects of these culverts would be the same as described for the culvert installations above but reduced because these culverts are typically placed in ephemeral stream channels which remain dry except during storm runoff events. Sedimentation from the stream crossing installation/removal and/or Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) projects may reduce the quality of the habitat for the sensitive aquatic species within the analysis area streams by partially filling pools within the first 75 feet below the crossings (Jason Farmer, personal observations) if they occur within these streams. These effects may persist until the next bankfull flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 1.5 years). These effects would dissipate approximately 75 feet downstream of the culvert installation areas. The effects of the stream crossing improvements would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter the streams. The watershed improvements would result in a long-term reduction in chronic sediment sources.

The proposed activities within the aquatic analysis area would impact approximately 75 feet of stream below each in-stream treatment site (4 AOP projects, 9 watershed projects, and 9 temporary road crossings) but these impacts would not change the forest-wide a trend for the sensitive aquatic species because the small amount of sediment entering project area streams would be scoured from the channel during the next bankfull flow event. Monitoring of stream crossing effects upon stream channels on the Nantahala National Forest has shown that there is no difference in pool filling levels (a measure of sediment loading in stream pools) and there is no change in percent fine sediments in riffle pebble counts downstream of new or reconstructed stream crossings when compared to upstream reference sites (Farmer, unpublished data).

127 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Implementation of this project may cause direct impacts to individuals of the crayfish by crushing individuals at the stream crossing locations during construction if they occur within these streams. There would be no long-term negative effects from aquatic organism passage projects because the new arch fills or ford approaches would be seeded and mulched to prevent off-site movement of sediment. Project design features would prevent adverse effects to the aquatic habitats. Installation of the crossings would increase turbidity for approximately 2 days. The sites may provide habitat for the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish but effects of aquatic organism passage activities would dissipate after the construction is complete and newly planted vegetation stabilizes the sites. Any negative effects to this species would only occur during construction (e.g. crushing of individuals). Any increases in sediment levels during implementation of this project would dissipate prior to reaching suitable habitats for the hellbenders.

128 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

any perennial water body. The proposed large woody debris introduction in Muskrat Creek would utilize non-commercial logs with root-wads attached from the nearby proposed timber harvest unit. Riparian vegetation would not be removed except where stream banks are over- steepened, requiring them to be reshaped to a 2:1 slope for stability.

The cumulative impacts resulting from this project and any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to the sensitive aquatic species would be incidental loss of individuals due to crushing at the four stream crossing locations. Alternative B would result in increased turbidity at approximately 22 in-stream treatments (4 AOP projects, 9 watershed projects, and 9 temporary road crossings) and would affect approximately 0. 32 mile of streams within the aquatic analysis area (approximately 0.7% of streams within the Buck Project analysis area). The project may negatively impact approximately 0.7% of the streams until the next bankfull flow event but this

129 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

impact would not affect the forest-wide trends for the sensitive aquatic species because the effects of culvert installations would have short term negative effects and would be limited to short sections of the project area streams.

Alternative B-Modified would result in approximately 1 less stream crossing (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.01 mile less stream with elevated turbidity/sediment. Alternative C would result in approximately 5 more stream crossings (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.07 mile of additional streams with elevated turbidity/sediment. Alternative D would result in approximately 4 less stream crossings (compared to Alternative B) and approximately 0.06 mile less streams with elevated turbidity/sediment. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the sensitive aquatic species (Table 3.1.2).

Table 3.1.2. Summary of effects to streams within the Buck Project. Approx. # of Approximate locations miles of Activity Type with stream Summary of Effects instream potentially work affected Alternative A No change from existing conditions Alternative B New/Replacement 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 4 0.06 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 8.3 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.13 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Alternative B – Modified New/Replacement 8 0.11 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 4 0.06 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 8.3 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.13 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Alternative C New/Replacement 14 0.20 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 4 0.06 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 8.3 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations Watershed 9 0.13 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment Improvements 0.13 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Alternative D New/Replacement 5 0.07 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment stream crossings 0.0 No long-term change AOP Projects 2 0.03 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment 4.0 Reconnect native aquatic organism populations 5 0.07 Temporary increase in turbidity & sediment

130 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Approx. # of Approximate locations miles of Activity Type with stream Summary of Effects instream potentially work affected Watershed 0.07 Long-term reduction of sediment sources Improvements

Under Alternative D, AOP projects would not be completed for Dave Barrett Creek or Barrett Branch. The following watershed improvements would also not be completed: Dave Barrett Creek bank erosion repair, Loggy Branch ford repair, Glade Branch dispersed campsite stabilization, Glade Branch 4 x 4 road obliteration (2 locations), and Barnards Branch road slide repair. These sites would continue to be sources of sedimentation to project area waters and the two undersized stream crossings would continue to impair aquatic organism passage.

Determination of Effect:

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after the in- stream construction activities are completed within the Hiwassee River watershed. Activities located in the Buck Creek watershed would have no impacts to the Hiwassee headwaters crayfish because none occur within this watershed. Implementation of Alternative B, Alternative B – Modified, Alternative C, or Alternative D of the Buck Project would have no impacts to hellbenders due to the distance between proposed treatment areas and known locations of hellbenders. Any effects to stream water quality and/or habitat would dissipate prior to reaching habitats suitable for hellbenders.

Table 3.1.3: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive aquatic species for the Buck Project Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Hellbender No impacts No impacts Hiwassee Headwaters Crayfish No impacts May impact individuals* *May impact individuals but would not affect the species viability across the forest or cause a trend to federal listing. 3.2 Botanical Resources

Existing Conditions: The existing conditions for botanical resources have been described above for the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources (Section 2.2.1).

Species Evaluated and Rationale: Rare plant species were evaluated based on the process described in Section 2.2. Seven sensitive species occur in the Buck project botanical analysis area (Table 3.2.1). All seven species of known sensitive plant species occur in the proposed activity areas that will be analyzed in detail.

131 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Previous Survey Information: Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in Section 2.2.

Table 3.2.1: Regionally Sensitive plant species in the Buck Project Species Natural Community/Habitat Local Occurrence Region 8 Regional Forester's Sensitive Plant Species (S) Vascular Plants Species Plant Community Occurrence Acidic Cove, Montane Oak- One site within Stand 104/13, two Drepanolejeunea Hickory, Serpentine Woodland, sites within Stand 106/7, and appalachiana Serpentine Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak multiple sites within the Buck Forest Creek Serpentine Barrens. Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Euphorbia purpurea Riley Knob Prescribed Burn Unit Cove Forest, Mesic oak-hickory Frullania Dry Oak-Hickory Forest, Northern Within Stand 106 /5 and Stand appalachiana Hardwood Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest 114/7 Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Juglans cinerea Stand 111/32 Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest Serpentine Woodland Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Packera serpenticola Prescribed Burn Units Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Schlotheimia Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Forest, Hemlock Hardwood Forest, lancifolia Prescribed Burn Units Highlands Plateau, and Gorge Symphyotrichum Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Serpentine Barrens rhiannon Prescribed Burn Units

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

A LIVERWORT (Drepanolejeunea appalachiana) Drepanolejeunea appalachiana prefers habitat in Acidic Cove, Montane Oak-Hickory, Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest. Globally this species is imperiled (G2?) and in North Carolina, this species is critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are 25 known forest populations. Drepanolejeunea appalachiana is known from within two stands in the Buck project area and also from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are three sites within two stands proposed for treatment that contain known individuals of Drepanolejeunea appalachiana in the project area. Plant surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 in stands proposed for management detected these three known locations. Previous plant surveys in the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens detected numerous populations of Drepanolejeunea appalachiana. The liverwort is known to be locally abundant in the area around the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens and stands adjacent to this area

132 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

and most likely occurs in more stands than those it has been found it. This is due to the very small size of the liverwort which makes it difficult to detect. Suitable habitat for the liverwort is present in other stands proposed for management and if present on trees to be harvested there would be direct effects. Indirect effects postharvest including higher light levels where the liverwort is attached to the bark is not thought to be detrimental since this species has been observed on trees on the edge of parking lots and homes (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). Prescribed fire would have a direct and indirect effect on the liverwort as well, however the liverwort has persisted in the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens after multiple prescribed fires (G. Kauffman pers. comm.).

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: According to previous NEPA analyses, eight past actions on the Nantahala National Forest have impacted populations of D. appalachiana since 1997. Five of the projects impacted the species by cutting and removing trees, reducing the number of plants growing on the forest. Two land exchange projects impacted D. appalachiana by selling ten acres of suitable, occupied, habitat into private ownership, permanently removing the plants from federal control, and reducing the number of plants on the national forest. In addition recurrent burns within Buck Creek serpentine barrens may have impacted individuals of this species. Because the habitat for the species extends beyond the boundaries of the treatment areas, however, the effects of these treatments were probably limited to small subpopulations growing inside larger populations. Four of the project areas have been surveyed with successful relocation of Drepanolejeunea appalachiana individuals after project implementation. There is one ongoing project within the Buck botanical analysis area. The Tusquitee Ranger District prescribed burn project which includes the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens prescribed burns determined that the project would have a “may impact individuals of Drepanolejeunea appalachiana but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” because the effects determination on Drepanolejeunea appalachiana within the project area. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Drepanolejeunea appalachiana. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Drepanolejeunea appalachiana but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects the proposed treatments.

GLADE SPURGE (Euphorbia purpurea) Glade spurge is a perennial plant with a thick rootstock that can grow to a height of three feet (1 meter) (NatureServe 2014). Leaves are elliptic to narrowly lance-oblong. This species has a milky sap that deters herbivorous animals and insects. The inconspicuous flowers of glade spurge have yellow to purplish bracts that form cups and enclose the flower. Glade spurge flowers from July through September. Preferred habitat for this species includes rich moist forests, especially over mafic rock (amphibolite). In the southern Appalachians, it occurs in Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Red Oak, and Mesic or Montane Oak- Hickory Forest, often near seepage and streamside areas.

133 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Globally this species is vulnerable (G3) and is a federal species of concern (FSC) because it occurs in only nine states and within each state it is critically imperiled to imperiled. In North Carolina, this species is imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are eleven forest populations. Glade spurge is known from the Riley Knob/Chunky Gal Ridge Special Interest Area/Natural Heritage Natural Area (SIA/NHNA). A prescribed burn unit is the management proposed for this area in the Buck project.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are two sites within the Riley Knob/Chunky Gal Ridge SIA/NHNA proposed for prescribed fire treatment in the Buck project that contain known individuals of Euphorbia purpurea. There would be direct impacts to glade spurge from prescribed fire mainly due to direct contact of the above ground portion of the plant with flames. Firing methods to reduce fire intensity during prescribed fire implementation around known glade spurge sites would be implemented to lessen impacts to the below ground portion of the plant. There would be indirect impact to glade spurge habitat from the prescribed burn. Glade spurge habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulation flowering in the glade spurge.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Euphorbia purpurea caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Euphorbia purpurea populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Euphorbia purpurea. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Euphorbia purpurea but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects the proposed treatments. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Euphorbia purpurea individuals.

A LIVERWORT (Frullania appalachiana) Frullania appalachiana occurs from low (500 ft.) to high (6,000 ft.) elevations in a variety of habitat from dry oak-hickory forest, ridgetops, upper slopes of northern hardwoods forests, and spruce-fir forest (Davison 2017). Important habitat requirements for this liverwort include open understory and conditions that favor periodic low humidity in an otherwise humid climate (Davison 2017). Globally this species is critically imperiled (G1?) and in North Carolina, this species is critically imperiled (S1?). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are 3 known forest populations. Frullania appalachiana is known from within two stands proposed for management in the Buck project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

134 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C, there are two stands with one site in each stand proposed for shelterwood with reserve timber harvest in the Buck project that contain known individuals of Frullania appalachiana. Known populations of Frullania appalachiana will be buffered by a 200 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 200 foot buffers there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Frullania appalachiana from proposed actions in the Buck project area.

There is one stand with one site of Frullania appalachiana in Alternative D proposed for shelterwood with reserve timber harvest in the Buck project. Known populations of Frullania appalachiana will be buffered by a 200 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 200 foot buffers there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Frullania appalachiana from proposed actions in the Buck project area.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Frullania appalachiana caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Frullania appalachiana populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Frullania appalachiana. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have no direct or indirect impact on individuals or habitat of Frullania appalachiana.

BUTTERNUT (Juglans cinerea) Butternut is a 20-30 meter tall tree with light gray to gray-brown bark shallowly divided into smooth or scaly plates, pinnately lobed leaves with 11-17 ovate to lanceolate leaves (FNA 2017). The tree produces nuts that are ellipsoid to subcylindric or ovoid and flowers April through June (FNA 2017). Butternut occurs in rich woods of river terraces and valley and also on dry rocky slopes, but is decreasing in numbers due to butternut canker killing Juglans cinerea across its range (FNA 2017).

Globally this species is apparently secure (G4) and in North Carolina, this species is imperiled (S2S3?). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are 11 known forest populations. Butternut is known from one stand proposed for management in the Buck project area.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, stand 111/032 that contains numerous butternut trees scattered throughout the stand. The stand is proposed for a shelterwood with reserve timber harvest in the Buck project. If Juglans cinerea is encountered during timber marking or timber harvesting operations this species will be left un-cut in the stand to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area.

Cumulative Effects: Two vegetation management projects affecting Juglans cinerea populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were implemented in the last 20 years. Both sites avoided the butternut trees. Butternut is decreasing in number across its range due to butternut canker a non-native invasive pathogen that has killed an estimated 80% of butternut

135 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

trees across eastern North America (UW-Extension 2017). This is an ongoing and future issue with butternut that will continue to affect its viability across its range. Not harvesting butternut in the Nantahala Fire Salvage project will help preserve this tree into the future.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Juglans cinerea. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have no direct impact or indirect impacts on individuals or habitat of Juglans cinerea.

SERPENTINE RAGWORT (Packera serpenticola) Serpentine ragwort is a serpentine geology endemic found only in the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens in serpentine woodland habitat over mafic or ultramafic rocks (NatureServe 2018). The plant occurs only in Serpentine Woodland on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is critically imperiled (G1) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is only one known forest population that contains 1,000’s of individuals. Serpentine ragwort is only known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one population of Packera serpenticola within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Packera serpenticola may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the plant and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition, the effects of fire would be minimal since Packera serpenticola is a fire adapted plant and top killing it under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Packera serpenticola has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Packera serpenticola habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Packera serpenticola habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Packera serpenticola.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Packera serpenticola caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Packera serpenticola can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Packera serpenticola populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Packera serpenticola but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

136 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Packera serpenticola. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Packera serpenticola but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Packera serpenticola individuals.

HIGHLANDS MOSS (Schlotheimia lancifolia) Highlands moss is a small to medium sized moss with long, creeping stems and dense crowded leaves and are reddish brown when dry, but more green in color when wet (NatureServe 2017). The moss grows higher up on living and dead tree trunks and branches and seems to prefer yellow birch and Canadian hemlock, but will grow on American holly, maple, oak, tulip poplar, and birch (NatureServe 2017). The moss prefers habitat in Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Highlands Plateau, and Gorges.

Globally the species is imperiled (G2) and in North Carolina the plant critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are two known forest populations. One population of highlands moss occurs on a medium size boulder in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens within a prescribed burn unit. This is the largest population of highlands moss that occurs on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This population is approximately 0.1 miles upslope from Buck Creek.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one known population of Schlotheimia lancifolia within the Buck Creek Serpentine area proposed for prescribed burning in the Buck project. Direct effects to individuals should be minimal because the low intensity fire would be backing downslope and should move around the rock. Indirectly, this species should not be impacted because it is growing on a boulder without competing vegetation. However, since there are only two populations of highlands moss on the forest, measures should be taken to reduce impacts to this species and to prevent the low intensity fire from backing over the boulder containing this population. To minimize direct and indirect effects, the area around the rock should be dampened or wetted or the vegetation surrounding the rock should be blacked- out before ignition of the prescribed burn unit.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Schlotheimia lancifolia caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Schlotheimia lancifolia can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Schlotheimia lancifolia populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the cumulative effects of a three to five year prescribed burn return interval should not affect the viability of highlands moss at Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Schlotheimia lancifolia. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals

137 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

of Schlotheimia lancifolia but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because of the effects the proposed treatments.

RHIANNON’S ASTER (Symphyotrichum rhiannon) Rhiannon’s aster is a serpentine endemic found only in the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens on ultramafic outcrop barrens (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs only in Serpentine Woodland on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is critically imperiled (G1) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is only one known forest population with hundreds of individuals. Rhiannon’s aster is only known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one population of Symphyotrichum rhiannon within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Symphyotrichum rhiannon may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the plant and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Symphyotrichum rhiannon is a fire adapted plant and top killing it under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Symphyotrichum rhiannon habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Symphyotrichum rhiannon habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Symphyotrichum rhiannon.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Symphyotrichum rhiannon caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Symphyotrichum rhiannon can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Symphyotrichum rhiannon populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Symphyotrichum rhiannon but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Symphyotrichum rhiannon. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Symphyotrichum rhiannon but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Symphyotrichum rhiannon individuals.

138 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive botanical species for the Buck Project Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D Drepanolejeunea May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact appalachiana toward Federal listing. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Euphorbia No Impact purpurea toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Frullania No Impact No Impact appalachiana Juglans No Impact No Impact cinerea May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Packera No Impact serpenticola toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Schlotheimia No Impact lancifolia toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Symphyotrichum No Impact rhiannon toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat

3.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area: The terrestrial wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 2.3.

Species Evaluated and Rationale Sensitive wildlife species were identified for further analysis based on the process described above in Section 3.3.3, Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Terrestrial Wildlife Resources. A list of the sensitive wildlife species that are known to occur or may occur within the wildlife analysis area, including rationale for which species were further evaluated is described in Attachment 3b to the BE, Appendix 5.2 and is presented in table 3.3.1.

Table 3.3.1: Sensitive Wildlife Species in the Buck terrestrial wildlife AA Habitat within Proposed Analyzed Name Type Habitat Description Treatment Further? Units (Yes/No)

Seepage salamander (Desmognathus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams of Yes Yes aeneus) deciduous forests

139 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Habitat within Proposed Analyzed Name Type Habitat Description Treatment Further? Units (Yes/No) Eastern Small-footed bat Mammal Winters in caves Yes Yes (Myotis leibii) During summer, roost in leaf Tri-colored bat clusters of canopy trees. (Perimyotis Mammal Yes Yes Winter hibernacula are caves subflavus) and mine shafts Larvae feed on milkweed, Monarch butterfly Butterfly adults feed on a variety of Yes Yes (Danaus plexipplus) flowering plants Bog turtle Bogs, wet pastures, wet (Glyptemys Reptile thickets No No muhlenbergii) *Habitat descriptions were taken from the LRMP unless otherwise cited.

Seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) Seepage salamanders are typically associated with seeps, springs, or streams in deciduous forests in extreme southwestern counties of North Carolina (Dorcas 2014). They may also be found around moist areas under rocks, logs and leaf litter adjacent to stream and seeps. Eggs are deposited under objects adjacent to streams and seeps (Dorcas 2014).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the seepage salamander because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Primarily an aquatic species, seepage salamanders spend most of their time around seepage areas and small streams. Timber harvest may potentially affect this species through crushing. However, since the salamander will retreat underground and streams and seeps would be buffered, the likelihood of these effects is minimal. Prescribed fire in this environment should not eliminate canopy cover, coarse woody debris, or duff which, provide cover and a desirable microclimate for the seepage salamander.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on these salamanders resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects greater to the proposed harvest and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire would not have had a measurable impact on salamander populations and would not have affected available habitat. Though harvest may potentially alter microhabitat conditions around treated stands, these effects are ephemeral as stands age and with the implementation of BMPs and Standards and Guidelines found in the LRMP, the buffering of

140 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

streams protects the salamander and these microclimates in contrast to historical logging practices.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the seepage salamander because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the seepage salamander.

Eastern Small-footed Bat (Myotis leibii) The eastern small-footed bat hibernates in caves, mines, and rock crevices from mid-November to March, making it one of the last bats to enter hibernacula for the winter and the first to leave (USFWS 2013, Best and Jennings 1997, Harvey et.al 1999). Upon exiting hibernacula in the spring eastern small-footed bats day roost primarily in emergent rock habitat including, but not limited to, talus slopes, rock outcrops, rock piles, rock crevices and buildings (USFWS 2013, Harvey et.al 1999). Groups and individuals change roost sites often and sometimes as often as daily within a given area as a predator avoidance mechanism (USFWS 2013). Lactating females stay closer to water and don’t move as far as males (USFWS 2013).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the eastern small-footed bat.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Effects to eastern small-footed bats from silvicultural treatments would be most likely from direct impacts in the form of crushing from temporary road construction, logging equipment and the skidding of trees. Considering the small scale of the treatment areas, the prohibition of logging equipment on rocky areas, and the propensity for the bats to change roots sites, the impacts of silvicultural treatments on the eastern small-footed bat would be negligible. Removal of live and dead trees would have no measureable effect as the eastern small-footed bat does not spend any measurable amount of time in trees. Prescribed burning is unlikely to cause direct or indirect effects on the bat. Burns are conducted in the dormant season while the eastern small-footed bat is in hibernacula. However, because these bats enter hibernacula late and leave early, there is potential prescribed fire may cause direct mortality by burning through rocky habitat. Directed spray herbicide treatments for undesirable tree species and NNIP would not have a measurable effect on the bat because individuals would not consume enough exposed insects to experience adverse effects.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the eastern small-footed bat resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed burning would have had similar effects to proposed treatments. Cumulatively, harvest, spraying, and prescribed fire would not affect summer roosting habitat within the wildlife analysis area. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting the eastern small- footed bat.

141 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the eastern small-footed bat.

Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Tri-colored bats have been shown to roost in clusters of dead or live leaves (typically, but not exclusively, in oak or maple) below canopy top (Veilleux et al. 2003, Perry and Thill 2007) during the summer in predominantly forested landscapes and hibernate in caves and mine tunnels during the winter (Bat Conservation International 2018).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the tri-colored bat, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Effects to tri-colored bats from silvicultural treatments would be most likely from direct impacts in the form of crushing from temporary road construction, logging equipment and the skidding of trees if harvest occurs during the summer months. Any bats occupying trees during harvest operations may be impacted, but adults will likely fly to alternate roost locations as suitable roost trees are not limited across the landscape. Non-volant young may be unable to escape, but given the low acreage of potential roost trees that may be impacted and limited time period before this age class is able to fly, the risk of harming non-volant young bats is low. Also, roost tree colonies tend to have relatively few bats (Veilleux and Veilleux 2004). Therefore, the impacts of silvicultural treatments on the tri- colored bat would be negligible. Prescribed burning is unlikely to cause direct or indirect effects on the bat. Burns are conducted in the dormant season while the tri-colored bat is in hibernacula. Directed spray herbicide treatments for undesirable tree species and NNIP would not have a measurable effect on the bat; a bat would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the tri-colored bat resulting from this alternative.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the tri-colored bat.

142 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexipplus) Adult Monarch butterflies feed on a variety of flowering plants typically found in early successional habitat. They lay their eggs on milkweed plants and the larvae feed exclusively on milkweeds until pupation. Monarch butterflies in eastern North America migrate to Mexico each fall and return to North America in the spring to lay eggs on milkweed plants (NatureServe Explorer 2017).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Monarch butterfly, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: It is unlikely that silvicultural treatments would have direct effects to Monarch butterflies because adult members of this species forage in existing early successional habitat with a variety of flowering plants. Eggs are also laid in early successional habitat and pupae are unlikely to be impacted from silvicultural activities. Therefore, the direct impacts of silvicultural treatments on the Monarch butterfly would be negligible. It is possible that flowering plants used by the Monarch butterfly may bloom for a number of years in two-aged stands until canopy closure shades them out. This would provide a temporary boost to foraging availability that would decline as harvested areas reestablished canopy cover. Prescribed burning is unlikely to cause direct or indirect effects on the butterfly. Burns are conducted in the dormant season while the Monarch butterfly is hibernating in Mexico. Directed spray herbicide treatments for undesirable tree species and NNIP would not have a measurable effect on the butterfly. A butterfly would not likely be exposed to enough plants treated with herbicides to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the Monarch butterfly resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed burning would have had similar effects to proposed treatments. Cumulatively, harvest, spraying, and prescribed fire would not affect summer foraging habitat within the wildlife analysis area. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting the Monarch butterfly.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Monarch butterfly.

143 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.3.2 Determination of Effect on Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species for the Buck Project Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Seepage salamander No Impact May impact individuals but would not trend towards (Desmognathus federal listing or loss of species viability aeneus) Eastern small-footed No Impact May impact individuals but would not trend towards myotis federal listing or loss of species viability (Myotis leibii) Tri-colored bat No Impact May impact individuals but would not trend towards (Perimyotis subflavus) federal listing or loss of species viability Monarch butterfly No Impact May impact individuals but would not trend towards (Danaus plexipplus) federal listing or loss of species viability

3.4 Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species

Determination of Effect: Alternatives B, Alternative B - Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the aquatic forest sensitive species Hiwassee headwaters crayfish (Cambarus parrishi) but would not be likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after the stream crossing constructions and stream bank stabilization treatments are completed. Implementation of Alternatives B, Alternative B - Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D of the Buck Project would have no impacts to the hellbender because none have been documented within the proposed treatment areas, the streams within the proposed treatment areas do not provide suitable habitat for the species, and potential effects to streams would dissipate prior to reaching suitable habitats for hellbenders.

Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the botanical sensitive species Euphorbia purpurea, Drepanolejeunea appalachiana, Packera serpenticola, Schlotheimia lancifolia, and Symphyotrichum rhiannon, but would not be likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for these species across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests because the populations in the treatment unit would be excluded from direct effects. There would be no impacts to any other sensitive plant species.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the terrestrial wildlife forest sensitive species Seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), Eastern Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii), Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexipplus); but would not be likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

144 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

4.0 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES

4.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area: The aquatic analysis area has been described Section 2.1.

Existing Conditions: The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 2.1.

Species Evaluated and Rationale: Data for aquatic resources exist in two forms: general inventory and monitoring of forest resources and data provided by cooperating resource agencies from resources on or flowing through the forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 are used primarily as historical data. Additional information specifically addressing aquatic species was obtained from NCWRC biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, and US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists.

Thirty-six aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of forest concern species in Clay County. Sixteen forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These 16 species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Based upon the results of this filtering process 1 forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis (Table 4.1.1). This species was analyzed for this project because they are either known to occur within the project area or suitable habitat exists for this species. Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis.

Previous Survey Information: Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including regionally-sensitive aquatic species, is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for forest concern aquatic species have been conducted within the Buck aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS. Aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations within the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2011).

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted: The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for PETS Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for sensitive aquatic species were conducted for this project because current inventories of the species are adequate to guide project design. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that conservation of the species would be met.

145 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 4.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Clay County evaluated for the Buck Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Cambarus nodosus Crustacean Burrowing species near May occur bogs/seeps and edges of small streams in Hiwassee River basin

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Crayfish: Cambarus nodosus may occur within analysis area streams although none have been located within any of the streams where treatments are proposed within the Hiwassee River watershed. This species may occur within the proposed stream crossing locations or the proposed stream channel restoration areas. The species does not occur within the Buck Creek watershed; therefore, none of the activities proposed within the Buck Creek watershed would have any impacts to this species.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: The effects of the proposed actions would generally be the same as those described above for the sensitive aquatic species (Section 2.1). Alternative A: There would be no effects to any forest concern aquatic species resulting from implementation of this alternative because the existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The effects of Alternative B, Alternative B - Modified, Alternative C, and Alternative D would generally be the same as described for the sensitive aquatic species above. If the species occur within the proposed treatment areas where in-stream work is proposed, then individuals may be impacted by crushing. Sediments produced during the in-stream construction activities may affect stream substrate for approximately 75 feet downstream of the crossings until the next high flow event. The effects of these activities would be the same as those disclosed for sensitive aquatic species in Section 3.1. Watershed improvements and stream restoration work would improve habitat for the forest concern aquatic species and reduce chronic sedimentation sources. There would be no cumulative impacts resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any forest concern aquatic species resulting from implementation of the Buck Project because there would are no impacts from any past, ongoing, or foreseeable future actions on any forest concern aquatic species (See Section 3.1 above).

No impacts from herbicide application would occur to the forest concern aquatic species listed above because herbicides would not reach any project area streams in sufficient quantity to cause lethal or sub lethal effects to any aquatic species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A would have no impacts to any forest concern aquatic species because the existing conditions of the aquatic resources would remain unchanged. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D of the Buck Project may impact individuals of the forest concern aquatic species, although none are known to occur within the proposed treatment areas. This project may impact individuals of the forest concern aquatic species, Cambarus

146 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project nodosus, but would not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the above species because habitats for this species are common across their range and project design features would minimize impacts to this species.

Table 4.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Cambarus nodosus No Impacts May Impact Individuals

4.2 Botanical Resources

Botanical Analysis Area: The botanical analysis area has been described in Section 2.2.

Species Evaluated and Rationale: The process for consideration and evaluation of PET, S, and FC plant species was described in Section 2.2. Twenty-one forest concern plant species are known or historically known to occur in the proposed treatment units.

Previous Survey Information: Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in Section 2.2.

Table 4.2.1: Forest concern species in the Buck Project Natural Species Local Occurrence Community/Habitat Forest Concern Plant Species (FC) Vascular Plants Oak-Hickory Forest, Within a stand proposed for Agastache nepetoides mafic rock management in the Buck Project. Serpentine Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Brachyelytrum aristosum Forest Barrens prescribed burn units Serpentine Woodland, Calamagrostis porteri Montane Oak-Hickory Within the Buck Creek Serpentine ssp. porteri Forest Barrens prescribed burn units Montane Alluvial Forest, Roadside, Rich Within comp/stand 111/32 proposed for Carex cherokeensis Cove Forest management in the Buck Project. Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Hickory, Dry-Mesic Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Carex woodii Oak Forest Barrens prescribed burn units

147 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Natural Species Local Occurrence Community/Habitat High Elevation Red Oak Forest, rich Cypripedium parviflorum Northern Hardwood Within stands proposed for var. parviflorum Forest management in the Buck Project. Deschampsia cespitosa Serpentine Woodland, Within the Buck Creek Serpentine var. glauca Serpentine Forest Barrens prescribed burn units Elymus trachycaulus ssp. Within the Buck Creek Serpentine trachycaulus Serpentine Woodland Barrens prescribed burn units Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Within stands and along roads proposed Frasera caroliniensis Forest for management in the Buck Project. Serpentine Woodland, Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Gentianopsis crinita Glade Barrens prescribed burn units Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep, Boulderfield Within stands proposed for Lonicera canadensis Forest management in the Buck Project. Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Fen, Montane Mafic Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Muhlenbergia glomerata Cliff Barrens prescribed burn units Seep, Fen, Serpentine Woodland, Roadside, Within stands proposed for Parnassia grandifolia mafic rock management in the Buck Project. Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Pedicularis lanceolata Wet Meadow Barrens prescribed burn units High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Roadside, Northern Hardwood Forest, Southern Within stands proposed for Platanthera grandiflora Appalachian Bog management in the Buck Project. Serpentine Woodland, Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Poa saltuensis Serpentine Forest Barrens prescribed burn units woodlands over mafic or calcareous soils, thin soil around rock Along Forest Road 6230 adjacent to Polygala senega outcrops compartment 114 stand 006. Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Smilax hugeri Compartment 114 Stand 006 mafic rock, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

148 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Natural Species Local Occurrence Community/Habitat Within the Buck Creek Serpentine Sporobolus heterolepis Serpentine Woodland Barrens prescribed burn units Serpentine Woodland Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens Thalictrum macrostylum and Serpentine Forest Prescribed Burn Units Serpentine Woodland, Viola walteri var. Serpentine Forest, Rich Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens appalachiensis Cove Forest, Mesic Prescribed Burn Units Oak-Hickory

YELLOW GIANT-HYSSOP (Agastache nepetoides) Yellow giant-hyssop is a tall perennial plant that occurs in woodlands and forests over calcareous or mafic rocks (Weakley 2015). On the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests the plant is uncommon and occurs in Oak-Hickory Forest and on mafic rock.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is one known forest population distributed across three subpopulations. The plant is known from a stand proposed for management in the Buck project along an access road.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C, there is one population of Agastache nepetoides on the edge of one stand along an access road (compartments/stands 104/018 and Forest Road 6237) proposed for shelterwood with reserves in the Buck project. Known populations of Agastache nepetoides will be buffered by a 50 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 50 foot buffer there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Agastache nepetoides from proposed actions in the Buck project area.

For Alternative D there are no known populations of Agastache nepetoides within treatment areas proposed in the Buck project.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Agastache nepetoides caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Agastache nepetoides populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Agastache nepetoides. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have no direct or indirect impact on individuals of Agastache nepetoides.

149 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NORTHERN SHORTHUSK (Brachyelytrum aristosum) Northern shorthusk is a perennial grass, spreading by rhizomes and has a narrow panicle and few long-awned spikelets with slender stems up to 1 meter tall (FNA 2017). The grass occurs in Serpentine Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, and Rich Cove Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as vulnerable (S3). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are 15 known forest populations distributed across 30 subpopulations. The species is well distributed with populations known from Joyce Kilmer Wilderness in Graham County to Roan Mountain in Mitchell County. Northern shorthusk is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens prescribed burn units.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are multiple populations of Brachyelytrum aristosum within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens area proposed for prescribed burning in the Buck project. The prescribed burns are proposed and designed to enhance the habitat for rare grassland and woodland plants. Brachyelytrum aristosum occurs in semi-open to open habitat across its range. The removal or reduction in the shrub and midstory layer should indirectly benefit this species by reducing woody competition and stimulating vegetative growth and flower production. Brachyelytrum aristosum may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Brachyelytrum aristosum is a fire adapted grass and top killing the grass under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Brachyelytrum aristosum habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Brachyelytrum aristosum habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top- killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Brachyelytrum aristosum.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Brachyelytrum aristosum caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Brachyelytrum aristosum can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Brachyelytrum aristosum populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Brachyelytrum aristosum but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

150 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Brachyelytrum aristosum. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Brachyelytrum aristosum but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Brachyelytrum aristosum individuals.

PORTER’S REEDGRASS (Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri) Porter’s reedgrass is typically a sterile grass unless disturbed by fire or mechanical action and is known from dry to dry-mesic forests, forest edges, and cliff bases (Weakly 2015). The grass occurs in Serpentine Woodland and Montane Oak-Hickory Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4T4) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are six known forest populations. Porter’s reedgrass is known from within the Buck project area from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens prescribed burn units.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are multiple populations of Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens area proposed for prescribed burning in the Buck project. The prescribed burns are proposed and designed to enhance the habitat for rare grassland and woodland plants. Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri occurs in semi-open to open habitat across its range. The removal or reduction in the shrub and midstory layer should indirectly benefit this species by reducing woody competition and stimulating vegetative growth and flower production. Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri is a fire adapted grass and top killing the grass under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may

151 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

impact individuals of Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Calamagrostis porteri ssp. porteri individuals.

CHEROKEE SEDGE (Carex cherokeensis) Cherokee sedge is known to occur in moist, rich, calcareous forests that blooms in May and June (Weakly 2015). The sedge occurs in montane alluvial forest, roadside, and rich cove forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are four known forest populations. Cherokee sedge is known from within the Buck project area from within one stand proposed for shelterwood with reserves management.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one large population of Carex cherokeensis within the southern portion of stand 111/32 which is proposed for shelterwood with reserves in the Buck project. The southern portion of the stand also contains a population of scattered butternut (Juglans cinerea). The portion of the stand with Carex cherokeensis and Juglans cinerea will be thinned instead of shelterwood harvested during the non-growing season. Thinning will leave more trees per acre and maintain more shaded conditions and harvest during the non-growing season will minimize impacts to Carex cherokeensis.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Carex cherokeensis caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Carex cherokeensis populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Carex cherokeensis. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions may impact individuals of Carex cherokeenis but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions.

152 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

WOOD’S SEDGE (Carex woodii) Wood’s sedge blooms in May and June and is known from moist slopes and cove forest over mafic rocks, ultramafic rocks or felsic rocks in semi-open to closed forest canopies (Weakley 2015). Weakley (2015) notes that Carex woodii forms clonal patches that are similar in appearance to Carex pennsylvanica, but foliage has a pale green cast and the perigynia of wood’s sedge is glabrous and filled by the achene at maturity. The sedge occurs in Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as vulnerable (S3). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are twenty-six known forest populations. Wood’s sedge is known from three populations within the Buck project area in areas proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C, there are multiple populations of Carex woodii in eight stands proposed for management in the Buck project area (compartments/stands 104/023, 106/002, 106/004, 106/007e, 106/007w, 108/008, 108/023, 109/007). In addition, there are three populations of Carex woodii within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Carex woodii starts vegetative growth in the early spring and may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Vegetation may be top-killed and the underground rhizomes may be negatively impacted by fire depending on the intensity and soil depth at the time of implementation. Indirectly, this species may be negatively impacted from an increase in vegetative competition. However, Carex woodii has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). The cumulative effects of a three to five year prescribed burn return interval should not affect the viability of wood's sedge. Known populations of Carex woodii in stands proposed for timber harvest will be buffered by a 50 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 50 foot buffer there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Carex woodii from proposed timber harvest actions in the Buck project area.

For Alternative D there are multiple populations of Carex woodii in four stands proposed for management in the Buck project area (compartment/stands 106/002, 106/004, 106/007e, and 106/007w). In addition, there are three populations of Carex woodii within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. The management affects to Carex woodii and the mitigation designs to minimize impacts are described above for alternative B, B – Modified, and C.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Carex woodii caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Carex woodii can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Carex woodii populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Carex woodii but

153 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Carex woodii. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Carex woodii but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions.

SMALL YELLOW LADY’S SLIPPER (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum) Small yellow lady’s slipper is a 15-40 cm. tall perennial orchid with elliptic leaves that sheath the stem and are lightly pubescent and usually glandular (NatureServe 2017). The orchid usually has 1-2 yellow flowers with one petal that is strongly pouch shaped and often purple-dotted while the other two petals are untied into one and the fruit a capsule with thousands of tiny seeds (NatureServe 2017). The orchids occur in rich, humus and decaying leaf litter in wooded areas, often on rocky wooded hillsides on north or east facing slopes, and near moist stream sides (NatureServe 2017). The plant occurs in High Elevation Red Oak Forest and rich Northern Hardwood Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G5T3T5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are nine known forest populations. Small yellow lady’s slipper is known from ten populations within eight stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves timber management within the Buck Project.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C, there are ten populations of Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum within eight stands (compartments/stands 104/13, 106/4, 106/7w, 106/7e, 107/2, 107/4, 107/11 and 108/20) proposed for shelterwood with reserves in the Buck project. Known populations of Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum will be buffered by a 50 foot no- activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 50 foot buffer there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum from proposed actions in the Buck project area.

For Alternative D there are multiple populations of Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum in five stands proposed for management in the Buck project area (compartment/stands 106/4, 106/7w, 106/7e, 107/2, and 107/4). The management affects to Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum and the mitigation design to minimize impacts are described above for alternative B, B – Modified, and C.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting

154 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have no direct or indirect impact on individuals of Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum.

TUFTED HAIRGRASS (Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca) Tufted hairgrass blooms in June and July and grows on thin soils of rock outcrops or barrens over calcareous, mafic, and ultramafic rocks (including serpentinized olivine), and in seepages (Weakley 2015). Deschampsia cespitosa is cirumboreal in distribution while ssp. glauca is the most southerly of the subspecies (Weakley 2015). The grass occurs in Serpentine Woodland and Serpentine Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5T5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is one known forest population. Tufted hairgrass is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one population of Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca is a fire adapted grass that tends to occur in the wetter areas of Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens (Gary Kauffman and Matt Bushman pers. comm. and observation). Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca but would not lead toward

155 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Deschampsia cespitosa var. glauca individuals.

SLENDER WHEATGRASS (Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus) Slender wheatgrass is a rare grass that grows in glades and barrens over serpentine soils and blooms in August (Weakley 2015). The grass occurs in Serpentine Woodland habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5T5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are two known forest population. Slender wheatgrass is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are two populations of Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus is a fire adapted grass and top killing the grass under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus

156 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus. Alternatives A, B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus individuals.

AMERICAN COLUMBO (Frasera caroliniensis) American columbo is a large perennial herb (1-2 meters tall) with whorled leaves, a showy panicle of 50-100 yellow-greenish flowers and a fruit that is a large flat capsule (NatureServe 2017). The plant may live as basal leaves for 30 years or more and can be found in upland deciduous forests, particularly near margins and clearings (NatureServe 2017). The plant occurs in Rich Cove Forest and Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2S3). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are 26 known forest populations. American columbo is known from one stand proposed for management within the Buck project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one large population of Frasera caroliniensis within stand 114/6 proposed for shelterwood with reserves in some of the stand and thinning in a portion of the stand with Frasera caroliniensis as well as a prescribed burn in the Buck project. The population of Frasera caroliniensis is comp/stand 114/6 covers over 1/2 of the stand proposed for management. Frasera caroliniensis will bloom prolifically after its habitat is opened up to allow more sunlight and needs periodic disturbance for its life cycle (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Forest thinning during the non-growing season within the known Frasera caroliniensis population will be used to minimize ground disturbance to this plant. Individual Frasera caroliniensis plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations. Timber reserve (non-harvest) areas in the stand will be placed at or adjacent to larger populations of Frasera caroliniensis to reduce direct impacts from harvest operations. Frasera caroliniensis habitat may be impacted by timber harvest activities, which will result in a short term (5-10 year) impact until the forest canopy fills in and shades the ground and Frasera caroliniensis population. Frasera caroliniensis is a woodland plant and it as well as a number of other woodland and fire adapted plants in the area may benefit from a prescribed fire post timber harvest. A prescribed fire may directly impact known individuals of Frasera caroliniensis by

157 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

top killing the plant if fire is applied during the growing season. However fire effect would be limited to the above ground portion of the plant since burning would occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. Frasera caroliniensis habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) as a result of the prescribed fire if midstory and canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which could stimulate growth and flowering in Frasera caroliniensis.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Frasera caroliniensis caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Frasera caroliniensis populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Frasera caroliniensis. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have a may impact not likely to lead to Federal listing or loss of viability determination for individuals and habitat of Frasera caroliniensis. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Frasera caroliniensis individuals.

FRINGED GENTIAN (Gentianopsis crinita) Fringed gentian occurs in sunny or semi-shaded seepage areas over calcareous, mafic, or ultramafic rocks and blooms in September and October (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in Serpentine Woodland and Glade habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is one known forest population with hundreds of individuals. Fringed gentian is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are multiple populations of Gentianopsis crinita within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Gentianopsis crinita may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the plant and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Gentianopsis crinita is a plant that tends to occur in the wetter areas of Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens (Gary Kauffman and Matt Bushman pers. comm. and observation). Gentianopsis crinita has been observed to persist with disturbance from past prescribed fire in the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Gentianopsis crinita habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Gentianopsis crinita habitat may experience a short- term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are

158 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Gentianopsis crinita.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Gentianopsis crinita caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Gentianopsis crinita can persist after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Gentianopsis crinita populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Gentianopsis crinita but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Gentianopsis crinita. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Gentianopsis crinita but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Gentianopsis crinita individuals.

AMERICAN FLY-HONEYSUCKLE (Lonicera canadensis) American fly-honeysuckle is a predominately northern species and is at the southern extent of its range in North Carolina (NatureServe 2017). The plant is a shorter shrub (1-2 meters tall) known from shrubby mountain bogs at high elevation, boulder fields in northern hardwood forest and hemlock and spruce swamps (Weakly 2015). The plant occurs in Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep, and Boulderfield Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are 16 known forest populations. American fly-honeysuckle is known from two sites in stand 104/19 in the Buck project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C, there are two population of Lonicera canadensis within stand 104/19 proposed for shelterwood with reserves in the Buck project. Known populations of Lonicera canadensis will be buffered by a 50 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 50 foot buffer there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Lonicera canadensis from proposed actions in the Buck project area. In addition to the 50 foot no activity buffer a 100 foot thinning buffer surrounding the 50 foot no activity buffer is suggested to maintain shade and moisture conditions in the stand suitable for Lonicera canadensis to thrive.

159 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

For Alternative D there are no known populations of Lonicera canadensis within treatment areas proposed in the Buck project.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Lonicera canadensis caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Lonicera canadensis populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Lonicera canadensis. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have a No Impact determination for individuals of Lonicera canadensis and a No Impact determination for Lonicera canadensis habitat.

SPIKED MUHLY (Muhlenbergia glomerata) Spiked muhly is a rare grass that grows in fens and seeps over mafic or ultramafic rocks and blooms in August through October (Weakley 2015). The grass occurs in Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Fen, and Montane Mafic Cliff habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are two known forest population. Spiked muhly is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are two populations of Muhlenbergia glomerata within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Muhlenbergia glomerata may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Muhlenbergia glomerata is a fire adapted grass and top killing the grass under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Muhlenbergia glomerata has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Muhlenbergia glomerata habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Muhlenbergia glomerata habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Muhlenbergia glomerata.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Muhlenbergia glomerata caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that

160 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Muhlenbergia glomerata can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Muhlenbergia glomerata populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Muhlenbergia glomerata but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Muhlenbergia glomerata. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Muhlenbergia glomerata but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Muhlenbergia glomerata individuals.

LARGE-LEAVED GRASS-OF-PARNASSUS (Parnassia grandifolia) Large-leaved grass-of-parnassus occurs in fens, gravelly seepages, pineland seepage bogs over calcareous, mafic, or ultramafic rocks (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in Seep, Fen, Serpentine Woodland, Roadside, and mafic rock habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is vulnerable (G3) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are four known forest population. Large-leaved grass-of-parnassus is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are multiple populations of Parnassia grandifolia within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Parnassia grandifolia may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the plant and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Parnassia grandifolia is a plant that tends to occur in the wetter areas of Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens (Gary Kauffman and Matt Bushman pers. comm. and observation). Parnassia grandifolia has been observed to persist with disturbance from past prescribed fire in the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Parnassia grandifolia habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Parnassia grandifolia habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Parnassia grandifolia.

161 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Parnassia grandifolia caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Parnassia grandifolia can persist after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Parnassia grandifolia populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Parnassia grandifolia but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Parnassia grandifolia. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Parnassia grandifolia but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Parnassia grandifolia individuals.

SWAMP LOUSEWORT (Pedicularis lanceolata) Swamp lousewort occurs in springheads and swampy areas over calcareous, mafic, or ultramafic rocks blooming from August through October (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, and Wet Meadow habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are five known forest populations. Swamp lousewort is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are multiple populations of Pedicularis lanceolata within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Pedicularis lanceolata may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the plant and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Pedicularis lanceolata is a plant that tends to occur in the wetter areas of Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens (Gary Kauffman and Matt Bushman pers. comm. and observation). Pedicularis lanceolata habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Pedicularis lanceolata habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Pedicularis lanceolata.

162 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Pedicularis lanceolata caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Pedicularis lanceolata populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Pedicularis lanceolata. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Pedicularis lanceolata but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Pedicularis lanceolata individuals.

LARGE PURPLE-FRINGED ORCHID (Platanthera grandiflora) Large purple-fringed orchid blooms in June and early July and occurs in bogs, seepages, and moist places at high elevation (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Roadside, Northern Hardwood Forest, and Southern Appalachian Bog habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are nine known forest populations. Large purple-fringed orchid is known from three stands in the Buck Project area (stand 106/7w, 108/8, and 109/7) in stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves timber management.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are three populations of Platanthera grandiflora within compartments/stand 106/7w (Alternatives B, C, and D), 108/8 (Alternative C only), and 109/7 (Alternatives B&C) proposed for shelterwood with reserves in the Buck project. Known populations of Platanthera grandiflora will be buffered by a 100 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 100 foot buffer there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Platanthera grandiflora from proposed actions in the Buck project area.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Platanthera grandiflora caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Platanthera grandiflora populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Platanthera grandiflora. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have no direct or indirect impact on individuals of Platanthera grandiflora.

163 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

A BLUEGRASS (Poa saltuensis) Poa saltuensis blooms from April to May and occurs in northern hardwood forest, ultramafic outcrop woodlands, barrens, and glades (Weakley 2015). The grass occurs in Serpentine Woodland and Serpentine Forest habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is one known forest population. Poa saltuensis is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are two populations of Poa saltuensis within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Poa saltuensis may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non- growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Poa saltuensis is a fire adapted grass and top killing the grass under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Poa saltuensis has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Poa saltuensis habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Poa saltuensis habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Poa saltuensis.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Poa saltuensis caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Poa saltuensis can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Poa saltuensis populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Poa saltuensis but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Poa saltuensis. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Poa saltuensis but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Poa saltuensis individuals.

164 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

SENECA SNAKEROOT (Polygala senega) Seneca snakeroot occurs over wide range in eastern North America in woodlands and openings especially over calcareous or mafic rocks (Weakley 2015). The plant occurs in woodlands over mafic or calcareous soils and on thin soil around rock outcrops on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are four known forest populations of the plant. Seneca snakeroot is known from along forest road (6230) just west of stand 114/6.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one population of Polygala senega just west of stand 114/6 on the edge of the forest road 6230. Stand 114/6 is proposed for thinning and shelterwood with reserves as well as a prescribed burn in the Buck project. Known populations of Polygala senega will be buffered by a 50 foot no-activity buffer to protect against direct and indirect impacts to this species in the Buck project area. With the 50 foot buffer there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Polygala senega from proposed actions in the Buck project area. Polygala senega is a fire adapted woodland plant and it as well as a number of other fire adapted plants in the area may benefit from a prescribed fire post timber harvest. A prescribed fire may directly impact known individuals of Polygala senega by top killing the plant if fire is applied during the growing season. However fire effect would be limited to the above ground portion of the plant since burning would occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. Polygala senega habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) as a result of the prescribed fire if midstory and canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which could stimulate growth and flowering in Polygala senega.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Polygala senega caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Polygala senega populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Polygala senega. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Polygala senega but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Polygala senega individuals.

HUGER’S CARRIONFLOWER (Smilax hugeri) Huger’s carrionflower occurs in moist deciduous forest and wooded slopes in the southeastern United States (FNA 2018). The plant has knotty slender rhizomes, is absent of prickles, erect

165 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

with few leaves, tendrils that are absent or rudimentary, and greenish flowers in an umbel (FNA 2018). The plant occurs in Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, mafic rock, and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

Globally the species is apparently secure (G4) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are forty known forest populations of the plant. Huger’s carrionflower is known from stand 114/6.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one population of Smilax hugeri with many individuals scattered across stand 114/6. Stand 114/6 is proposed for thinning and shelterwood with reserves in the Buck project as well as a prescribed burn. Forest thinning during the non-growing season within the known Smilax hugeri population will be used to minimize ground disturbance to this plant. Individual Smilax hugeri plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations. Smilax hugeri habitat may be impacted by timber harvest activities, which will result in a short term (5-10 year) impact until the forest canopy fills in and shades the ground and Smilax hugeri population. The proposed prescribed fire may directly impact known individuals of Smilax hugeri by top killing the plant if fire is applied during the growing season. However fire effect would be limited to the above ground portion of the plant since burning would occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. Smilax hugeri habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) as a result of the prescribed fire if midstory and canopy trees are top- killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which could stimulate growth and flowering in Smilax hugeri.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Smilax hugeri caused by past timber management projects across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are unknown. Currently, there are no known specific projects affecting Smilax hugeri populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Smilax hugeri. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Smilax hugeri but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Smilax hugeri individuals.

PRAIRIE DROPSEED (Sporobolus heterolepis) Prairie dropseed occurs in barrens, glades, and prairie over mafic, ultramafic, and calcareous Soils with the primary occurrence of this plant in the western United States with outliers east to North Carolina and Georgia (Weakley 2015). The grass occurs in Serpentine Woodland habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

166 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there is only one known forest population of the plant. Prairie dropseed is known from within the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens in the Buck Creek project area in an area proposed for prescribed fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are two populations of Sporobolus heterolepis within the Buck project proposed for prescribed fire. Sporobolus heterolepis may be top killed if prescribed fire occurs during the growing season. Fire affects would be limited to the burning of the above ground portion of the grass and leaving the below ground portion intact since burning will occur under weather and fuel conditions where fire intensity is moderate or light or during the non-growing season. In addition the effects of fire would be minimal since Sporobolus heterolepis is a fire adapted grass and top killing the grass under a fire frequency of every 3-8 years would not impact the long-term viability of the plant. Sporobolus heterolepis has been observed to persist and expand with disturbance from prescribed fire (Gary Kauffman pers. comm.). Sporobolus heterolepis habitat may be changed as a result of the proposed prescribed fire. Sporobolus heterolepis habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top-killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulate growth in the Sporobolus heterolepis.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Sporobolus heterolepis caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Sporobolus heterolepis can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Sporobolus heterolepis populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Sporobolus heterolepis but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Sporobolus heterolepis. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Sporobolus heterolepis but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability due to the effects of the proposed actions. The Buck project may have a beneficial impact on suitable habitat around known Sporobolus heterolepis individuals.

SMALL-LEAVED MEADOWRUE (Thalictrum macrostylum) Small-leaved meadowrue is a slender, erect to reclining, glabrous plant with basal and cauline leaves that are ternately and pinnately decompound (FNA 2017). Flowers are greenish to white in color with blooms in late spring to early summer in low woods, rich wooded slopes, cliffs, and meadows (FNA 2017). Habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is Serpentine Woodland and Serpentine Forest. Globally this species is vulnerable (G3G4) and in North

167 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Carolina, this species is imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, there are multiple populations of this plant within the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens. Small leaved meadowrue is known from the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens proposed prescribed fire units.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there are multiple populations of Thalictrum macrostylum within the Buck Creek Serpentine area proposed for prescribed burning in the Buck project. This population was first discovered in 1951 and was last observed in 2018. This population appears stable; the polygon created by the NC State Heritage Program showing the extent of this population encompasses 148 acres. Above-ground vegetation would be top-killed if the prescription burn occurs late fall (October-November). If the prescription fire occurs during the spring season (March 20th-April 15th) new vegetative growth could be top-killed. In addition, seedlings sprouting in the spring could be killed. It is unknown if a prescription fire would directly impact the roots of this species. Indirectly, this species may be impacted by an increase in light and increase in herbaceous competition. However, since this population encompasses such a large expanse, direct or indirect effects from the low intensity fire should be minimal and should not impact this population.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Thalictrum macrostylum caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Thalictrum macrostylum can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The cumulative effects of a three to five year prescribed burn return interval should not affect the viability of small-leaved meadowrue. The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Thalictrum macrostylum populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Thalictrum macrostylum. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project proposed actions would have a may impact individuals of Thalictrum macrostylum but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability determination.

APPALACHIAN VIOLET (Viola walteri var. appalachiana) Appalachian violet is an uncommon species that blooms from April-May and occurs in Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Rich Cove Forest, and Mesic Oak-Hickory habitats (Weakley 2015). Globally this species is vulnerable (G3) and in North Carolina this species is imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests there are 23 known forest populations. Appalachian violet is known from the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens proposed prescribed burn units.

168 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat.

For Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D, there is one known population of Viola walteri var. appalachiana within the Buck Creek Serpentine area proposed for prescribed burning in the Buck project. There may be direct impacts to Viola walteri var. appalachiana from contact with fire since the violet remains above ground and green for much of the year. Prescribed fire will most likely occur in the non-blooming season so long-term detrimental impacts to the Viola walteri var. appalachiana will be minimal. There would be no indirect impact to Viola walteri var. appalachiana habitat. Viola walteri var. appalachiana habitat may experience a short-term beneficial impact (5 years) from the prescribed fire if midstory and some canopy trees are top- killed resulting in more light to the forest floor which would stimulation flowering in the Viola walteri var. appalachiana.

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Impacts to Viola walteri var. appalachiana caused by past prescribed fire projects in the Buck Creek Serpentine Barrens have shown that Viola walteri var. appalachiana can persist and thrive after prescribed fire (G. Kauffman pers. comm.). The Tusquitee Ranger District 5 year prescribed fire project is a current and ongoing prescribed fire project that is affecting Viola walteri var. appalachiana populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. This project determined that the prescribed burning may impact individuals of Viola walteri var. appalachiana but would not lead toward federal listing or loss of viability across the forest. This project has and will periodically burn portions of the Buck Creek Serpentine barrens to set back succession and promote fire adapted plant species. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Buck botanical analysis area that would impact this species.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Viola walteri var. appalachiana. Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The Buck Project may impact individuals of Viola walteri var. appalachiana but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects the proposed treatments. There may be a short term beneficial impact to Appalachian violet habitat as a result of the proposed activities.

Table 4.2.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated Forest concern botanical species for the Buck Project Species Alt. A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Agastache No Impact No Impact nepetoides Brachyelytrum May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact aristosum toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Calamagrostis May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact porteri ssp. porteri toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat.

169 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Alt. A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Carex May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact cherokeensis toward Federal listing. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Carex woodii No Impact toward Federal listing. Cypripedium parviflorum var. No Impact No Impact parviflorum Deschampsia May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend cespitosa var. No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. glauca Elymus May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend trachycaulus ssp. No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. trachycaulus Frasera May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact caroliniensis toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Gentianopsis May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact crinita toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Lonicera No Impact No Impact canadensis Muhlenbergia May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact glomerata toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Parnassia May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact grandifolia toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Pedicularis May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact lanceolata toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Platanthera No Impact No Impact grandiflora May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Poa saltuensis No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Polygala senega No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend Smilax hugeri No Impact toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat.

170 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Alt. A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Sporobolus May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact heterolepis toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat. Thalictrum May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact macrostylum toward Federal listing. Viola walteri var. May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend No Impact appalachiensis toward Federal listing. Beneficial Impact to habitat.

4.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area: The wildlife analysis area has been described in Section 2.3.

Existing Condition: There are thirty-one forest concern species either known to occur within the wildlife analysis or that have suitable habitat present in the analysis area (Table 4.3.1).

Species Evaluated and Rationale: Potentially affected FC wildlife species were identified by: (1) reviewing the rare species list for wildlife species that may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 3a to the BE, Appendix 5.2) and their habitat preferences; (2) evaluating element occurrence records of these species as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP); (3) consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its fauna; and (4) conducting field surveys as necessary.

Species were filtered by those that may occur in Clay County, according to the NCNHP, and then by those that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on NCNHP GIS element occurrence records. Species that are not tracked by the NCNHP and could potentially occur in these counties were added to the list of species to be analyzed. Fifty species are known to occur or may occur within the wildlife analysis area (Table 4.3.1). These species were then filtered further by habitat information and availability of that habitat within proposed activity areas and forty-one species remained to be analyzed. Species with habitats that do not occur within proposed activity areas are not discussed further because with no habitat present within the area of influence of the proposed actions no direct or indirect effects would result on these species.

Survey Information: Surveys were not done for species whose habitat was not found in project activity areas. Inventories were not conducted for other analyzed wildlife species potentially occurring in the activity areas because habitat is not limited across the forest; information on the number and location of individuals in this particular area would not change the assessment of effects to the viability of these populations.

171 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 4.3.1. Forest Concern wildlife species considered in the Buck project. Name Type Habitat Habitat in Analyzed Description Analysis Further? Area Southern Appalachian Amphibian Moist forests at all elevations Yes Yes salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Mole salamander Floodplain and upland forests (Ambystoma Amphibian Yes Yes near fish-free water bodies talpoideum) Four-toed salamander Floodplain and upland forests (Hemidactylium Amphibian Yes Yes near fish-free water bodies scutatum) Longtail salamander Moist woods and floodplains; Amphibian Yes Yes (Eurycea longicauda) small ponds for breeding Dwarf black-bellied salamander Seeps, springs, or streams in Amphibian Yes Yes (Desmognathus extreme southwestern counties folkertsi) Southern pygmy salamander Seeps, springs, or streams in Amphibian Yes Yes (Desmognathus extreme southwestern counties wrighti) Mountain chorus frog Moist woods and floodplains; (Pseudacris Amphibian Yes Yes small ponds for breeding brachyphona) Coal skink RockyRocky slopes, slopes, wooded wooded ReptileReptile YesYes YesYes (Eumeces anthracinus) hillsides,hillsides, roadbanks roadbanks

Rocky areas, exposed Timber rattlesnake hillsides; widespread but low (Crotalus horridus) Reptile density except when gathering Yes Yes to hibernate in rock outcrops Bald eagle Mature forests near large (Haliaeetus Bird bodies of water (for nesting); No No leucocephalus) lakes and sounds Peregrine falcon Cliffs (for nesting); coastal (Falco peregrinus) Bird ponds and mudflats (for No No foraging in winter) Appalachian Bewick's Woodland borders or wren openings, brushy fields at high Bird Yes Yes (Thryomanes bewickii elevations [breeding season altus) only] Hermit thrush Hermit Thrushes often occupy (Catharus guttatus) lower-elevation forests with Bird dense understory. Found at Yes Yes higher elevations during breeding season

172 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Name Type Habitat Habitat in Analyzed Description Analysis Further? Area Black-billed cuckoo Deciduous forests, mainly at (Coccyzus guttatus) Bird higher elevations [breeding Yes Yes season] Cerulean warbler Mature hardwood forests Bird Yes Yes (Setophaga cerulean) during breeding season Golden-winged warbler Old fields and successional (Vermivora Bird hardwoods [breeding season] Yes Yes chrysoptera) Northern bush katydid Canopies of mature oak- (Scudderia Katydid Yes Yes hickory forests along edges septentrionalis) Diana fritillary Montane and foothill forest butterfly Butterfly edges and openings; host Yes Yes (Speyeria Diana) plant: violets (Viola) Moist woods near stream; host Golden-banded skipper Butterfly plant; hog peanut Yes Yes (Autochton cellus) (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Rich, moist deciduous forests; Dusky azure Butterfly host plant: goat’s beard Yes Yes (Celastrina nigra) (Aruncus dioicus) Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland woods; host Baltimore checkerspot Butterfly plants: turtlehead (Chelone) No No (Euphydryas phaeton) and false foxglove (Aureolaria) Woodland openings and Gorgone checkerspot Butterfly borders; host plants: goat’s Yes Yes (Chlosyne gorgone) beard (Aruncus dioicus) Upland woods and wooded Mottled duskywing Butterfly edges; host plant: New Jersey Yes Yes (Erynnis martialis) tea (Ceanothus americanus) Woodland openings, glades, Tawny crescent and road banks at higher (Phyciodes batesii elevations; host plants: asters, maconensis) Butterfly Yes Yes mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum

173 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Name Type Habitat Habitat in Analyzed Description Analysis Further? Area Typically found near streams, especially in Green comma spruce/fir/hemlock forests, but Butterfly No No (Polygonia faunus) sometimes in northern hardwoods or lower elevational cove forests

Gray comma Rich deciduous forests; host Butterfly Yes Yes (Polygonia progne) plants: mainly gooseberries Mid- to high elevation Hickory hairstreak Butterfly deciduous forests; host plants: Yes Yes (Satyrium caryaevorus) primarily hickories (Carya) Scrubby or xeric oak woods; Edwards’s hairstreak Butterfly host plants: mainly oaks Yes Yes (Satyrium edwardsii) (Quercus) a noctuid moth Moth Savannas, wet meadows Yes Yes (Melanapamea mixta) Very little habitat or food habit Doll’s dagger information exists for this Moth No No (Acronicta dolli) species, especially for the southern Appalachians

Serrulate melanoplus Grasshopper Valley and lower slopes in the (Melanoplus /Katydid Nantahala Mountains Yes Yes serrulatus) Southern rock vole (Microtus Rocky areas at high elevations, Mammal No No chrotorrhinus forests or fields carolinensis) Southern water shrew Stream banks in montane (Sorex palustris Mammal forest with rhododendron Yes Yes punctulatus) cover Occupies rock outcrops, talus Southern rock shrew Mammal slopes, and along small Yes Yes (Sorex dispar blitchi) mountain streams Least weasel Fields and forests, as low as (Mustela nivalis) Mammal 1600ft in elevation within NC. Yes Yes

Little brown bat Summer roosts in hollow trees, Mammal Yes Yes (Myotis lucifugus) winter hibernacula in caves

174 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Name Type Habitat Habitat in Analyzed Description Analysis Further? Area Use both forested and open Eastern spotted skunk areas. Den in underground Mammal Yes Yes (Spilogale putorius) burrows, fallen logs, and standing snags

Appalachian cottontail Dense cover of montane Mammal Yes Yes (Sylvilagus obscurus) woods and thickets Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; around logs, Dark glyph forest debris, and mixed Yes Yes hardwood sites Gastropod Cove hardwoods Pink glyph Yes Yes

Terrestrial Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’ in higher Blue-footed lancetooth elevation mixed hardwood Yes Yes forests Gastropod Nantahala Gorge vicinity Spiral coil (endemic to this area) No No Terrestrial No habitat data. Outside known distribution. Only Corncob snail records from Pickens and No No Greenville Counties in South Carolina (Nation, R. 2006) Terrestrial Wooded river bluffs and Club supercoil ravines No No Gastropod Open supercoil Terrestrial (Paravitrea Forested mountainsides Yes Yes Gastropod umbilicaris)

Dwarf proud globe Terrestrial Habitat generalist found in a Yes Yes (Patera clarki clarki) Gastropod variety of forest types Oar tooth bud Terrestrial Rock outcrops and rocky Yes Yes (Pilsbryna nodopalma) Gastropod hillsides Ribbed striate Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist Yes Yes (Striatura exigua) Gastropod forests Cove hardwoods in deep leaf Appalachian Gloss Terrestrial litter Yes Yes (Zonitoides patuloides) Gastropod

175 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Effects of Alternatives on Forest Concern Wildlife Species

Dwarf Black-bellied Salamander (Desmognathus folkertsi), Southern Pygmy Salamander (Desmognathus wrighti), Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda) Dwarf black-bellied salamanders can be found beneath leaf litter near seepages or small streams in shaded areas of hardwood or mixed forests. Longtail salamanders are also found in these types of habitats, often under logs, litter, or rocks during the day. Southern pygmy salamanders are typically associated with high elevation spruce-fir forests, which makes these salamanders unlikely to occur in the treatment areas, and though the pigmy salamander is the most terrestrial of the Desmognathus species, they deposit eggs and nest around headwater streams or in underground retreats.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on these salamander species because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Primarily aquatic species (except for the southern pygmy salamander), these salamanders spend most of their time around seepage areas and small streams. Timber harvest may potentially affect these species through crushing. However, since the salamander will retreat underground and streams and seeps would be buffered, the likelihood of these effects is minimal. Prescribed fire in this environment should not eliminate canopy cover, coarse woody debris, or duff which, provide cover and a desirable microclimate for this assemblage of salamanders.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on these salamanders resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects similar to the proposed harvest and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire would not have had a measurable impact on salamander populations and would not have affected available habitat. Though harvest may potentially alter microhabitat conditions around treated stands, these effects are ephemeral as stands age and with the implementation of BMPs and Standards and Guidelines found in the LRMP, the buffering of streams protects these salamanders and these microclimates in contrast to historical logging practices.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on these salamanders because existing conditions would not change.

Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) The Southern Appalachian salamander is found in moist forests at all elevations. These terrestrial salamanders would likely be found under decaying logs and abundant leaf litter.

176 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on the Southern Appalachian salamander because there would be no measurable effect to individuals or habitat.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Timber harvest is proposed to occur through 845 acres of two-age regeneration harvests (Alt B) and 770 (Alt B – Modified) and may cause direct mortality through crushing. Indirectly, these activities increase solar and wind exposure to these units, which could cause previously moist habitat to become unsuitable and salamander populations within these areas could decline. These effects would be short term, however, and as the stands regenerate the areas that may be affected would provide more suitable habitat. Though timber harvest activities may remove habitat for the Southern Appalachian salamander, the habitat is widespread across the forest and within the wildlife analysis area. Thinning treatments would not cause these effects as the larger canopy would be left intact, but temporary road construction could cause short term effects on the immediate habitat by increasing solar and wind exposure to the proposed temporary road sites. If Southern Appalachian salamanders occur within the burn unit, prescribed fire may cause direct mortality, but it is possible that salamanders would be underground and emerge instead at night to forage when temperatures are cooler and moisture levels higher, which would lessen potential direct effects. Low intensity prescribed burning does not remove the main canopy or affect salamander habitat, and even higher intensity burns that may remove some canopy would not reduce the amount of downed, decaying logs and the duff layer which supports the moisture and microclimatic requirements of the Southern Appalachian salamander. Herbicide use for undesirable tree species and to combat NNIP would be unlikely to affect salamander populations. The herbicide treatments are directed spray; thus, it would be highly unlikely for an applicator to accidently spray a salamander. In addition, the undesirable tree species and NNIP that would be targeted are not associated with Southern Appalachian salamander habitat, and a salamander would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the southern Appalachian salamander would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified from two-age harvest, except 953 acres would be impacted instead of 845 acres and 770 acres.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the southern Appalachian salamander would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified from two-age harvest, except 497 acres would be impacted instead of 845 acres and 770 acres.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Southern Appalachian salamander as a result of this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past treatments within the wildlife analysis area from previous projects would have had effects similar to the proposed Southside treatments. Prescribed fire would not have had a measurable impact on salamander populations and would not have affected available habitat. Though past silvicultural treatments may have altered microhabitat conditions around treated stands, these effects were ephemeral and have dissipated as treated stands have aged. A majority of the remainder of the analysis area would be

177 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

adequately forested to provide areas with suitable microhabitat conditions. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting the Southern Appalachian salamander.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Southern Appalachian salamander.

Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) and Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)

Mole salamanders and four-toed salamanders use floodplain or upland forests near fish-free bodies of water that they use for breeding. They spend most of their time underground and home ranges for individuals outside of breeding season tend to consist of a few square meters.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the mole or four-toed salamander because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There are known occurrences of mole and four-toed salamanders within the wildlife analysis area and adjacent to proposed harvest units. Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur within proposed units. Though direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. These activities would not occur in the riparian zone of hillside streams. If such habitat occurred in proximity to proposed activity areas such as these streams and other water sources, they would be buffered from activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently, harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of mole or four-toed salamander habitat. Dormant season burns may cause direct mortality if individuals are unable to escape the flames, but prescribed fire would have no effect on the availability of habitat and these species spend most of their time underground or in water. Herbicide treatments would not impact mole or four-toed salamanders because it would be unlikely that an individual would be directly sprayed or ingest enough insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the mole or four-toed salamander resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the mole or four-toed salamander as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the mole or four-toed salamander.

178 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the mole or four- toed salamander.

Mountain chorus frog (Pseudacris brachyphona)

Mountain chorus frogs are found in moist woods and floodplains where breeding occurs in hillside streams and other shallow water sources. Not much is known about the ecology of this species, but most are observed during the breeding period in March to May around woodland pools. The tadpoles mature in approximately 40 to 65 days, and the rest of the year adults likely reside beneath leaf litter.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the mountain chorus frog because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There are no known occurrences of the mountain chorus frog within the wildlife analysis area. Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with proposed units. Though direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. These activities would not occur in the riparian zone of hillside streams. If such habitat occurred in proximity to proposed activity areas such as these streams and other water sources, they would be buffered from activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently, harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of mountain chorus frog habitat. Dormant season burns may cause direct mortality if individuals are unable to escape the flames, but prescribed fire would have no effect on the availability of habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact mountain chorus frogs because it would be unlikely that a frog would be directly sprayed or ingest enough insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the mountain chorus frog resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the mountain chorus frog as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the mountain chorus frog.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the mountain chorus frog.

179 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Coal skink (Eumeces anthracinus) Coal skinks are most commonly found in a variety of damp forest habitats ranging from oak, mixed hardwood, to pine-hardwood mix (Martin 2003). The predominant habitat indicator is the presence of rocky areas in the form of loose rock, rock slabs, and rocky slopes, located near springs, and along road banks (Martin 2003).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the coal skink because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There are no known occurrences of the coal skink within the wildlife analysis area. Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with proposed units. Though direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. These activities would not occur in rocky slopes and, if such habitat occurred in proximity to proposed activity areas, rocky slopes, boulderfields, and water sources would be buffered from activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of coal skink habitat. Dormant season burns may cause direct mortality if individuals are unable to escape the flames, but prescribed fire would have no effect on the availability of habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact coal skinks because it would be unlikely that a skink would be directly sprayed or ingest enough insects to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the coal skink resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the coal skink as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the coal skink.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the coal skink.

Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Timber rattlesnakes communally den in winter in rock outcrops or cliff bases, often on southern exposures. During warm months they typically bask in sunny locations until they reach optimal body temperature and will ambush hunt in areas used by small mammals. Female snakes typically take several years before becoming sexually mature and do not reproduce every year. Juvenile mortality tends to be high. Due to their venomous nature, rattlesnakes are often killed when encountered by humans. Natural predators include raptors, bobcats, and king snakes. In recent years, an apparently increasing number of rattlesnakes in the eastern United States have been infected by snake fungal disease, caused primarily by the fungus Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola. Declining numbers or rattlesnakes have been observed in some areas, likely due to a combination of human intolerance, urban development, and disease-caused mortality.

180 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the timber rattlesnake because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with proposed units. Though direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. These activities would not occur in rocky slopes. If such habitat occurred in proximity to proposed activity areas, rocky slopes, boulderfields, and water sources would be buffered from activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently, harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of timber rattlesnake habitat. Dormant season burns may cause direct mortality if individuals are unable to escape the flames, but prescribed fire would have no effect on the availability of habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact timber rattlesnake because it would be unlikely that a snake would be directly sprayed or ingest enough mammalian prey to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the timber rattlesnake resulting from the no action alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on the timber rattlesnake as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the timber rattlesnake.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the timber rattlesnake.

Appalachian Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii altus) Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact the Appalachian Bewick’s wren, because no action would be taken.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Two-age and thinning prescriptions may impact individuals if the unit is adjacent to an opening and the harvest activities are implemented during the breeding season by potentially disrupting the breeding process and decrease nesting success if pairs occur in those particular activity areas. However, these activities would also create more available edge habitat for this species at elevations over 4000 feet. There is potential habitat in the form of roads and wildlife openings adjacent to some of the timber harvests and within the prescribed burn units. Dormant season burns would coincide with the beginning of the breeding season. Thus, prescribed fire may directly impact individuals, but the burns would not decrease the availability of habitat and would likely enhance it. Directed herbicide treatment would not have any direct effects on the wren. If NNIP are treated in areas with Appalachian Bewick’s wren habitat, it would be highly unlikely that a wren would consume enough insects that were exposed to the herbicide to experience an adverse effect.

181 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative C and Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the Appalachian Bewick’s wren would be the same as described for Alternatives B and Alternative B - Modified.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on Appalachian Bewick’s wren as a result of this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire would have similar effects to the equivalent proposed actions in this alternative. Cumulatively, these actions would contribute to an increase of early successional habitat via two-age harvest and prescribed burning. Overall, cumulative impacts from the proposed action may be beneficial for potential wren habitat. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting the Appalachian Bewick’s wren.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Appalachian Bewick’s wren.

Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) and Black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the hermit thrush or black-billed cuckoo because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Habitat is present within in the proposed treatment areas. These birds would not be found in the wildlife analysis area outside the breeding season from April to August, so timber harvest occurring from August through March and dormant season burns would be unlikely to harm mobile adults and would not harm young as adults would not be nesting until May. Hermit thrushes prefer to nest low to the ground in areas with dense understory for protection from predators. Suitable nesting habitat would regenerate within five years post-harvest in the two-age units. Prescribed fire would enhance potential habitat. The first year post-fire, some understory vegetation would be removed in burned areas. However, in following years it would be denser. Directed herbicide use for NNIP and stump sprouts of undesirable tree species in harvest units is not likely to impact these birds.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the these birds would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified except additional acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the these birds would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified except fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the hermit thrush resulting from this alternative.

182 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Proposed activities would likely have a positive cumulative effect on these birds. Harvest and burning may enhance habitat that exists within the wildlife analysis.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the hermit thrush because existing conditions would not change.

Cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea) Cerulean warblers are found in mature hardwood forests, but are only present during breeding season. The breeding season for the cerulean warbler spans from late April to the end of the July, with individuals arriving at territories as early as March and departing as late as September.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the cerulean warbler because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: There is one element occurrence for cerulean warblers in the project activity area near unit 112/2. Since the known location for cerulean warbler was outside a proposed unit and mature forest habitat is not limited in the analysis area, there would be no effects from these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects resulting from this alternative.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the cerulean warbler because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives would not have any direct or indirect effects on the cerulean warbler.

Golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) Golden-winged warblers may occur in old fields and early successional hardwoods within the proposed treatment units and burn units above 3,500 feet in elevation. There is an element occurrence record for golden-winged warbler in Compartment 106 which is, at most, 0.75 miles from any of the proposed units within this compartment. Additionally, many units within the analysis area are within or very close to 5 miles from the known golden-winged warbler cluster in Rainbow Springs.

183 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the golden-winged warbler because existing conditions would not change except where brushy habitat is lost due to existing suitable habitat at or above 3,500 feet in elevation maturing out of the conditions needed for golden-winged warbler nesting and foraging.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C: Two-age timber harvest may open up shaded areas to the sun, increasing shrubby habitat and potentially making the treated areas temporarily suitable for the golden-winged warbler.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C: These alternatives would be beneficial to the golden- winged warbler.

Alternative D: Units in Compartments 104, 108, 110, 111, and 113 (totaling 373 acres of two- age treatments) are approximately five miles or less from the known golden-winged warbler cluster in the Rainbow Springs area. This species typically uses early successional habitat within approximately 5 miles of occupied territorial clusters. Two-age cuts are typically begin being used for breeding habitat one to two years post-harvest, and this warbler will use these areas for several years as vegetation matures and until the canopy closes. If these units are not cut, additional suitable habitat for this species would not be created.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the golden- winged warbler because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, and C: These alternatives would be beneficial to the golden- winged warbler.

Alternative D: This alternative would be beneficial to the golden-winged warbler, but to a lesser extent than alternative B, alternative B – Modified, and alternative C.

Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis) The northern bush katydid lives in tree tops along forest edges in oak-hickory forest types. The northern bush katydid is short-lived, and the adults die in the fall.

Direct and Indirect Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the northern bush katydid.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: There is potential habitat for the northern bush katydid within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If populations occur within the proposed units, timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing and indirectly reduce suitable habitat. However, mature oak, hickory, and maple forest is widespread throughout the wildlife analysis area, and the proposed activities would be affecting only a minor portion of potential habitat. Two-age cuts are designed to regenerate oak stands and impacts from these cuts are temporary and short-term in duration. Dormant season burns would be

184 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

unlikely to directly impact adult katydids. Dormant eggs, however, depending on where they were laid, may be exposed to and consumed by fire. Prescribed burning would not affect the availability of habitat as these burns are not stand replacing fires nor do they cause excessive loss of mature oak and hickory trees. Herbicide use would be a directed spray to clump sprouts of undesirable species and to NNIP. The northern bush katydid lives in tree tops and would be unlikely to come into contact with the herbicide treated plants.

Alternative C and Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the northern bush katydid would be the same as described for Alternative B and Alternative B - Modified.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the northern bush katydid resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past harvest and prescribed fire would have similar effects to the equivalent proposed actions in this alternative. Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C would convert 845 acres, 770 acres, 953 acres, and 497 acres, respectively, of the wildlife analysis area to new early successional habitat (0-10 years old). The remainder of the analysis area would be mid successional and mature forested stands that would be potentially suitable for the northern bush katydid. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting northern bush katydid in the analysis area.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the northern bush katydid.

Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) Diana fritillaries inhabit edges and openings in moist, rich mountain forests. This butterfly species is active during the spring as the caterpillars emerge from overwintering and the butterfly’s flight period is June to September.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Diana fritillary.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: There are no known records of Diana fritillaries within the project area, and site surveys did not find the species. However, habitat exists in the project area and if individuals were to occur in treatment areas, harvest activities may cause direct mortality through crushing. However, the proposed harvest methods may create more forest edge for Diana fritillary breeding habitat. Removing competing shrubs and trees could increase solar exposure and thus increase the nutrient availability to herbaceous nectar sources for the butterfly. Timber harvest and temporary road construction is not likely to have a measurable effect on the Diana fritillary due to the small scale of the proposed activities and lack of adverse effects on habitat. If Diana fritillaries occur in the burn units, individuals may be caught in the fire; however, dormant season burning would not occur while adult butterflies are present and is

185 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

unlikely to occur while larvae are still above ground. Prescribed fire would not affect the availability of habitat and may increase nectar sources for adult fritillaries. Herbicide use is directed foliar spray which would be unlikely to impact an insect and is not associated with Diana fritillary food or nectar plants.

Alternative C and Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the Diana fritillary would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the Diana fritillary resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural prescriptions and prescribed burning would have similar effects to the proposed harvest and burning. Cumulatively, these actions would maintain current habitat, lead to new early successional habitat and more edge habitat potentially benefitting Diana fritillary. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting Diana fritillary in the analysis area.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Diana fritillary.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest of the Diana fritillary.

Golden-banded skipper (Autochton cellus), Dusky azure (Celastrina nigra), Gorgone checkerspot (Chlosyne gorgone), Mottled duskywing (Erynnis martialis), Tawny crescent (Phyciodes batesii maconensis), Gray comma (Polygonia progne), Hickory hairstreak (Satyrium caryaevorus), Edward’s hairstreak (Satyrium edwardsii), a noctuid moth (Melanapamea mixta) The Golden banded skipper is found in openings of moist woods, along creeks, near ravines, and at other sites near water sources that are forested. This species can often be found in rich woods with sunlit places along creeks and dirt roads. Golden banded skippers have two broods, the first from late April into June and the second from July into August. The host plant, hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata) is common across the forest.

Dusky azures are found in shaded areas of rich hardwood forests, mostly on north-facing aspects. This species can often be found along logging roads, dirt roads, or wide trails. The dusky azure has one brood at the end of March to mid-May or late May at high elevations. There is one element occurrence record for dusky azure in unit 112/4.

The Gorgone checkerspot has a short flight period that lasts a few weeks in May. It has been found to have three broods with a flight period into September in Georgia, but that has never been observed in North Carolina. This checkerspot can be found along wooded borders, logging roads, and powerline corridors, always in dry situations. These different open, dry habitats are not limited across the forest. The host plants include sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites which are also not limited across the forest.

186 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

The Mottled duskywing is seldom found far from its host plant, New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) and can be found at the margins of upland hardwoods or open dry woods, along dirt roads or drier areas in powerline corridors. This butterfly has two broods, the first flight period lasting from mainly April into May and the second late June into July.

Tawny crescents are mostly found above 3500 feet in openings such as rocky ridges or dry, open road banks through forests. These butterflies typically inhabit small openings and are associated with asters. There is a single brood with the flight period lasting from early May to early July. There is one element occurrence record for Appalachian tawny crescent near proposed unit 112/2.

Gray commas are found in rich deciduous forest in association with their host plant gooseberries (Ribes). There are likely two broods, one from June to August and the other in the fall and overwintering.

The Hickory hairstreak is associated with their host plant, hickories. They are found along the edges of hardwood forests or along roads and trails within hardwood forests. A single brood flies from late June to late July.

The Edward’s hairstreak is found in scrubby or xeric oak woods, but its range and habitat requirements in the southeast are less well known.

The noctuid moth, Melanapamea mixta, is found in savannas and wet meadows.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have direct or indirect effects on these butterflies because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Timber harvest will likely not impact streamsides occupied by golden-banded skippers since they will be buffered based on BMP’s and Forest Standards and Guides. Several of these butterflies, including the dusky azure, show an affinity to logging roads, dirt trails, and sunny patches because their host plants may grow back in these areas post- harvest or they thrive in sunnier and drier habitat types. Two-age cuts may impact individual butterflies through crushing. Two-age timber harvest may open up shaded areas to the sun, potentially making the treated areas more suitable for the dusky azure and other species, but these effects would be temporary. These proposed actions would not measurably decrease the availability of habitat adjacent to treatments or throughout the wildlife analysis area. Dormant season burning from October 15 to April 15 is unlikely to impact the flight period for most of these butterflies, although it does overlap with the beginning of the first flight period for the mottled duskywing. Overwintering eggs, larva, pupa, or adults may be consumed in the fire during prescribed burning if present in burn units and in locations vulnerable to fire.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on these butterflies would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified except 83 additional acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

187 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on these butterflies would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified except 373 fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the dusky azure resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past harvest and burning would have had similar effects to the proposed harvest and prescribed fire. These actions may cumulatively enhance the habitat used by these butterfly species that exists within burn units or harvest units.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on these butterfly species.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives may improve habitat, but also impact individuals. This is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for these butterflies.

Serrulate melanoplus (Melanoplus serrulatus) The serrulate melanoplus grasshopper is found in valleys and lower slopes in the Nantahala Mountains (LeGrand et al. 2012).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the serrulate melanoplus, because no action would be taken.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Specific habitat preferences for this species are undefined. Generally speaking, there is potential habitat for the serrulate melanoplus within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If populations occur within the units, timber harvest and temporary road construction activities could cause direct mortality through crushing and indirectly reduce suitable habitat. However, habitat is widespread throughout the wildlife analysis area and the proposed activities would be affecting only a minor portion of potential habitat. Dormant season burns would be unlikely to directly impact adult grasshoppers. Dormant eggs, however, depending on where they were laid may be exposed to and consumed by fire. Prescribed burning would not affect the availability of habitat as these burns are not stand replacing fires nor do they cause excessive loss of potential habitat. Herbicide use would be a directed spray to clump sprouts of undesirable species and to NNIP. The serrulate melanoplus would be unlikely to come into contact with enough herbicide treated plants to cause adverse effects.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the serrulate melanoplus would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified except additional acres would be affected by two- age regeneration treatments. Alternatives B, B – Modified, or C would not have measurable impacts to the serrulate melanoplus.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the serrulate melanoplus would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified except fewer acres would be affected by two-age

188 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

regeneration treatments. Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, or D would not have measurable impacts to the serrulate melanoplus.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the serrulate melanoplus resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past harvest and prescribed fire would have similar effects to the equivalent proposed actions in this alternative. Alternatives B, B – Modified, and C would convert 845 acres, 770 acres, 953 acres and 497 acres, respectively, of the wildlife analysis area to new early successional habitat (0-10 years). The remainder of the analysis area would be mid successional and mature forested stands that would be potentially suitable for the serrulate melanoplus. There are no other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting serrulate melanoplus.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the serrulate melanoplus.

Southern Water Shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus) The southern water shrew is found by mountain streams in areas with dense cover such as rhododendron thickets.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on southern water shrew.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The southern water shrew is unlikely to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed activities. The implementation of LRMP standards and guidelines for timber harvest requiring a 100 foot buffer around perennial streams and 50 feet around intermittent streams unless specified down to a 30 feet by a qualified biologist greatly reduces the risk of impacts. There is some potential for direct impacts from silvicultural activities as some shrews have been recorded as traveling more than 300 feet from streams. However, by implementing the LRMP, timber harvest would not affect habitat availability around streams.

There is a possibility that individuals may be harmed or disturbed by prescribed burning, but the low fire intensity would not reduce the availability of habitat because flames do not carry well in rhododendron thickets.

Temporary road construction and thinning would not measurably affect the southern water shrew as these activities are not located within southern water shrew habitat. Directed herbicide spraying on undesirable tree species in the two-age units and on NNIP would not have an impact on shrews as it would be unlikely that an applicator would spray an animal or that a shrew would consume enough prey that were exposed to experience an adverse effect.

189 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the southern water shrew resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Past harvest and burning would have been unlikely to impact the availability of southern water shrew habitat. No adverse cumulative effects on the shrew would result from this alternative.

Alternative C and Alternative D: No adverse cumulative effects on the shrew would result from this alternative. Cumulative effects from these alternatives would be the same as those described for harvest activities in Alternatives B and B - Modified.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the southern water shrew.

Southern rock shrew (Sorex dispar blitchi) Southern rock shrews occupy rocky outcrops, boulderfields, and talus slopes, as well as high elevation mountain streams. This species tends to stay under rocks and deep leaf litter most of the time.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on southern rock shrew.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: The southern rock shrew is unlikely to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed activities. The rocky outcrops and talus slope used by this species are excluded from silvicultural activities. Also, the implementation of LRMP standards and guidelines for timber harvest requiring a 100 foot buffer around perennial streams and 50 feet around intermittent streams unless specified down to a 30 feet by a qualified biologist greatly reduces the risk of impacts along streams. However, by implementing the LRMP, timber harvest would not affect habitat availability around streams.

Temporary road construction and thinning would not measurably affect the southern rock shrew as these activities are not located within southern rock shrew habitat. Directed herbicide spraying on undesirable tree species in the two-age units and on NNIP would not have an impact on shrews as it would be unlikely that an applicator would spray an animal or that a shrew would consume enough prey that were exposed to experience an adverse effect.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the southern rock shrew resulting from this alternative.

190 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Past harvest and burning would have been unlikely to impact the availability of southern rock shrew habitat. No adverse cumulative effects on the shrew would result from this alternative.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the southern rock shrew.

Least weasel (Mustela nivalis) Least weasels occur in a variety of habitats but prefer fields, brushy areas and woodland edges. Habitat preference coincides with places where their primary prey would be most abundant and ranging from higher elevations to records as low as 1600 feet elevation (NCDPR 2014, Lee et al. 1982). There have been 20 sightings of least weasel in North Carolina and sightings have declined over the last several years likely due to increased predation (NCDPR 2014). There is one historic record from Balsam Gap in Jackson County (Pittillo 1994). Due to low relative abundance in the state it is unlikely that least weasels inhabit the units.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the least weasel because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: If present within the proposed units timber harvest may cause direct impact through crushing, if the animals were in their burrows. Overall, timber harvest prescriptions for two-age treatments would increase habitat availability for the least weasel, by creating early successional habitat and edge which would provide preferred habitat and would bring in prey species. Prescribed fire may affect least weasel individuals if caught above ground. Dormant season burns do not usually burn underground and would be unlikely to affect least weasel individuals in their burrows. Fire may increase prey abundance with the flush of new growth that comes after. Spraying of NNIP would not affect least weasels because they do not consume plants and their prey (small mammals such as mice and moles) (NCDPR 2014) would not consume enough plant material to harm the weasel.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the least weasel would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except additional acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the least weasel would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

191 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the least weasel resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the least weasel similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative. The proposed harvest may cumulatively contribute to suitable denning and hunting areas by creating successional and edge habitat.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the least weasel.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D D: These alternatives may impact individuals but are not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the least weasel.

Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) The little brown bat has suffered steep declines in recent years due to white-nose syndrome similar to other species of cave-hibernating bats species in eastern North America. During the summer, they roost in human structures, and less frequently, hollow trees. Winter hibernacula are caves with appropriate microclimates. As with other bats, they forage in areas with less canopy cover and along riparian areas and lake edges.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the little brown bat because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Effects to little brown bats from silvicultural treatments would be most likely from direct impacts in the form of crushing from temporary road construction, logging equipment and the skidding of trees if harvest occurs during the summer months. Prescribed burning is unlikely to cause direct or indirect effects on the bat. Burns are conducted in the dormant season while the little brown bat is in hibernacula. Spraying of NNIP would not affect little brown bats because they do not consume plants and their prey (insects) (NatureServe Explorer 2017) would not consume enough plant material to harm the bat.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the little brown bat would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the little brown bat would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the little brown bat resulting from this alternative.

192 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the little brown bat similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative. The proposed harvest may cumulatively contribute to suitable foraging habitat through creating early successional and edge habitat.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the little brown bat.

Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) The eastern spotted skunk occupies closed canopy forest and open areas and is primarily nocturnal. Populations are small and disjunct, even in apparently suitable habitat. Feeds on a variety of fruits, small mammals, and arthropods (NatureServe Explorer 2017).

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the eastern spotted skunk because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: Effects to eastern spotted skunk from silvicultural treatments would be most likely from direct impacts in the form of crushing from temporary road construction, logging equipment and the skidding of trees. However, when dormant, this species is likely to be in underground burrows, rock crevices, fallen logs, or hollow trees and relatively safe from proposed silvicultural activities. Prescribed burning may cause direct effects on the eastern spotted skunk if individuals are inside hollow logs or snags that are consumed by the fire, but may indirectly benefit spotted skunks by stimulating berry and insect production. Spraying of NNIP would not affect eastern spotted skunk because they consume fruits, but do not consume leafy parts of plants and their prey (adult and larval insects and small mammals) (NatureServe Explorer 2017) would not consume enough plant material to harm the skunk.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on the eastern spotted skunk would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except additional acres would be affected by two- age regeneration treatments.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on the eastern spotted skunk would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the eastern spotted skunk resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the eastern spotted skunk similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this

193 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

alternative. The proposed harvest may cumulatively contribute to suitable foraging habitat through creating early successional and edge habitat.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the eastern spotted skunk.

Appalachian cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus obscurus) The Appalachian cottontail occurs in the dense cover of montane woods and thickets, particularly in dense stands of Vaccinium spp. or Kalmia latifolia.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Appalachian cottontail because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Two-age cuts and prescribed burning would likely create dense, temporary early successional habitat, which would be beneficial to Appalachian cottontails.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the Appalachian cottontail resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the Appalachian cottontail similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative. The proposed harvest may cumulatively contribute to suitable foraging and escape cover areas through creating dense thickets and edge habitat.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Appalachian cottontail.

Dark glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana), pink glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia), blue-footed lancetooth (Haplotrema kendeighi, open supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris), dwarf proud globe (Patera clarki clarki), oar tooth bud (Pilsbryna nodopalma), Appalachian gloss (Zonitoides patuloides), and Ribbed striate (Striatura exigua) Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on these terrestrial gastropods because existing conditions would not change.

Alternatives B and B - Modified: If present, timber harvest may cause direct impact through crushing. Indirectly, two-age silvicultural treatments would reduce/remove canopy cover leading

194 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

direct sunlight reaching the forest floor, causing higher temperatures and drier conditions. Effects would be temporary and though it may become temporarily unsuitable for snails, regeneration would restore conditions to their previous state. The thinning units would not cause as much impact. Some overstory would remain intact within these units to provide shade and necessary microclimatic conditions, though potential direct impacts from crushing still exist. Recommendations are to leave large woody debris in the stand for refugia post-harvest. Prescribed fire may affect individuals. Large woody debris is unlikely to be fully consumed, however leaf litter would be reduced/removed and snails may be caught by the flames. To prevent species decline, a no less than five year burn rotation is encouraged (Page et al. (2000) and Agee (2001).

Spraying of NNIP would not affect these terrestrial gastropods as their habitat and food base are not the target of spraying nor would they ingest enough plant material that may have been accidentally sprayed to receive any ill effects.

Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects on these terrestrial gastropods would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except additional acres would be affected by two- age regeneration treatments.

Alternative D: Direct and indirect effects on these terrestrial gastropods would be the same as described for Alternatives B and B - Modified, except fewer acres would be affected by two-age regeneration treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on these terrestrial gastropods. In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on these species resulting from this alternative.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: Past silvicultural activities and prescribed fire within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on these terrestrial gastropods similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Thus, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of this alternative.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on these terrestrial gastropods.

Alternatives B, B - Modified, C, and D: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not be likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for these terrestrial gastropods.

195 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Table 3.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) No Effects May impact individuals* Southern Appalachian salamander No Effects May impact individuals* (Plethodon teyahalee) Mole salamander No Effects May impact individuals* (Ambystoma talpoideum) Four-toed salamander No Effects May impact individuals* (Hemidactylium scutatum) Longtail salamander No Effects May impact individuals* (Eurycea longicauda) Dwarf black-bellied salamander No Effects May impact individuals* (Desmognathus folkertsi) Southern pygmy salamander No Effects May impact individuals* (Desmognathus wrighti) Mountain chorus frog No Effects May impact individuals* (Pseudacris brachyphona) Coal skink No Effects May impact individuals* (Eumeces anthracinus) Timber rattlesnake No Effects May impact individuals* (Crotalus horridus) Appalachian Bewick’s Wren No Effects May impact individuals* (Thryomanes bewickii altus) Hermit thrush No Effects May impact individuals* (Catharus guttatus) Black-billed cuckoo No Effects May impact individuals* (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Cerulean warbler No Effects May impact individuals* (Setophaga cerulea) Golden-winged warbler No Effects May impact individuals* (Vermivora chrysoptera) Northern bush katydid No Effects May impact individuals* (Scudderia septentrionalis) Diana fritillary No Effects May impact individuals* (Speyeria diana) Golden-banded skipper No Effects May impact individuals* (Autochton cellus) Dusky azure No Effects May impact individuals* (Celastrina nigra) Gorgone checkerspot No Effects May impact individuals* (Chlosyne gorgone) Mottled duskywing No Effects May impact individuals* (Erynnis martialis) Tawny crescent (Phyciodes batesii maconensis) No Effects May impact individuals*

196 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Alternative A Alternatives B, B – Modified, C, and D Gray comma No Effects May impact individuals* (Polygonia progne) Hickory hairstreak No Effects May impact individuals* (Satyrium caryaevorus) Edwards’s hairstreak No Effects May impact individuals* (Satyrium edwardsii) a noctuid moth No Effects May impact individuals* (Melanapamea mixta) Serrulate melanoplus No Effects May impact individuals* (Melanoplus serrulatus) Southern rock vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus No Effects May impact individuals* carolinensis) Southern water shrew No Effects May impact individuals* (Sorex palustris punctulatus) Southern rock shrew No Effects May impact individuals* (Sorex dispar blitchi) Least weasel No Effects May impact individuals* (Mustela nivalis) Little brown bat No Effects May impact individuals* (Myotis lucifugus) Eastern spotted skunk No Effects May impact individuals* (Spilogale putorious) Appalachian cottontail rabbit No Effects May impact individuals* (Sylvilagus obscurus) Dark glyph No Effects May impact individuals* (Glyphyalinia junaluskana) Pink glyph No Effects May impact individuals* (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia) Blue-footed lancetooth No Effects May impact individuals* (Haplotrema kendeighi) Open supercoil No Effects May impact individuals* (Paravitrea umbilicaris) Dwarf proud globe No Effects May impact individuals* (Patera clarki clarki) Oar tooth bud No Effects May impact individuals* (Pilsbryna nodopalma) Appalachian Gloss No Effects May impact individuals* (Zonitoides patuloides) *May impact individuals but would not be likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest.

197 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

5.0 PREPARERS

Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Matt Bushman, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Johnny Wills, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest

/s/

Botanist/Ecologist Nantahala National Forest

198 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

6.0 REFERENCES and DATA SOURCES

Aquatic Berner, L. and R.K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Seratella (Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44:149-158.

Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pages.

Clinton, B.D. 2011. Stream water responses to timber harvest: Riparian buffer width effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management. 261: 979-988.

Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface types in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27: 100-106.

Clinton, B.D., J.M. Vose, and D.L. Fowler. 2010. Flat Branch monitoring project: Stream water temperature and sediment responses to forest cutting in the riparian zone. Res. Pap. SRS–51. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p.

Cooper, J.E. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22: 87 – 132.

Dillon, R.T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interrupta (Hald.) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission contract No. 92-Snai-01. 20 pages.

Dodd, B.N. and D. Jones. 2013. 2013 Forestry best management practices monitoring. USDA, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 17 pp.

Dodd, B.N. and D. Jones. 2018. Two decades of forestry best management practices monitoring. USDA, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 22 pp.

Durkin, P.R. 2003a. Glyphosate – Human health and ecological risk assessment-final report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a.

Durkin, P.R. 2003b. Triclopyr – Revised human health and ecological risk assessments-final reports. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b.

Durkin, P.R. 2004. Imazapic – Human health and ecological risk assessment – final report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b.

Georgian, T.J. and J.B. Wallace. 1993. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild or periphyton- grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236-1248.

Grace, J.M., III. 2002. Effectiveness of vegetation in erosion control from forest road sideslopes. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 45(3): 681-685.

199 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of Herpetology 5(3-4):121-126.

Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Number 480. 236 pp.

Humphries, W.J. and T.K. Pauley. 2005. Life history of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, in a West Virginia Stream. American Midland Naturalist. 154: 135 – 142.

Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional structure. Aquatic Insects 9:229-251.

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages.

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97-CCS-230.

NatureServe. 2015. Online database: http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?post_processes=PostReset&loadTemplate=n ameSearchSpecies.wmt&Type=Reset . Accessed March 30, 2017.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2015. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Basinwide Assessment Reports. http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-homepage/reports-publications-data

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2018. “Benthos Site Details” https://www.ncwater.org/?page=672&SiteID=GB042. Accessed September 6, 2018.

Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to mollusca. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages.

Roghair, C., C. Krause, and C.A. Dolloff. 2017. Post-fire Inventory of Instream Large Wood in an Old Growth Watershed, Little Santeetlah River, Nantahala National Forest, NC. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Blacksburg, Virginia. 16 pp.

200 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Simmons, J.W. and S.J. Fraley. 2010. Distribution, status, and life-history observations of crayfishes in western North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist. 9: 79-126.

Swank, W.T., J.M. Vose, and K.J. Elliott. 2001. Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143: 163-178.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest road design to minimize erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of forestry and water quality: a mid-south symposium. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas. 141-151.

Swift Jr., L.W. 1986. Filter strip widths for forest roads in the southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 10: 27-34.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Management indicator species habitat and population trends - Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Draft internal document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. 817+ pp.

Wagner, P.F. 2001. Legacies of early 20th century logging in Southern Appalachian streams. Ph.D. dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, Virginia. 198 pp.

Warrington, B.M., W.M. Aust, S.M. Barrett, W.M. Ford, C.A. Dolloff, E.B. Schilling, T.B. Wigley, and M.C. Bolding. 2017. Forestry best management practices relationships with aquatic and riparian fauna: A review. Forests. 8: 331. 16 pp.

Williams, G. G. 1996. A watershed approach to assessing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) distribution and ecological health in the Hiwassee watershed. Tennessee Valley Authority. Hiwassee River Action Team. Norris, Tennessee.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages.

Botanical

Brumback, W.E., S. Cairns, M.B. Sperduto, and C.W. Fyler. 2011. Response of an Isotria medeoloides population to canopy thinning. Northeastern Naturalist 18: 185-196.

Flora of North America (FNA). 2017 and 2018. Available at www.eFloras.org.

Goff, F.G., G.A. Dawson, and J.J. Rochow. 1982. Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species. Environmental Management 6(4):307–316.

McCormick, M. K., D. F. Whigham, and J. P. O’Neill. 2014. Restore the Federally Threatened Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) in Three NPS Regions. Draft Final Report. Smithsonian Environment Research Center, Edgewater, MD.

201 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Whether Designation of Critical Habitat is Prudent for the Rock Gnome Lichen. Federal Register 66: 18062-18068.

Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic State. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Wildlife

Barr, T.C. 1962. The Genus Trechus (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechini) in the Southern Appalachians. The Coleopterists Society, 16(3):65-92

Beamer, D.A., & T. Lamb. 2010. Population status, distribution, and phylogeography of the seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) in North Carolina. Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Bess, J. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Stoneroot borer moth (Papaipema astuta Bird). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region non-publication, 30pp.

Best, T.L, & J.B. Jennings. 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian, 547:1-6

Bond, B.T et al. 2002. Short-term response of eastern cottontails to prescribed fire in east-central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies, 56:187- 197

Buehler, D.A. et al. 2013. Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/511doi:10.2173/bna.511

Cassola, F. 2016. Microtus chrotorrhinus. (errata version published in 2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T42626A115196387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T42626A22347708.en Confer, J.L. et al. 2011. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/020doi:10.2173/bna.20

202 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Connell, P.M. Species Profile – Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/anurans/psebra.htm

Partymiller, L. Species Profile – Loggerhead Musk Turtle (Sternotherus minor). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/turtles/stemin.htm

COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Barren Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 36pp. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/CW69-14-586-2010-eng.pdf

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/lizards/Eumant/Eum_ant.html

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/anurans/Psebra/Pse_bra.html

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Pygmy Salamander (Desmognathus wrighti). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_nc/salamanders/Deswri/Des_wri.html

Dourson, D. & J. Dourson. 2006. Land Snails of the Great Smoky Mountains (Eastern Region). Developed for Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center, Purchase Knob, Great Smoky Mountains National Park in cooperation with ATBI/Discover Life in America project. 60pp.

Ford, W.M. et al. 2010. Woodland salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management, 260:1003-1009.

Ford, W.M. et al. 1999. Effects of a community restoration fire on small mammals and herpetofauna in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management, 114:233-243.

Forrest, T.G. & T.K. Goodman. 2008. A survey of Scudderia septentrionalis in western North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science, 124(4):148-153.

Francl, K.E. & C.J. Small. 2013. Temporal changes and prescribed-fire effects on vegetation and small-mammal communities in central Appalachian forest, creek, and field habitats. Southeastern Naturalist, 12(1):11-26.

Gill, F.B. et al. 2001. Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/584doi:10.2173/bna.584

203 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Greenberg, C.H. & T.A. Waldrop. 2008. Short-term response of reptiles and amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 255:2883-2893

Hedin, M.C. 1997. Speciational history in a diverse clade of habitat-specialized spiders (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus): Inferences from geographic based sampling. Evolution, 51(6):1929-1945

Jordan, S.F. & Black, S.H. 2012. Effects of forest land management on terrestrial mollusks: a literature review. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation under an agreement with the Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management,87pp

LeGrand, H.E. 2013. Butterflies of North Carolina, Twentieth Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program non-publication.

LeGrand, H.E. et al. 2013. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina 2012, Revised February 27, 2013. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 160pp.

Morrison, B. Species Profile – Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/salamanders/eurlon.htm

Morrison, B. Species Profile – Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/pitmel.htm

Morse, A.P. 1904. New Acridiidae from the southeastern states. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 11(1):7-13.

Otte, D. 2002. Studies of Melanoplus. 1. Review of the Viridipes Group (Acrididae: Melanoplinae). Journal of Orthoptera Research, 11(2):91-118.

Roth, A.M., et al. 2012. Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 175pp

Russell, K.R. et al. 1999. Appalachian cottontails, Sylvilagus obscurus (Lagomorpha: Leporidae), from the South Carolina mountains with observations on habitat use. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 115(3): 140-144

Schweitzer, D.F. & J.C. Whittaker. 2000. Cicindela patruela. NatureServe Explorer Version 7.1. Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Schweitzer, D.F., et al. 2011. Rare, Declining, and Poorly Known Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera) of Forests and Woodlands in the Eastern United States. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 526pp.

204 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Sharpe, T. 1996. Wildlife Profiles –Appalachian Cottontail Rabbit. Division of Conservation Education, NC Wildlife Resources Commission

Taylor, D.A.R. 2006. Forest Management & Bats. Bat Conservation International.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; Listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024;4500030113], 78(191):61046-61080.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 1, 2010. 2pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated February 5, 2009. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 5, 2005. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 7, 2000. 93pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Amendment #25 to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Direction and Standards for the Protection of the Indiana Bat. Dated November 9, 2010. 16pp.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2013. Northern map turtle (Graptemys geographica). Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030065

205 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

7.0 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1a: Endangered, threatened, and sensitive aquatic species

Attachment 1a: Endangered, threatened, sensitive and forest concern aquatic species, Nantahala National Forest USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution

Endangered/ Bivalve Alasmidonta raveneliana Little Tennessee River drainage and Threatened Tuckaseegee River; Nolichucky River Bivalve Pegias fabula Lower Little Tennessee River; historic record from Valley River, Cherokee Co. Bivalve Villosa trabalis Hiwassee River, below Appalachia Dam Fish Erimonax monachus Little TN River; French Broad River system Sensitive Amphibian Cryptobranchus Rivers and large streams, TN and alleganiensis Savannah River systems Bivalve Alasmidonta viridis Lower Little TN River; Cheoah River Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Valley River. Bivalve Pleuronaia barnesiana Lower Little TN River and Hiwassee River Bivalve Pleuronaia oviforme Hiwassee River below Lake Chatuge and Little Tennessee River below Lake Emory Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Streams in Little TN River, Macon Co.

Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Streams in Hiwassee River drainage

Crustacean Cambarus chaugaensis Streams in Savannah River drainage, Jackson, Macon, and Transylvannia Co.; SC and GA Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Large streams and rivers, Little TN River system, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.; Cheoah River, Graham Fish Erimystax insignis Hiwassee River, Cherokee and Clay Co. eristigma

Fish Percina squamata Higher gradient upland rivers, Tennessee River system, Cherokee, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co. Freshwater Elimia christyi Hiwassee River and tributaries Gastropod (Cherokee County)

206 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Forest Amphibian Necturus maculosus Wayah Cr, Cullasaja R. - Macon, Fires Concern Creek - Clay Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Cherokee, Swain Co.; New River; Macon, Swain Bivalve Fusconaia subrotunda Cherokee, Clay Counties, Macon, and Swain Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Cheoah River, Little TN, French Broad and Pigeon Rivers, historic records ; Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Jackson, Macon, Swain Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis Hiwassee River system, Cherokee and Clay Co.; French Broad River system Bivalve Villosa iris Cheoah River, Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Martin and Brasstown Crks; French Broad R.; Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Jackson, Macon, Swain Caddisfly Brachycentrus etowahensis Hiwassee Lake in Murphy Caddisfly Hydropsyche carolina Cullasaja River Caddisfly Oropsyche howellae Wolf Cr below Wolf Creek Dam; headwaters of Ball Creek (Coweeta); Robin Br (Jarrett Cr headwaters) Caddisfly Rhyacophila appalachia Slow Cr (near Peachtree); Tessentee Cr Crustacean Cambarus acanthura Wetlands along Hiwassee River

Crustacean Cambarus bromleyorum Valley River

Crustacean Cambarus nodosus Headwaters of Savannah and Hiwassee Rivers; wetlands and bogs Crustacean Cambarus reburrus Upper Tuckasegee River watershed

Crustacean Cambarus tuckasegee Streams in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson and Macon Counties Crustacean Skistodiaptomus Lake Ravenel, Macon Co. carolinensis Damselfly Boyeria grafiana Covefield Br (Clear Cr – Macon County) Dragonfly Ladona julia Bogs and marshes in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County Dragonfly Macromia margarita Cullasaja River (Highlands)

Dragonfly Ophiogomphus mainensis Tuckasegee River (Dillsboro)

207 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Fish Clinostomus funduloides Little TN River drainage and Hiwassee sp. 1 River watershed; Cherokee, Clay,Graham, Jackson, Macon, and Swain Co. Fish Etheostoma inscriptum Large streams in Savannah River system; Jackson and Macon Counties Fish Ichthyomyzon bdellium Hiwassee River (reported extirpated) Fish Lethenteron appendix Hiwassee River Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Reported in Little TN River system and Hiwassee River watershed; Cherokee, Clay, Macon, Swain, Jackson Co.; Cane River system Fish Moxostoma breviceps Cherokee, Jackson, Macon and Swain Counties Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 Little TN and Hiwassee River drainages – Cherokee, Clay, Jackson, Macon, Swain Fish Notropis micropteryx Cheerokee, Jackson, Macon and Swain County Fish Notropis lutipinnis Savannah and Little TN River systems, Jackson and Transylvannia Co.; Broad River system Fish Notropis volucellus Tuckasegee River; Jackson, Macon, Swain Counties Fish Noturus flavus Warmwater streams and rivers, Little TN River drainage, Macon and Swain Co.; Nolichucky and French Broad River systems Fish Percina nigrofasciata Hiwassee River Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County Mayfly Baetopus trishae Panthertown Cr Mayfly Cerobrachys etowah Vengeance Cr near Valley River Stonefly Rasvena terna Tellico River, Peckerwood Cr

208 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Attachment 1b: Endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive aquatic species evaluated for the Buck Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring rare aquatic species from Clay County, NC. Potential occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat.

Type Name Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area Threatened and Endangered Species Mollusk Alasmidonta raveneliana Does not occur1 Mollusk Pegias fabula Does not occur1 Fish Erimonax monachus Does not occur1 Sensitive Species Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis May occur2 Crustacean Cambarus parrishi May occur2 Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Not likely to occur1 Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Not likely to occur1 Fish Percina squamata Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Alasmidonta viridis Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Pleuronaia oviforme Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Pleuronaia barnesiana Not likely to occur1 Fish Erimystax insignis Not likely to occur1 Forest Concern

Amphibian Necturus maculosus Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Fusconaia subrotunda Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Villosa iris Not likely to occur1 Caddisfly Rhyacophila appalachia Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Cambarus nodosus May occur2 Crustacean Cambarus acanthura Not likely to occur1 Damselfly Boyeria grafiana Not likely to occur1 Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 Not likely to occur1 Fish Ichthyomyzon bdellium Not likely to occur1 Fish Lethenteron appendix Not likely to occur1 Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Not likely to occur1 Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 Not likely to occur1 Fish Percina nigrofasciata Not likely to occur1

Notes:

1 = No suitable habitat present or vicinity records in the analysis area, but the species may be present in the county. 2 = Suitable habitat present, but no vicinity records. 3 = Vicinity records, in or downstream of the analysis area, but not necessarily in project area.

209 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Attachment 1c: Aquatic resources in the Little Tennessee River and Hiwassee River watersheds contained in the Buck Project area. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class B waters are suitable for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the “C” classification. Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are “unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses” (N.C. Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 2B.0303). The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications). Miles in Miles in Analysis Classification Stream Name Project Area Area Buck Creek1 0.2 2.7 C; Tr; ORW Little Buck Creek2 0.4 0.4 C; Tr; ORW Unnamed Tributary (UT) 1 Buck Creek 0.1 0.2 C; Tr; ORW UT 2 Buck Creek3 0.1 0.2 C; Tr; ORW UT 3 Buck Creek 0.2 0.5 C; Tr; ORW Hogan Cove - 1.3 C; ORW Black Branch 0.7 1.0 C; ORW Bullscrape Branch4 0.4 1.0 C; ORW Glade Branch 0.3 2.0 C; Tr; ORW Davenport Branch5 0.1 1.5 C; ORW Johnson Branch6 - 1.6 C; ORW Banards Creek 0.3 2.5 C; ORW Chestnut Branch 0.1 0.7 C; ORW Muskrat Branch7 0.6 4.1 C; Tr UT Muskrat Branch 0.4 1.1 C; Tr Jake Branch 0.4 1.2 C; Tr Thumping Creek 0.2 2.7 C; Tr Ledford Creek 0.1 2.8 C; Tr UT Ledford Creek - 1.2 C; Tr Dave Barrett Creek 0.2 2.7 C; Tr Sugar Cove 0.5 1.0 C; Tr Vineyard Creek8 0.4 2.8 C; Tr UT Vineyard Creek 0.2 0.5 C; Tr Jackie Cove9 0.3 1.3 C; Tr UT Jackie Cove10 0.3 0.3 C; Tr UT Thompson Creek 0.2 1.5 C UT 2 Ledford Creek 0.2 0.5 C; Tr Shooting Creek - 2.3 C; Tr Eagle Fork Creek - 1.5 C; Tr

210 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

1. Buck Creek at the proposed in-stream structure location is a large stream channel adjacent to FSR 71. The close proximity of the road has created unstable banks. (N35.06472 W83.59629)

2. Little Buck Creek near the proposed harvest location is a small B3 stream channel which provides habitat for wild Rainbow Trout. The average bankfull width of this stream is approximately 10 feet. The substrate consists of boulder (20%), cobble (40%), large gravel (20%), small gravel (10%), sand (5%), and silt (5%). The understory vegetation is birch, red maple, and rhododendron. The overstory vegetation is white oak, yellow poplar, birch, hemlock, basswood, and silver bell. This stream received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”.

3. UT 2 Buck Creek near the proposed harvest location is a small B3 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 11 feet and provides habitat for wild Brook Trout. The substrate consists of boulder (20%), cobble (40%), large gravel (20%), small gravel (15%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is rhododendron and mountain laurel. The overstory vegetation is black birch, red oak, yellow poplar, river birch, red maple, and silver bell. This stream received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”. The existing culvert on FSR 71D is a moderate barrier to fish passage but Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout exist immediately below the crossing and Brook Trout are upstream of the crossing. If this crossing is replaced, it should be designed to prevent fish passage.

4. Bullscrape Branch near the proposed harvest unit is a small B3 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 9 feet. This stream may contain suitable habitat for fish but no data exist for the upper reach. The substrate consists of boulder (30%), cobble (40%), large gravel (15%), small gravel (10%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is rhododendron. The overstory vegetation is black birch, and yellow poplar. This channel received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”.

5. Davenport Branch near the proposed harvest Unit is a small class A3 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 10 feet (upstream of the road crossing). The substrate consists of boulder (5%), cobble (50%), large gravel (20%), small gravel (20%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is yellow poplar, birch, red maple, and rhododendron. The overstory vegetation is yellow poplar, red maple, and birch. This stream reach does not provide habitat for fish.

6. Johnson Branch near the proposed harvest unit is a small B2 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 12 feet. One Brook Trout, one Rainbow Trout, and several Mottled Sculpin were located within this reach in 2017. The substrate consists of bedrock (10%), boulder (40%), cobble (30%), large gravel (10%), small gravel (5%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is rhododendron. The overstory vegetation is basswood, black birch, and yellow poplar. This channel received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”. The existing culvert on FSR 6269 is likely a moderate barrier that limits encroachment of Rainbow Trout into the headwaters. If this crossing is replaced, it should prevent fish passage to protect the wild Brook Trout population upstream.

211 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

7. Muskrat Branch near the proposed harvest unit and the proposed road crossing location is a B2 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 25 feet. The substrate consists of boulder (50%), cobble (30%), large gravel (10%), small gravel (5%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is black birch, rhododendron, and hemlock. The overstory vegetation is red maple, black locust, black birch, and yellow poplar. This channel received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”.

8. Vineyard Creek near the proposed harvest unit and proposed road crossing is a B2 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 12 feet. The substrate consists of bedrock (5%), boulder (40%), cobble (30%), large gravel (10%), and small gravel (15). The understory vegetation is yellow poplar and rhododendron. The overstory vegetation is black locust, black birch, buckeye, and yellow poplar. This channel received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”.

9. Jackie Cove near the proposed harvest unit is an A1 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 6 feet. The substrate consists of bedrock (50%), boulder (10%), cobble (10%), large gravel (10%), small gravel (15%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is rhododendron, mountain laurel, red maple, and birch. The overstory vegetation is oak, black birch, American beech, and sourwood. This channel received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”.

10. UT Jackie Cove near the proposed harvest unit is a B2/A2 channel with a bankfull width of approximately 7 feet. This stream is intermittent at this location. The substrate consists of bedrock (5%), boulder (40%), cobble (20%), large gravel (10%), small gravel (20%), and sand (5%). The understory vegetation is mountain laurel, red maple, yellow poplar, and blackgum. The overstory vegetation is yellow poplar, red maple, birch, blackgum, and red oak. This channel received a Pfankuch stability rating of “Stable”.

212 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Attachment 2: Threatened, Endangered, Region 8 Sensitive, and Forest Concern plant species in Clay and Macon Counties, North Carolina.

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Vascular Abies fraseri Fraser Fir plant Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest Northern Hardwood Cove Forest, Boulderfield Aconitum Vascular Forest, High Elevation reclinatum Trailing Wolfsbane plant Sensitive Seep, Rich Cove Forest Acrobolbus Spruce-Fir Forest, Spray ciliatus A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cliff Rich Cove Forest, Vascular Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, Adlumia fungosa Climbing Fumitory plant concern Montane Calcareous Cliff Forest MP; in spray zones of Aneura maxima A Liverwort Liverwort concern waterfalls Anthoxanthum Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian hirtum Holy Grass plant concern Bog Arisaema Bog Jack-in-the- Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian stewardsonii Pulpit plant concern Bog Asplenium Vascular Forest pinnatifidum Lobed Spleenwort plant concern Montane Acidic Cliff Recurved thin soil on moist rock on Bellibarbula bryoerythrophyllum Forest bluff over or near recurva moss Moss concern waterfall Botrychium lanceolatum var. Lance-leaf Vascular Forest angustisegmentum Moonwort plant concern Rich Cove Forest Serpentine Forest, Brachyelytrum Vascular Forest Northern Hardwood aristosum Northern Shorthusk plant concern Forest, Rich Cove Forest Brachymenium Anderson's Melon- Forest Acidic Cove Forest, andersonii moss Moss concern Mixed hardwood-hemlock Brachymenium Mexican Melon- Forest Acidic Cove Forest, systylium moss Moss concern Mixed hardwood-hemlock Bryoxiphium Forest norvegicum Sword Moss Moss concern Spray Cliff, Gorge Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Buckleya Vascular Dry Slopes, Forests on distichophylla Piratebush plant Sensitive lower slope

213 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Calamagrostis canadensis var. Vascular Forest High Elevation Seep, canadensis Canada Reedgrass plant concern Grassy Bald Calamagrostis Serpentine Woodland, porteri ssp. Vascular Forest Montane Oak-Hickory porteri Porter's Reedgrass plant concern Forest Campanula Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian aparinoides Marsh Bellflower plant concern Bog, Wet Meadow crevices and seepage Campylopus zones on exposed granite, atrovirens var. Black Fish Hook Forest High elevation Granitic atrovirens Moss Moss concern Dome Boulderfield Forest, Northern Hardwood Cove Cardamine Mountain Vascular Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest, clematitis Bittercress plant Sensitive High Elevation Seep Montane Alluvial Forest, Carex Vascular Forest Roadside, Rich Cove cherokeensis Cherokee Sedge plant concern Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Carex Vascular Forest Oak-Hickory Forest, hitchcockiana Hitchcock's Sedge plant concern mafic rock Vascular Forest Carex oligocarpa Few-fruited Sedge plant concern Rich Cove Forest Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge plant concern Montane Alluvial Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Vascular Forest Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry- Carex woodii Wood's Sedge plant concern Mesic Oak Forest High Elevation Rocky Cephaloziella Summit, seeps on rock at spinicaulis A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive low elevation Forest High Elevation Rocky Cetraria arenaria Sea Storm Lichen Lichen concern Summit Acidic Cove, Oak-White Cheilolejeunea Pine Forest, Escarpement evansii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge Chelone Cuthbert's Vascular Southern Appalachian cuthbertii Turtlehead plant Sensitive Bog Corallorhiza Vascular Forest wisteriana Spring Coral-root plant concern Rich Cove forest

214 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Coreopsis grandiflora var. Large-flowered Vascular Forest granitic domes, rock grandiflora Tickseed plant concern outcrops Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff, Crocanthemum Vascular Forest High Elevation Granitic bicknellii Plains Sunrose plant concern Dome Glade, Southern Crocanthemum Vascular Forest Appalachian Fen, propinquum Creeping Sunrose plant concern Montane Acidic Cliff Cypripedium High Elevation Red Oak parviflorum var. Small Yellow Vascular Forest Forest, rich Northern parviflorum Lady's-slipper plant concern Hardwood Forest Vascular Forest High Elevation Granitic Danthonia epilis Bog Oatgrass plant concern Dome, Seep Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, glauca Tufted Hairgrass plant concern Serpentine Forest Vascular Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, Dicentra eximia Bleeding Heart plant concern Montane Mafic Cliff Dichanthelium Northern Witch Vascular Forest boreale Grass plant concern open moist woods Dichodontium Forest pellucidum A Moss Moss concern Spray Cliff Forest Dicranella varia Variable Fork Moss Moss concern Open wet calcareous rock Didymoglossum Vascular Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, petersii Dwarf Filmy-fern plant concern Grotto, Gorge Ditrichum Ambiguous Forest Acidic Cove Forest, High ambiguum Ditrichium Moss concern Elevation Red Oak sandy or clay soil, Ditrichum Forest clearings in woods, rocks rhynchostegium Golden Tread Moss Moss concern along streams Dodecatheon Montane Mafic Cliff, meadia var. Eastern Shooting Vascular Forest Montane Cedar- meadia Star plant concern Hardwood Forest Acidic Cove, Montane Oak-Hickory, Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Drepanolejeunea Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak appalachiana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Forest

215 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Elymus trachycaulus ssp. Vascular Forest trachycaulus Slender Wheatgrass plant concern Serpentine Woodland Encalypta Forest Moist Montane procera Extinguisher Moss Moss concern Calcareous Cliff Entodon Forest Moist Montane compressus Ftattened Entodon Moss concern Calcareous Cliff Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Entodon Forest Gorge, rock outcrop by sullivantii Sullivant's Entodon Moss concern stream in rich cove forest Ephebe A Fructicose Forest High Elevation Rocky americana Lichen Lichen concern Summit Epilobium Purpleleaf Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian ciliatum Willowherb plant concern Bog, Seep Northern Hardwood Euphorbia Vascular Forest, Rich Cove Forest, purpurea Glade Spurge plant Sensitive Mesic oak-hickory Queen-of-the- Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Filipendula rubra Prairie plant concern Bog, Wet Meadow Fissidens Appalachian Pocket appalachensis Moss Moss Sensitive High Elevation streams Fontanalis Forest sphagnifolia A Water Moss Moss concern rocks in flowing water Frasera Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic caroliniensis Columbo plant concern Oak-Hickory Forest Frullania appalachiana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest Frullania Forest oakesiana A Liverwort Liverwort concern Spruce-Fir Forest Balsam Mountain Vascular moist, often seeps, rocky Gentiana latidens Gentian plant Sensitive slopes at high elevation Gentianopsis Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, crinita Fringed Gentian plant concern Glade Vascular Forest Glyceria laxa Lax Mannagrass plant concern Seep High Elevation Rocky Summit, Moist Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove in Gorge, High Elevation Gymnoderma Rock Gnome Granitic Dome, Spruce- lineare Lichen Lichen Endangered Fir Forest

216 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Hackelia Vascular Forest Woods and thickets, virginiana Virginia Stickseed plant concern circumneutral soils Southern Appalachian Helenium Littleleaf Vascular Forest Bog, Wet Meadow, Seeps, brevifolium Sneezeweed plant concern Riverbanks On bark in humid older Heterodermia forests, possibly old appalachensis A Foliose Lichen Lichen Sensitive growth Heterodermia Hardwood Trees in high erecta A Centipede Lichen Lichen Sensitive elevation forests Rich Cove Forest, Glade, Hexalectris Vascular Forest Mesic Oak-Hickory, spicata Crested Coralroot plant concern mafic rock Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop Homalia Forest in Acidic Cove Forest in trichomanoides Lime Homalia Moss concern Gorge Huperzia Vascular Forest porophila Rock Fir Clubmoss plant concern Spray Cliff Hydrastis Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic canadensis Goldenseal plant concern Oak-Hickory, mafic rock trees and rocks in moist Hylocomiastrum Shaded Feather Forest forest, mainly Spruce-Fir umbratum Moss Moss concern Forest Hymenophyllum Vascular tayloriae Gorge Filmy Fern plant Sensitive Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge White Pine Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Isotria Small Whorled Vascular Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak medeoloides Pogonia plant Threatened Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Vascular Oak-Hickory, Montane Juglans cinerea Butternut plant Sensitive Alluvial Forest Juncus Vascular Forest low elevation Southern caesariensis Rough Rush plant concern Appalachian Bog Juniperus High Elevation Granitic communis var. Vascular Forest Dome, Low Elevation depressa Dwarf Juniper plant concern Rocky Summit Northern Hardwood & Spruce-Fir Forests, heath Lecanora masana Masa's Disc Lichen Lichen Sensitive balds

217 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Spray Cliff, streamside boulder by open forest or next to Acidic Cove in Lejeunea broader river such as blomquistii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Chattooga River Glade, Montane Oak Vascular Forest Woodland, Southern Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star plant concern Appalachian Fen Montane Mafic Cliff, Liatris Small-head Blazing Vascular Forest Glade, Montane Oak microcephala Star plant concern Woodland Liatris Vascular Forest Roadside, Pine-Oak squarrulosa Earle's Blazing Star plant concern Woodland High Elevation Granitic Shale-barren Vascular Dome, Montane Oak Liatris turgida Blazing Star plant Sensitive Woodland Vascular Forest Liparis loeselii Fen Orchid plant concern Seep, Roadside Lobaria Forest High Elevation Forest scrobiculata Textured Lungwort Lichen concern primarily Spruce-Fir Northern Hardwood Lonicera American Fly- Vascular Forest Forest, High Elevation canadensis honeysuckle plant concern Seep, Boulderfield Forest Lophocolea appalachiana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff Lophocolea Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic muricata A Liverwort Liverwort concern Cove Forest in Gorge Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, High Elevation Granitic, Rich Cove Forest, Roadside, Dry- Lysimachia Vascular Mesic Oak Forest, Rocky fraseri Fraser's Loosestrife plant Sensitive Bar and Shore Macrocoma Sullivant's Manned- Forest Montane Cedar Hardwood sullivantii moss Moss concern Forest Forest High Elevation Rocky Melanelia stygia A Foliose Lichen Lichen concern Summit Metzgeria Forest uncigera A Liverwort Liverwort concern Acidic Cove Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Montane Acidic Micranthes Vascular Cliff, High Elevation caroliniana Carolina Saxifrage plant Sensitive Rocky Summit

218 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Micropolypodium West Indian Dwarf Vascular nimbatum Polypody plant Sensitive Spray Cliff Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Oak- Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak Monotropsis Vascular Forest, Pine-Oak/Heath odorata Sweet Pinesap plant Sensitive Forest Serpentine Woodland, Muhlenbergia Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian glomerata Spiked Muhly plant concern Fen, Montane Mafic Cliff Acidic Cove Forest adjacent to streams, Spray Nardia lescurii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cliff Oenothera Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian perennis Perennial Sundrops plant concern Bog, Roadside Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane Cedar- Hardwood Woodland, Packera Divided-leaf Vascular High Elevation Granitic millefolium Ragwort plant Sensitive Dome Packera Vascular serpenticola Serpentine Ragwort plant Sensitive Serpentine Woodland Pannaria Forest conoplea A Foliose Lichen Lichen concern High Elevation Forest Seep, Fen, Serpentine Parnassia Large-leaved Vascular Woodland, Roadside, grandifolia Grass-of-parnassus plant Sensitive mafic rock Parthenium Glade Wild Vascular Forest Glades, Oak Woodland, auriculatum Quinine plant concern mafic rock Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Pedicularis Vascular Forest Bog, Seep, Swamp, Wet lanceolata Swamp Lousewort plant concern Meadow Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Phegopteris Northern Beech Vascular Forest Forest, High Elevation connectilis Fern plant concern Seep Phemeranthus Vascular teretifolius Quill Fameflower plant Sensitive Rock outcrops Spray Cliff, Moist Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, Philonotis cernua Dwarf Apple Moss Moss concern Gorge

219 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Non-calcareous rocks Appalachian associated with waterfalls Pilophorus fibula Matchsticks Lichen Sensitive and riparian corridors Plagiochila Moist Montane Acidic austinii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cliff Spray Cliff, Streamside, Plagiochila Rock Outcrop in Acidic caduciloba A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cove Forest in Gorge Plagiochila corniculata A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Fraser-Fir Forest Plagiochila Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic ludoviciana A Liverwort Liverwort concern Cove Forest in Gorge High Elevation Rocky Summit, Rock Outcrop in Plagiochila Acidic Cove Forest in retrorsa A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge Spray Cliff, Streamside, Plagiochila Rock Outcrop in Acidic sciophila A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cove Forest in Gorge Plagiochila sullivantii var. Sullivant's Leafy Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir sullivantii Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Forest Plagiochila Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop virginica var. in Acidic Cove Forestin caroliniana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge, Plagiomnium Streambank, Montane carolinianum Carolina Star-moss Moss Sensitive Alluvial Forest Plagiomnium Long-beaked Forest rostratum Thread Moss Moss concern wet rocks Southern Appalachian Platanthera flava Northern Green Vascular Forest Bog, Swamp Forest Bog var. herbiola Orchid plant concern Complex High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Roadside, Northern Hardwood Platanthera Large Purple- Vascular Forest Forest, Southern grandiflora fringed Orchid plant concern Appalachian Bog Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Marsh, rocky Platanthera Purple Fringeless Vascular Forest bar and shore, Montane peramoena Orchid plant concern Alluvial Forest

220 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Plathynidium Long-beaked Water Forest moist hardwood forest, riparioides Feather Moss Moss concern coniferous swamps Vascular Forest Grassy Bald, Spruce-Fir Poa palustris Swamp Bluegrass plant concern Forest Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, Poa saltuensis A Bluegrass plant concern Serpentine Forest Spherical Bulb Forest wet, noncalcareous soil in Pohlia lescuriana Nodding Moss Moss concern open areas Polytrichum Appalachian Rocky Summits, mid to appalachianum Haircap Moss Moss Sensitive high elevation Porella japonica ssp. appalachiana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff Pycnanthemum Torrey's Mountain- Vascular torreyi mint plant Sensitive Xeric Oak-Hickory, Glade Racomitrium Dark Mountain Forest wet acidic rock in shaded aciculare Fringe Moss Moss concern areas, Acidic Cove Forest Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Radula sullivantii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge on moist rock or bark in humid gorges and cove Radula tenax A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive forests Radula voluta A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff Grassy Bald, Heath Bald, Rhododendron Vascular Forest High Elevation Red Oak cumberlandense Cumberland Azalea plant concern Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog, Rhododendron Vascular Meadow, Roadside, Mesic vaseyi Pink-shell Azalea plant Sensitive Oak Forest, Granitic wet substrates in swamps Rhytidadelphus Forest and moist forests, streams, subpinnatus A Moss Moss concern waterfalls Rotten Logs in Acidic Riccardia jugata A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Cove Forest in Gorge Robinia viscosa Vascular High Elevation Granitic var. hartwigii Hartweg's Locust plant Sensitive Dome High Elevation Granitic Robinia viscosa Vascular Forest Dome, woodlands, Dry- var. viscosa Clammy Locust plant concern Mesic Oak Forest

221 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Sarracenia Vascular low elevation Southern oreophila Green Pitcher Plant plant Endangered Appalachian Bog Sarracenia Southern purpurea var. Appalachian Purple Vascular mountain bogs, seepage montana Pitcherplant plant Sensitive bogs Rich Cove Forest, Sceptridium Alabama Grape Vascular Montane Alluvial Forest, jenmanii Fern plant Sensitive Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog, Montane Alluvial Forest, Mesic Oak Forest, Sceptridium Blunt-lobed Grape Vascular Forest Northern Hardwood oneidense Fern plant concern Forest Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Hemlock Hardwood Schlotheimia Forest, Highlands Plateau, lancifolia Highlands Moss Moss Sensitive Gorge Scopelophila Forest Copper-rich Soils, ligulata Copper Moss Moss concern Roadsides Sedum Vascular Forest Montane Cedar- glaucophyllum Cliff Stonecrop plant concern Hardwood Woodland Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Vascular Oak-Hickory, Roadside, Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly plant Sensitive mafic rock Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Huger's Carrion- Vascular Forest Oak-Hickory, mafic rock, Smilax hugeri flower plant concern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Montane Oak Woodland, Solidago rigida Prairie Bold Vascular Forest Glade, Roadside, mafic var. rigida Goldenrod plant concern rock Granite Dome Vascular High Elevation Granitic Solidago simulans Goldenrod plant Sensitive Dome High Elevation Seep, Solidago Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian uliginosa Bog Goldenrod plant concern Bog Sphagnum Seeps on Rock or Spray flavicomans A Peatmoss Moss Sensitive Cliffs Sphagnum Forest Southern Appalachian russowii Russow's Peatmoss Moss concern Bog Sphagnum Forest Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir squarrosum Squarrose Peatmoss Moss concern Forest Seep

222 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT Riverside scour zone, Spiraea Vascular Montane Alluvial Forest, virginiana Virginia Spiraea plant Threatened Rocky Bar and Shore Spiranthes lacera Northern Slender Vascular Forest var. lacera Ladies-tresses plant concern Balds Splachnum Southern Dung Forest Southern Appalachian pennsylvanicum Moss Moss concern Bog Sporobolus Vascular Forest heterolepis Prairie Dropseed plant concern Serpentine Woodland Northern Hardwood Stachys Clingman's Hedge- Vascular Forest, Boulderfield clingmanii nettle plant Sensitive Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Vascular Forest Montane Alluvial Forest, Stewartia ovata Mountain Camellia plant concern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Powdered Moon Sticta limbata Lichen Lichen Sensitive High Elevation Forest Symphotrichum Vascular Forest woodland border over laeve Smooth Blue Aster plant concern mafic rock Symphyotrichum Vascular rhiannon Rhiannon's Aster plant Sensitive Serpentine Barren Taxiphyllum Japanese Yew- alternans moss Moss Sensitive Spray Cliff, mafic rock Serpentine Woodland, Thalictrum Small-leaved Vascular Forest Serpentine Forest, moist macrostylum Meadowrue plant concern woods? Dry Oak Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine- Thermopsis Ash-leaved Vascular Oak/Heath, Dry-Mesic fraxinifolia Golden-banner plant Sensitive Oak Forest Thermopsis Vascular Roadside, openings, villosa Aaron's-rod plant Sensitive woodlands Montane Acidic Cliff, Trichophorum Vascular Forest High Elevation Granitic cespitosum Deerhair Bulrush plant concern Dome Trillium pusillum Alabama Least Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic var. ozarkanum Trillium plant concern Oak-Hickory, mafic rock Sweet White Vascular Trillium simile Trillium plant Sensitive Rich Cove Forest Tritomaria High Elevation Rocky exsectiformis ssp. Forest Summit, High Elevation exsectiformis A Liverwort Liverwort concern Granitic Dome

223 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

NATURAL COMMON FOREST SPECIES FORM COMMUNITIES, NAME STATUS HABITAT juniper branches on high Old Man's Beard, elevation granitic domes, Usnea angulata Edgy Beard Lichen Lichen Sensitive riparian areas Vandeboschia Appalachian Filmy- Vascular Forest boschianum fern plant concern Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Rich Viola walteri var. Vascular Forest Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- appalachiensis Appalachian Violet plant concern Hickory Xanthoparmelia High Elevation Rocky monticola A Foliose Lichen Lichen Sensitive Summit

224 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Attachment 3: Federally proposed, endangered, and threatened, Region 8 sensitive, and National Forests in North Carolina forest concern terrestrial animal species Species Type Habitat Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species Microhexura montivaga Arachnid In moss of spruce-fir forests (endemic to NC & Spruce-fir moss spider (Endangered) adjacent TN) Glaucomys sabrinus Mammal High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir and coloratus (Endangered) northern hardwood above 4,000’ Carolina northern flying squirrel Myotis grisescens Mammal Roosts in caves; forages mainly over open water Gray bat (Endangered) Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roost in hollow trees and under loose bark and Northern long-eared bat (Proposed) snags (warmer months); in caves and mines (winter months) Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and Indiana bat (Endangered) snags (warmer months); in caves (winter months) Patera clarki nantahala Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site in Swain Co) Noonday globe Gastropod (Threatened) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Desmognathus santeetlah Amphibian Stream headwaters and seepage areas; southwestern Santeetlah dusky mountains salamander Eurycea junaluska Amphibian Forests near seeps and streams in the Cheoah River Junaluska salamander system

Plethodon aureolus Amphibian Forests in the Unicoi Mountains Tellico salamander Plethodon teyahalee Amphibian Moist forests at all elevations Southern Appalachian salamander Nesticus cooperi Arachnid Caves and along Nantahala River (apparently Lost Nantahala cave spider endemic to this area) Nesticus mimus Arachnid Rocky areas; known from Grandfather Mountain and a cave spider Table Rock; also in VA Nesticus sheari Arachnid On ground in moist or rich forests (apparently a cave spider endemic to Graham Co); Known from Joyce Kilmer Wilderness & Wright Creek Nesticus silvanus Arachnid Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to a cave spider southern mountains); Known from Water Rock Knob, Jackson County at 5,800’; Ellijay Creek, Macon County at 2,500’; Steestachee Bald, Haywood County at 4,799’

225 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Type Habitat Falco peregrinus Bird Cliffs (for nesting); coastal ponds and mudflats (for Peregrine falcon foraging in winter) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Mature forests near large bodies of water (for Bald eagle nesting); lakes and sounds Thryomanes bewickii altus Bird Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy Appalachian Bewick’s fields at high elevations [breeding season only] wren Trechus carolinae Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from the a ground beetle summit of Mt. Mitchell Trechus luculentus unicoi Beetle Apparently the mountains of Graham Co; known a ground beetle from Clingman’s Dome in Swain Co, Haw Knob and Laurel Top in Monroe Co, TN and Graham Co, NC above 5,200’ Trechus mitchellensis Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from a ground beetle Celo Mountain and Mt. Mitchell, Yancey Co, Balsam Gap, Buncombe Co, and Pinnacle Mountain, McDowell Co usually between 5,000-5,500’ Trechus rosenbergi Beetle Plott Balsam and Great Balsam mountains (endemic a ground beetle to NC); Known from Water Rock Knob, Haywood & Jackson Counties and Richland Balsam, Haywood Co above 6,000’ Trechus satanicus Beetle Vicinity of Devils Courthouse and Graveyard Fields a ground beetle (endemic to NC) Callophrys irus Butterfly Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; Frosted elfin host plants: lupines (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia) Speyeria diana Butterfly Montane and foothill forest edges and openings; host Diana fritillary plant: violets (Viola) Melanoplus divergens Grasshopper/ Glades and balds, 1,800-4,717’ Divergent melanoplus Katydid Melanoplus serrulatus Grasshopper/ Valley and lower slopes in the Nantahala Mountains Serrulate melanoplus Katydid Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshopper/ Mature oak, hickory, and maple forests Northern bush katydid Katydid Euchlaena milnei Moth Habitats uncertain but are probably riparian Milne’s euchlaena (Graham) Semiothisa fraserata Moth Spruce-fir forests with Fraser fir Fraser fir geometrid moth Microtus chrotorrhinus Mammal Rocky areas at high elevations, forests or fields carolinensis Southern rock vole Myotis leibii Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and in rock crevices (warmer Eastern small-footed bat months), in caves and mines (winter) Sorex palustris punctulatus Mammal Stream banks in montane forest with rhododendron Southern water shrew cover

226 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Type Habitat Pallifera hemphilli Terrestrial High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir Black mantleslug Gastropod Paravitrea placentula Terrestrial Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines Glossy supercoil Gastropod Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets Bog turtle [T(S/A)]* [*threatened by similarity of appearance] Forest Concern Species Aneides aeneus Amphibian Damp, shaded crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in Green salamander deciduous forests (southern mountains) Desmognathus aeneus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme Seepage salamander southwestern counties Desmognathus folkertsi Amphibian Small streams and seeps in forests (Clay) Dwarf blackbelly salamander Desmognathus wrighti Amphibian Mid- to high elevation forests, often in spruce-fir; Southern pigmy west of the French Broad River salamander Eurycea longicauda Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for Longtail salamander breeding Plethodon chattahoochee Amphibian Moist forests in the southwestern counties; close to Chattahoochee slimy the GA border (Clay) salamander Plethodon cheoah Amphibian Mesic forests on Cheoah Bald (endemic to this area) Cheoah Bald salamander Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for Mountain chorus frog breeding Nesticus sp. 1 Arachnid Habitat not indicated (known only from Jackson and a nesticid spider Transylvania Counties, NC & Oconee Co, SC Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 Bird Spruce-fir forests or mixed hardwood/spruce forests Northern saw-whet owl – (for nesting) [breeding season only] southern Appalachian population Catharus guttatus Bird Spruce-fir forests (for nesting) [breeding season Hermit thrush only] Coccyzus erythropthalmus Bird Deciduous forests, mainly at higher elevations Black-billed cuckoo [breeding season and habitat only’ Contopus cooperi Bird Montane conifer forests (mainly spruce-fir) with Olive-side flycatcher openings or dead trees [breeding season only] Empidonax alnorum Bird High elevation shrub/sapling thickets [breeding Alder flycatcher season only] Loxia curvirostra pop. 1 Bird Coniferous forests, preferably spruce-fir [breeding Southern Appalachian red season only] crossbill

227 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Type Habitat Poecile atricapillus practica Bird High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir [breeding Southern Appalachian season only] black-capped chickadee Setophaga cerulea Bird Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in Cerulean warbler mountains [breeding season only] Setophaga coronata Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands Yellow-rumped warbler [breeding season only] Setophaga magnolia Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands Magnolia warbler [breeding season only] Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Old fields and successional hardwoods [breeding Golden-winged warbler season only] Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Low elevation brushy fields and thickets [breeding Blue-winged warbler season only] Vireo gilvus Bird Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams Warbling vireo [breeding season only] Cicindela patruela Beetle Sandy soil in open pine or pine-oak woods Northern barrens tiger beetle Autochton cellus Butterfly Moist woods near streams; host plant: hog peanut Golden banded skipper (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Celastrina nigra Butterfly Rich, moist deciduous forests; host plant: goat’s Dusky azure beard (Aruncus dioicus) Chlosyne gorgone Butterfly Woodland openings and borders; host plants: Gorgone checkerspot sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites Erynnis martialis Butterfly Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Mottled duskywing Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) Euchloe olympia Butterfly High elevation openings and glades; host plants: Olympia marble cresses (Arabis) Euphydryas phaeton Butterfly Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland Baltimore checkerspot woods; host plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove (Aureolaria) Papilio cresphontes Butterfly Primarily coastal in maritime forests or thickets; also Giant swallowtail in foothills and mountains near hoptree; host plants: prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum) and hoptree (Ptelea) Phyciodes batesii Butterfly Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at maconensis higher elevations; host plants: asters, mainly Tawny crescent Symphyotrichum undulatum Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with Smyth’s green comma hardwoods; host plants: mainly birches Polygonia progne Butterfly Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly Gray comma gooseberries (Ribes) Satyrium caryaevorus Butterfly Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host Hickory hairstreak plants: primarily hickories (Carya) Satyrium edwardsii Butterfly Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly Edward’s hairstreak oaks (Quercus)

228 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Type Habitat Speyeria aphrodite Butterfly Forest openings and edges west of the Little cullasaja Tennessee River; host plants: violets (Viola) Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary Melanoplus decoratus Grasshopper Dry woodlands Decorated melanoplus Melanapamea mixta Moth Savannas, wet meadows a noctuid moth Apameine new genus 2 sp. Moth Woodland canebrakes (Swain) 4 a canebrake moth Eilema bicolor Moth Spruce-fir forests (Swain) a bicolored moth Merolonche dolli Moth Dry oak woodlands (Macon) a noctuid moth Papaipema astute Moth Open oak woodland and barrens; host plant: Yellow stoneroot borer stoneroot (Collinsonia canadensis) moth Corynorhinus rafinesquii Mammal Roosts in caves, mines, and hollow trees, usually rafinesquii near water Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Mustela nivalis Mammal Fields and forests, mostly at high elevations Least weasel Sylvilagus obscurus Mammal Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Appalachian cottontail Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods Queen crater Gastropod Fumonelix jonesiana Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Newfound Big-tooth covert Gastropod Gap area of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Fumonelix orestes Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Plott Engraved covert Gastropod Balsam mountains (endemic to this area) Fumonelix wheatley Terrestrial Clingman’s Dome region of Great Smoky clingmanicus Gastropod Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Clingman’s covert Glyphyalinia junaluska Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Dark glyph Gastropod Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Pink glyph Gastropod Haplotrema kendeighi Terrestrial Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’; Blue-footed lancetooth Gastropod southwestern mountains Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) Spiral coil Gastropod Helicodiscus fimbriatus Terrestrial Rocky soils; extreme southwestern corner of the Fringed coil Gastropod state

229 Draft Environmental Assessment Buck Project

Species Type Habitat Helicodiscus saludensis Terrestrial No habitat or locality data Corncob snail Gastropod Inflectarius ferrissi Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Great Smoky Mountain covert Gastropod Smoky Mountains and Plott Balsams (endemic to these ranges) Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Forests (Swain) a snail Gastropod Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Wooded river bluffs and ravines Club supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea clappi Terrestrial High elevations in the Great Smoky Mountains Mirey Ridge supercoil Gastropod National Park Paravitrea lacteodens Terrestrial Leaf litter on mountainsides in Graham County Ramp Cove supercoil Gastropod (endemic to this area) Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme Open supercoil Gastropod southwestern mountains Patera clarki clarki Terrestrial Forested mountainsides Dwarf proud globe Gastropod Pilsbryna nodopalma Terrestrial Rock outcrops and rocky hillsides Oar tooth bud Gastropod Stenotrema depilatum Terrestrial Great Smoky Mountains National Park (essentially Great Smoky slitmouth Gastropod endemic to this area) Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist forests Ribbed striate Gastropod Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern Appalachian gloss Gastropod mountains Eumeces anthracinus Reptile Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, roadbanks Coal skink Graptemys geographica Reptile Rivers in the Hiwassee system Common map turtle Pituophis melanoleucus Reptile Dry and sandy woods, mainly in pine/oak sandhills melanoleucus Northern pine snake Sternotherus minor Reptile Streams and rivers in Mississippi drainage Loggerhead musk turtle

230