Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Fontana Project Forest Service Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest April 2014 Graham County, North Carolina
For Information Contact: Steverson Moffat 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy NC 28906 (828) 837-5152 ext 108 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table of Contents
Summary ...... i
Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Document Structure ...... 4 1.2 Description of the Project Area ...... 5 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 5 1.4 Proposed Alternatives ...... 10 1.4.1 Alternative A ...... 10 1.4.2 Alternative B ...... 10 1.4.3 Alternative C ...... 14 1.5 Decision to be Made ...... 14 1.6 Scoping ...... 15 1.7 Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis ...... 15 1.8 Issues Not Addressed in the Analysis ...... 16
2. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 16 2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 16 2.1.1 Alternative A ...... 16 2.1.2 Alternative B ...... 16 2.1.3 Alternative C ...... 16 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 17 2.4 Design Criteria ...... 17
3 Environmental Consequences ...... 19 3.1 Introduction ...... 19 3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 19 3.2.1 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 22 3.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 27 3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 34 3.2.4 Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats ...... 41 3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 42 3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species ...... 42 3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species ...... 42 3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 42 3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species...... 42 3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species ...... 42 3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species ...... 44 3.5. Forest Concern Species...... 56 3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species ...... 56 3.5.2 Botanical Resources ...... 59 3.5.3 Wildlife Resources ...... 66
Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species ...... 87 3.7. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues ...... 88 3.7.1 Invasive Species ...... 88 3.7.2 North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas ...... 94 3.8. Soil and Water Resources...... 94 3.9 Air Resources ...... 97 3.10. Timber and Vegetation Management...... 98 3.11 Heritage Resources ...... 100 3.12 Recreation Resources ...... 101 3.13 Scenery ...... 103 3.14 Social and Economic Considerations ...... 105 3.15 Road Management ...... 106 3.16 Climate Change ...... 106
4 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 109 4.1. List of Preparers ...... 109 4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 109 4.3 Literature Cited ...... 110
5 Appendix - Biological Evaluation ...... 112
iv Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
SUMMARY
Proposed Actions:
Conduct management activities on Cheoah Ranger District compartments including: (1) conducting commercial timber harvest to create early successional habitat in 26 stands totaling approximately 557 acres; (2) conduct free thinning treatment in one white pine stand totaling 22 acres; (3) implement stand improvement treatments to release desirable species in 42 stands totaling 419 acres; (4) daylight select sections of National Forest System roads by cutting and removing trees within approximately 15 feet of road edges; (5) conduct reservoir fish habitat improvements by felling selected trees along the shoreline of Fontana Lake, approximately one tree every 100 linear feet of shoreline; (6) improve the existing Bee Cove Trail (Trail 421) to accommodate bicycle use; (7) improve and maintain existing wildlife openings (8) construct approximately 4.9 miles of temporary roads for timber harvest activities.
Location of Action:
Compartments 17-24, 119-121, and 123. Cheoah Ranger District, Graham County, NC
Type of Statement: Responsible Official:
Environmental Assessment Lauren B. Stull, District Ranger
Lead Agency: Contact Person:
USDA Forest Service Steverson Moffat, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC 28906. (828) 837-5152
i Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Document Structure
The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 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. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative. 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 Cheoah Ranger District office in Robbinsville, North Carolina.
4 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1.2 Description of the Project Area
The analysis area for the project is generally located in the Fontana Dam area of Graham County (Figure 1). The area is bounded by Fontana Lake and Cheoah Lake to the north, approximately the Tennessee – North Carolina state line to the west, the Yellow Creek Mountains ridgeline to the south and by Stecoah Creek to the east. The analysis area also includes a segment of the Appalachian Trail, Fontana Village and Fontana Dam. The project area is accessed primarily by three roads – NC Highway 28, State Road 1242, and State Road 1134.
Figure 1.2.1 Fontana Project Vicinity Map
The analysis area encompasses approximately 12,376 acres of National Forest land located in Compartments 17-24, 119-121, 123, 125 and 128. Elevations range from 4,000 feet near Wauchecha Bald to about 1,400 feet on Cheoah Lake. The project area contains multiple north-trending watersheds comprised of xeric ridges as well as mesic and sub-mesic slopes and coves. The vegetation is dominated by oak-hickory type stands, although the forest types span the spectrum from shortleaf pine to northern red oak and poplar coves.
5 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Figure 1.2.2 Fontana Project – Alternative B Map – East
4 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Figure 1.2.3 Fontana Project – Alternative B Map - West
5 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Figure 1.2.4 Fontana Project – Alternative C Map - East
6 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Figure 1.2.5 Fontana Project – Alternative C Map - West
7 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Proposed management activities include silvicultural prescriptions that would result in tree harvesting through commercial timber sale, site preparation for forest regeneration, stand improvements, wildlife and fisheries habitat improvements and temporary road construction.
This area is marked by a long history of timber harvest, hunting, and seasonal foliage viewing. The central portion of the project area includes a portion of the Forest Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Area Number Eight. No management activities are proposed within this area but it is included in the analysis to project wildlife effects.
All stands treated in previous entries have been successfully reforested. Currently there are approximately 403 acres of early successional habitat (stands aged 0-10 years) in the compartments. Approximately 283 early successional habitat (ESH) acres were established through commercial timber sale. The remaining 120 acres of ESH were the result of treatments to control Southern pine beetle infestations.
The majority of the project area is over 70 years old (Figure 1.2.6) with 403 acres - - approximately 3% - - of Forest Service lands in the analysis area classified as ESH. Table 1.2.1 displays the current amount of early successional stands by compartment and also describes the amount of ESH that may be created within this project.
Figure 1.2.6 – Number of acres by age class in the Fontana Project Area. 3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
4 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 1.2.1 – Maximum acres of early successional stands allowed in the Fontana Project Area by Compartment. Compartment Comp Acres of Main 0-10 Acres Acres Allowed for the Acres 0-10 Management Allowed Fontana Project Area Present Area 17 754 47 3b 38-113 0-66 18 451 31 3b 23-68 0-37 19 813 0 3b 41-122 41-122 20 462 33 3b 23-69 0-36 21 849 35 3b 42-127 7-92 22 991 0 3b 50-149 50-149 23 1279 0 4a 0-128 0-128 24 883 6 4a 0-88 0-82 119 1288 12 3b 64-193 52-181 120 1671 108 3b 84-251 0-143 121 918 18 3b 46-138 28-120 123 795 113 3b 40-119 0-6
Early successional habitat was calculated using the FSVeg database which contains the most recent forest inventory. The amount of current ESH (per the current Nantahala/Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan) is calculated by determining the acreage of forest stands which are in the zero to ten year age class. Therefore, permanent openings, e.g. road rights of way (ROWs), wildlife openings, power line ROWs, are not used in the calculation of zero to ten year age class stands.
Natural disturbances can provide ESH; however, they do not assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forest through space and time as directed in the Forest Plan (page III-29). As a result, relying on ESH under natural disturbance regimes instead of scheduled management activities would not ensure a regular and sustained flow of habitats. The Forest Plan 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).
1.3 Purpose and Need
In broad terms, the project is designed to improve, or maintain, wildlife habitat, species diversity of stands, soil & water resources, and forest health through vegetation management and other treatments. The project would implement direction set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 1986-2000 for the Nantahala/Pisgah National Forests (USDA, March 1987) as amended in 1994, in a manner which moves the existing natural resources toward desired future conditions. More specifically, the project is designed to improve breeding and foraging habitat for golden winged warblers and cerulean warblers by mimicking natural disturbance events that produce favorable age class and vegetation structure, to improve breeding and foraging habitat for game and non-game wildlife by establishing high quality interior forest early successional
5 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project habitat, and to accomplish other goals for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Ecological Restoration Focus Areas.
The treatment sites and surrounding untreated forest areas will be used by university researchers, in cooperation with scientists with the Forest Service Southern Research Station, to document the effects of early successional habitat establishment on biological diversity in the Southern Appalachians. If the project is authorized, the scientists would conduct research before, during, and after implementation of this proposal on the wildlife and vegetation response to the variations in the size and location of the two age regeneration treatments.
Treatments are projected to improve habitat conditions favored by golden winged warblers (GWWA). 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 early successional habitat 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).
Breeding populations of golden winged warblers are located in the North Carolina Highway 143 corridor, in Stecoah Gap, and in the vicinity of Locust Cove. The Fontana Project Analysis Area is near “Focal Area SA-1” (Southern Appalachian golden-winged warbler Focal Area 1) designated by the Golden-winged Warbler Working Group and the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV), a partnership comprised of state and federal government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and industries working to ensure the long-term sustainability of native bird populations that breed in the Appalachian Mountains. These are areas with persistent core populations which contribute substantially to golden- winged warbler conservation nationwide and represent locations where the Working Group recommends focusing habitat management activities that would maintain and grow the existing population. The project area is also near the Audubon Society’s Nantahala Important Bird Area, recognized by the Audubon Society and its partners as a site of global importance providing essential habitat for one or more bird species, including sites for breeding, wintering, and/or migrating birds.
The Fontana area was identified as a suitable location for silvicultural treatments that would restore and create GWWA habitat due in part to its proximity to existing golden-winged warbler records. 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).
In addition to GWWA habitat treatments, the Fontana Project may improve foraging habitat for juvenile cerulean warblers. The cerulean warbler, Setophaga cerulea, is a canopy foraging insectivore that breeds in mature and older deciduous forests with broken canopies
6 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project in the eastern United States. It migrates farther and earlier, and forages and nests higher in the canopy than many other warbler species. Formerly one of the most abundant breeding warblers in Ohio and the Mississippi River Valleys, its population plummeted in the 1900's due to habitat destruction. The species suffers from habitat loss and degradation in both its summer and winter range, and cerulean warblers have shown one of the steepest declines of any warbler species, showing a population decline of 4.5% per year from 1966 to 2001 according to the annual Breeding Bird Survey.
Forest Service lands in the vicinity of the Fontana area have supported, or currently support, breeding populations of cerulean warblers. As with the GWWA, the presence of cerulean warblers in close proximity to areas proposed for treatment in this EA increases the likelihood that the birds will respond favorably to management activities. Consistent with recommendations from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, management efforts would be focused where local cerulean densities are low (fewer than five territories per 25 acres) leaving habitat unaltered where cerulean densities are high. Forest Service silviculturists worked to develop treatments and to select locations for management activities that would benefit cerulean warblers while avoiding management in areas that would not produce conditions favorable to increasing cerulean warbler breeding rates.
Accordingly, while the proposal 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, and while the project would implement direction set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Nantahala/Pisgah National Forests (USDA, March 1987) as amended in 1994, and in a manner which moves the existing natural resources toward desired future conditions, the prime objective is to restore and to create habitat for the golden-winged warbler and the cerulean warbler by establishing conditions that result in a mix of ephemeral and permanent breeding and foraging habitats.
These proposed actions 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 the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests specific restoration goals that are both timely and ecologically sound.
The proposed activities address the following restoration focus areas:
Restore Stream Systems and Watersheds to a Healthy Condition. Restoration of Rare Native Communities; Threatened and Endangered Species. Restore Fire-Dependent Ecosystems. Restoration of Diversity in Low-Diversity Forest Stands. Restoration of Viable Native Plant Communities by Controlling Invasive Species. Wildlife Habitat.
The purpose of this project is to improve the existing condition of the following: wildlife habitat, including specific treatments for the golden-winged warbler and the cerulean warbler, tree species diversity, timber resources, forest health, watershed conditions,
7 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project recreational safety and access, and reservoir fish habitat within the Fontana Project area, in accordance with the Forest Plan goals, objectives and direction. The proposed activities move this vicinity of the Forest toward the desired future conditions established in the Forest Plan.
Direction in the Forest Plan 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 early successional habitat. Early successional habitat 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, fruits and berries that are more abundant in very young forest conditions. The proposed harvest activities would accomplish the need to increase early successional habitat by increasing the percentage of young forest. Harvest activities will contribute to mixed ages of stands throughout the project area.
For example, the proposal includes treatments such as two-aged regeneration harvests in to create the habitat necessary for golden-winged warblers. According to the Forest Plan, 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). 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 early successional habitat (forest stands aged 0-10 years) across the landscape (LRMP, page III-31). The desired condition is to maintain early successional habitat on a maximum of 10% in MA 4D, a minimum of 5% and maximum of 15% in MA 3B and on a compartment and analysis area basis (LRMP Amendment 5, page III-31). At present, 403 acres of early successional habitat (stands in the 0-10 year age class) are either in the project area currently or will be in the near future.
The proposal includes silvicultural treatments to prepare and regenerate harvested areas for the development of future stands, and thinning 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 skyline yarding systems, site preparation, natural regeneration, new stand improvement after the first growing season, roadside thinning, and planting of seedlings in the proposed regeneration areas as needed. Silvicultural treatments would restore approximately 557 acres of early successional habitat to the landscape that is largely absent on national forest lands in the project area and which provides habitat for game and nongame wildlife (Greenberg et al. 2011).
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 Forest Plan direction to “use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives” (Forest Plan, p. III-24). Forest Plan direction is to provide at least 0.5% of Management Areas 2A and 4D in grass/forb openings.
8 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Complete descriptions of desired conditions for each management area are contained in the LRMP. A brief summary of desired conditions for the management areas contained in the compartments is as follows:
MA 1B: Emphasize a sustainable supply of timber and provide motorized access into the forest for traditional forest uses such as hunting and gathering, firewood cutting, fishing, and recreational activities including ORV use and camping. The land will produce a sustained yield of sawtimber and other wood products.
MA 2A: Provides visually pleasing scenery for forest visitors. Roads are generally open with the adjacent forest land managed to provide that pleasing visual experience. Timber production is permitted, but modified to meet visual quality objectives.
MA 2C: Also provides visually pleasing scenery. Roads are generally open with adjacent forest land managed to provide a quality visual experience. This land is not suitable for timber production because either timber activities could not be conducted in a manner to assure a highly visual experience, or the land is not cost efficient in the long term for timber production.
MA 3B: A regulated forest which provides for a sustainable supply of timber and for the habitat needs of wildlife species (particularly wild turkey) which benefit from a managed forest with limited motorized access (closed roads).
MA 4A: Permit timber production, modified to emphasize visual quality and wildlife habitat.
MA 4C: Emphasize visually pleasing scenery and habitats for wildlife requiring older forests. This land is not suitable for timber production at this time in order to meet visual quality objectives, or the lands are not cost efficient for timber production.
MA 14: Appalachian National Scenic Trail and its foreground zone, as mapped through the Visual Management System, characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing environment. This land is not classified as suitable for timber management during the current LRMP planning period.
MA 18: Predominantly undisturbed riparian areas (adjacent to streams) with conditions strongly influenced by the accumulation of woody materials from mature trees, but with a diverse assemblage of species and stand structures.
9 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1.4 Proposed Alternatives
1.4.1 Alternative A
No Action. Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented. This alternative would not contribute to the desired future conditions for early successional habitat, would not maintain and enhance biological diversity by reproducing existing forest species, would not rehabilitate grass/forb openings for wildlife habitat, would not improve any habitat for the cerulean warbler, the golden winged warbler, and would not conduct any forest management activities for the improvement and/or restoration of existing forest stands.
1.4.2 Alternative B
Alternative B was modified after the treatments proposed in the Scoping Record (August 2013) were fully analyzed by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT).
Unit 22-25 was reduced from 23 acres of shelterwood with reserves treatment to 22 acres of shelterwood with reserves treatment because of concerns over impacts to cultural resources.
. Unit 20-4 was reduced from 39 acres of shelterwood with reserves treatment to 33 acres of shelterwood with reserves treatment due to concerns over NNIS.
. Unit 123-21 was excluded from silvicultural treatments due to concerns over NNIS.
. Unit 21-17 was excluded from silvicultural treatments due to botanical and NNIS concerns.
. Unit 21-12 was excluded from silvicultural treatments due to concerns over NNIS.
The IDT recommended adding the reservoir fish habitat improvement treatment along Fontana Lake as well as the improvements to the Bee Cove Trail.
Shelterwood with Reserves A total of 29 predominantly hardwood stands, totaling 605 acres, would be regenerated using the two-aged regeneration method of shelterwood with reserves (Table 1.4.2.1). The average size of these stands is 20.9 acres. This treatment would be implemented by a commercial timber harvest (ground-based skidding as well as skyline yarding) in which the majority of the timber would be cut and removed while approximately 25 square feet of basal area would remain through the next rotation. These residual trees would be left in a clumped or dispersed fashion 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.
10 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Manual and herbicide methods would be used to prepare the stands for regeneration as well as follow-up cultural treatments (streamline release), to ensure that the desired species are present in the regenerating age class. Non-native invasive species (NNIS) would also be treated, if present, during these treatments. Temporary road construction would be needed to access some of the stands.
Table 1.4.2.1 Alternative B – Shelterwood with Reserves Treatments Stand Acres MA Temporary Road Construction (miles) 17-19 28 3B 0 18-20 17 3B 0 19-01 17 3B 0.4 19-05 22 3B 0 19-05 21 3B 0.2 19-05 36 3B 0.3 19-11 16 3B 0.3 20-04 33 3B 0.5 21-22 12 3B 0.8 21-26 10 3B 0.3 22-04 39 3B 1.0 22-04 11 3B 1.0 22-09 14 3B 0.5 22-17 38 3B 0.5 22-25 22 4A 0.3 23-26 21 4A 0 23-32 15 4A 0.5 24-09 22 4A 0.5 119-16 25 3B 0 119-17 8 3B 0 119-25 13 3B 0 120-02 25 3B 0 120-30 19 3B 0 120-35 18 3B 0 120-36 23 3B 0.1 120-39 21 3B 0 121-02 21 1B 0 121-07 12 3B 0 123-08 25 3B 0 Total 605 acres 5.9 miles
Free Thinning A free thinning treatment would be implemented by a commercial timber harvest on one 35 year old white pine stand totaling approximately 22 acres (Stand 119-20). This treatment would be implemented by a ground-based commercial timber harvest in which
11 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project approximately half of the white pine trees would be cut and removed. Trees would be selected for removal in order to allow the residual trees to increase in vigor and to increase the species diversity of the stand by preferentially removing white pine trees.
Stand Improvement Stand improvement activities would be implemented in 42 stands, totaling approximately 419 acres (Table 1.4.2.2). These stands range from approximately eight to 15 years old and the average size of the stands targeted for treatment is ten acres. These stands are entering, or are already in, what is termed the stem exclusion stage of stand development. Many tree species that provide hard mast for wildlife require a considerable amount of sunlight to fully develop into the canopy of a regenerating stand. As a result of this requirement, stands in this age range can often lose a large proportion of hard mast producing species. Therefore, a cleaning treatment would be implemented in these stands to release desirable species from being overtopped by less desirable, and often faster growing non-mast producing species, including yellow poplar, red maple, black gum, and magnolia. This treatment would be implemented by manual slashing the overtopping trees with a chainsaw to release approximately 75 desirable trees per acre.
As part of this cleaning treatment, vines would also be treated that are climbing into the released trees. If present, NNIS would also be treated at this time. Vines and NNIS would be treated manually or by herbicide, depending on the species and nature of the infestation.
Table 1.4.2.2 Alternative B – Stand Improvement Treatments Compartment Stand Acres 17 19 1.2 17 20 13.4 17 21 4 17 23 4 17 24 7.5 17 25 9.1 17 27 4.9 17 28 2.4 17 31 1.0 17 32 1.0 17 33 3.2 20 14 11.8 20 15 8.8 20 16 4.3 20 17 3.7 20 18 4.2 21 6 34.7 120 48 23.7 120 49 12.0 120 52 5.5 120 53 18.1 120 54 15.2 120 55 15.0
12 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 1.4.2.2 (Continued) Alternative B – Stand Improvement Treatments 120 56 11.7 120 57 9.5 120 58 16.9 120 59 3.8 120 60 2.3 120 61 1.5 120 63 2.4 120 64 6.4 121 10 43.4 121 14 9.1 121 18 25.4 123 22 10.8 123 23 18.3 123 24 7.3 123 25 12.8 123 26 4.5 123 27 6.1 123 29 8.4 123 30 9.8 Total 419 acres
Road Daylighting Select sections of roads would be daylighted by removing encroaching vegetation from roadsides. These treatments increase the amount of sunlight that reaches the road surface, improving road conditions by allowing roads to remain dry for longer durations. Daylighting would be accomplished by cutting and removing trees within approximately 15 feet of the road edge.
Reservoir Fisheries Habitat Improvement Habitat for reservoir fish would be enhanced by felling trees into Fontana Lake to provide breeding and cover. In this treatment, one tree approximately every 100 feet along the Fontana Lake shoreline would be cut so that the tree top is permanently submerged in the lake. After cutting, the trees would be tied to their stumps to prevent them from floating into the main body of the lake.
Trail Improvement Trail number 421 (Bee Cove) is a single lane pedestrian trail that lies within the Fontana project area. It is trail class 3 that is approximately 18” wide and 2 miles long. This trail would be redesigned and re-designated as a trail class 3 bicycle/pedestrian trail. The redesign would involve widening the trail in some areas to be between 18” and 36”, removing some vegetation that has encroached on the trail, and reworking several switch backs to incorporate a wider radius curve. Approximately 60% of the trail is on old skid roads.
13 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Wildlife Opening Maintenance/Improvement Existing wildlife openings would be maintained and improved through various methods, including mowing, disking and planting, and prescribed burning.
Non-Native Invasive Species Treatments The treatment of NNIS is ongoing and authorized under a separate NEPA decision. Treatments are currently being performed to reduce the risk of NNIS spreading if this project is implemented.
1.4.3 Alternative C
Management activities are projected to start in 2014 and would take five to ten years to complete. Proposed activities include all of the treatments proposed in Alternative B, with the modifications to shelterwood with reserves treatments, resulting in 557 acres of early successional habitat over 26 units and approximately 4.9 miles of temporary road construction.
Based upon further review of Alternative B by the IDT, Units 24-9 (22 acres), 23-26 (21 acres) and 23-32 (15 acres) would not receive treatment under Alternative C. Unit 24-9 would be excluded from silvicultural treatments because field review identified a population of Erigenia bulbosa (harbinger of spring) unique to the Nantahala National Forest. Units 23- 26 and 23-32 would be excluded from silvicultural treatment because treatments could not be modified to produce cerulean warbler breeding habitat consistent with best available science (Boves et al 2013). Temporary roads proposed to allow access to these three units under Alternative B would not be built.
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 action best meets the purpose and need for creating golden-winged warbler habitat, cerulean warbler habitat, and implementing the forest plan?
• How well does it maintain and protect physical, biological and social resources?
• What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are needed?
14 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1.6 Scoping
Scoping is defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed, and for identifying the issues related to a proposed action.” This project was discussed at field visits with the public and with National Forests in North Carolina Ecosystem Restoration Team members at the proposed project area in May 2012 and August 2013. The project was presented to the National Forests in National Forests in North Carolina Restoration Steering Committee in May 2012.
The project was scoped with the public in August of 2013 through a letter that was mailed to the Cheoah Ranger District’s mailing list on August 19, 2013. A project 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 draft environmental assessment was released to the public for a 30-day notice and comment period on February 21, 2014. Legal notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Graham Star, on Thursday, February 20, 2014. A letter was sent to persons and groups who had participated during the scoping process. The draft environmental assessment was published on the national Forests in North Carolina web site. Additionally, the project has been listed in the NFsNC Schedule of Proposed Actions, which is available through the forest’s internet site.
1.7 Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis
Concerns/issues raised during public scoping and during the notice and comment period by representatives of environmental advocacy groups were:
The impact that treatments in units 24-9, 23-32, and 23-26 would have on cerulean warblers o Addressed in Section 1.4.3;
Treatments to units 22-25 and 22-4, due to their location in (22-25) and on the border (22-4) of the Round Mountain Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) o Proposed treatments were reviewed by the IDT but were not changed;
Potential impacts to Stewartia ovata in units 22-25 and 22-4 o Addressed in Section 1.4.2;
Treatments to units 21-12 and 21-17 which overlap the Rhymers Ferry SNHA o Addressed in Section 1.4.2;
Treatment to unit 120-02 which partially overlaps the Firescald Ridge SNHA o Proposed treatments were reviewed by the IDT but were not changed;
15 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Concern over the construction of temporary roads and the spread of NNIS o Addressed in Section 3.7.1, NNIS;
Concern over treatments in unit 24-9 (Llewellyn Cove) due to botanical and forest community attributes o Addressed in Section 1.4.3; and
Concern over scenery impacts to the Appalachian Trail o Addressed in Section 2.4 by modifying the treatments to meet VQOs.
Comments received from representatives of state and federal wildlife management agencies were supportive of the project’s goals, objectives, and methodology. Agencies requested that the Forest Service collect data on trends and effectiveness of habitat treatments. Concerns were raised about impacts to the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a federally listed endangered species (Addressed in Section 3 of the EA, and in the Biological Evaluation in Appendix B).
1.8 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.
2. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Based on the issues identified during scoping, three alternatives are identified for analysis. There is a no-action alternative and two action alternatives.
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.
2.1.2 Alternative B
Alternative B is the proposed action as described in section 1.4.2 on pages 10 through 14 of this document.
2.1.3 Alternative C
Alternative C: Includes all of the treatments proposed in Alternative B, with the modifications described in section 1.4.3 on page 14 of this document.
16 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
2.3 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 2.3.1: Summary of Management Activities for the Fontana Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Treatment (No Action) (Proposed Action) Shelterwood with Reserves None 605 acres on 29 sites. 557 acres on 26 sites Free Thinning None 22 acres in one site. 22 acres in one site Stand Improvement None 419 acres on 42 sites 419 acres on 42 sites Temporary Road Construction None 5.9 miles for 15 sites 4.9 miles for 13 sites Road Daylighting None As needed As needed Reservoir Fisheries Habitat None Fontana Lake Fontana Lake Bee Cove Trail Improvement None Yes Yes NNIS Treatments None Yes Yes 2.4 Design Criteria
Follow Forest-wide and Management Areas 2, 3 and 4 general direction and standards as described on pages III-63 through III-70, and pages III-77-88 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 Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5 pages III-79-83) in the MA 2 and 4 parts of the project area. Direction for the Partial Retention VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within two growing seasons after treatment.
Visual Resource Management: Proposed actions would meet the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5 pages III-79-83) in the MA 2 and MA 4 parts of the project area.
The following actions would be taken to ensure that VQOs are met while conducting treatments viewed from the Appalachian Trail.
Work in unit 119-16 would be conducted so that 40 square feet of residual basal area would be left in the western half of the unit, leaving more residual basal area at the tops of ridges. The western half of unit 119-17 would be dropped from silvicultural treatments.
Work in units 22-2 and 22-25 would be conducted to ensure that residual basal area would be clumped at the highest elevations of the stands to meet partial retention VQOs for the Appalachian Trail middleground, in which management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and actions meet VQOs within two growing seasons.
Wildlife Management: The proposal would follow standards in LRMP Amendment 10 (USDA Forest Service, 2000 and as revised in 2010) to minimize the risk of incidental take
17 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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.
Additionally, any tree felling activities that are proposed within 1.5 miles of known Indiana bat maternity roosts or positive acoustic records would be treated as such: 1) Susan Loeb, a qualified wildlife biologist with the Southern Research Station, and/or Eric Winters, her technician with specific experience in the Fontana Project area, would identify potential maternity roost trees within activity areas, 2) each potential or known maternity roost tree would be marked with white paint as a wildlife tree; 3) an 80 foot buffer would be marked around each potential or known maternity roost tree to protect the tree from unintentional impacts.
Soil and Water Management: Comply with the forest practices guidelines and standards in the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (BMPs). A seep in Unit 22-25 would be flagged and a 30 foot buffer zone would be established to protect hydrological resources.
Botanical Management: The population of Stewartia ovata in unit 22-4 would be protected by a 30 foot exclusion zone.
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 appropriate MAs, 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.
18 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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. Environmental effects include appropriate ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, and human health-related effects, which directly, indirectly, or cumulatively result from the proposed action. The environmental effects discussion will focus on the issues identified for this project (refer to “Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis”, section 1.5.). 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 following three tables support the analysis that follows for biological communities, special habitats, and management indicator species. Discussion for all environmental consequences to biological resources will be discussed by discipline: botanical resources, fisheries resources, and terrestrial wildlife resources.
19 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 3.2.1. MIS species, estimated population trend, and biological community or special habitat indicated by the species. MIS Estimate Associated Biological Community or Special Habitat Component Black Bear Increase Old Forest Hard mast-producing Contiguous areas Communities species with low disturbance White Tailed Deer Stable Early-successional (0- Hard mast- producing 10) species Pileated Increase Old Forest Snags and dens (>22 Downed woody Woodpecker Communities dbh) debris – all sizes Ovenbird Decrease Large Contiguous Forest Areas Rufous-Sided Decrease Early-successional (0- Early successional (11- (Eastern) Towhee 10) 20) Pine Warbler Stable Yellow pine mid- successional forests Ruffed Grouse Stable Early successional (0- Early successional (11- Downed woody 10) 20) 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
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 Fraser fir No/1 elevation forests Northern hardwood Ramps No/1 forests Carolina hemlock bluff Carolina hemlock No/1 forests Rich cove forests Ginseng Yes 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 Yes/2
20 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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/1 Early successional (0-10 years old) Rufous-sided (eastern) Yes/1 towhee Early successional (11-20) Ruffed grouse Yes/1 Soft mast-producing species (<40 yrs) Ruffed grouse Yes/1 Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs) Black bear Yes/1 Large contiguous areas with low levels of Black bear Yes/1 human disturbance Large contiguous areas of mature Ovenbird No/2 deciduous forest Permanent grass/forb openings White-tailed deer Yes/1 Downed woody debris Ruffed Grouse Yes/1 Snags Pileated woodpecker No/2
*1 Biological community does not occur in the activity areas and will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community. *2 Biological Community and its represented species will be protected in accordance with LRMP standards and guidelines (riparian areas will be mapped); therefore, this community will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, this project will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community.
Table 3.2.4: Effects of alternatives on biological communities. Biological Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Fraser fir forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Northern hardwood forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Carolina hemlock bluff None affected. None affected. None affected. forests Rich cove forests None affected. 94 acres 36 acres Yellow pine forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Reservoirs None affected. Improved habitat Improved habitat within within 1 reservoir 1 reservoir. Riparian forests None affected None affected None affected Cold water streams None affected. 0.07 mile affected 0.07 mile affected by by turbidity and turbidity and sediment sediment (0.25% of (0.25% of coldwater coldwater streams). streams). Coolwater streams None affected. None affected. None affected. Warm water streams None affected. None affected. None affected.
21 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.2.1 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS All Nantahala-Pisgah NF management indicator species (MIS) and special habitats found within proposed activity areas that may be affected by this proposal were evaluated (Table 3.2.1.1). 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-Pisgah NF.
Biological communities, special habitats, and associated MIS present in the proposed Fontana activity area include Rich Cove Forests, Yellow Pine Forests, forests ≥100 years' old, and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). To determine cumulative effects, the effects to botanical resources within the proposed activity areas were compared with the total amount of resources in the Fontana botanical analysis 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)). Thus, 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 harvest activities. Proposed activities not expected to significantly alter Rich Cove Forest or Xeric Yellow Pine Forest community composition and structure were not considered in this analysis. Proposed management activities considered in this analysis include two-aged regeneration cuts (shelterwood with reserves).
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 Fontana activity area.
Under Alternative B, there are 94 acres of Rich Cove Forest proposed for shelterwood with reserves. Under Alternative C, there are 36 acres of Rich Cove Forest proposed for shelterwood with reserves.
The shelterwood with reserves 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. Due to the current bittersweet infestations in the Fontana botanical analysis area, the removal of canopy trees would increase the likelihood that this species would spread in Rich Cove Forests post-timber harvest. In addition, the proposed two-aged regeneration cuts would increase light at the forest floor and reduce the rich herbaceous understory due to an increase
22 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) could increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Other 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).
Alternative C would have less of an impact on Rich Cove Forests in the Fontana botanical analysis area. Under Alternative C, the proposed units 23-26, 23-32, and 24-09 would be dropped. These three units contain high quality Rich Cove Forests with a lush, diverse herbaceous layer.
Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects to Rich Cove Forests, there would be no cumulative effects.
For Alternative B, the shelterwood with reserves would decrease the canopy cover and basal area of overstory trees. In addition, there would be a loss of biomass and diversity in understory herbs. Past effects to Rich Cove Forests can be evaluated by summarizing the existing condition of the forests in the Fontana botanical analysis 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 and FSVEG, there are approximately 1419 acres of Rich Cove Forest in the Fontana botanical analysis area. Out of 1419 acres, 271 acres of Rich Cove Forest are <50 years old in the Fontana botanical analysis area. As a result, approximately 19% of the Rich Cove Forests within the Fontana botanical analysis area have been impacted by past regeneration harvests. The 94 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in the Fontana project plus the 271 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the past, equals 365 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the botanical analysis area, which is a total of 25% of the Fontana botanical analysis area.
Alternative C would affect 36 out of 1419 acres of Rich Cove Forest in the Fontana botanical analysis area. The cumulative effect of regeneration harvest would total 307 acres (271 acres <50 years old and the proposed 36 acres) of Rich Cove Forest, or approximately 21% of the Rich Cove Forest in the Fontana botanical analysis area.
Forest-Wide Trend: Due to the 1987 plan's goal to harvest high-value hardwood sawtimber, a lot of timber management occurs in Rich Cove Forests. However, Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF appear stable (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Alternative C would maintain high quality Rich Cove Forests in the Fontana botanical analysis area because the proposed units 24-09, 23-26, and 23-32 would be dropped. Thus, the diversity of mesophytic trees and the lush herbaceous layer would be maintained. The percentage of Rich Cove Forests impacted in comparison with the amount present in the Fontana botanical analysis area is low (<21%) for Alternative C and relatively low for Alternative B (25%). Thus, the proposed Fontana project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for Rich Cove Forests.
23 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Xeric Yellow Pine Forests Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would not affect any Xeric Yellow Pine Forests in the proposed Fontana activity area. Alternative B and Alternative C would affect approximately 57 acres of Xeric Yellow Pine Forests. Both alternatives would affect 37 acres of Pine/Oak Heath and 20 acres of Shortleaf Pine, for a total of 57 acres. In the proposed Fontana activity areas, the majority of Xeric Yellow Pine Forest occurs along ridges. Canopy trees, including pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata) would be directly impacted by removal. Indirect effects may include oak dominance where pine trees have been removed along the ridges in proposed units.
Cumulative Effects: In the late 1990's, southern pine beetle devastated pine species. As a result, Xeric Yellow Pine Forests have decreased and oak dominance has occurred. The occurrence of fire intolerant species, such as red maple and white pine has increased. The Shortleaf Pine and Pine/Oak Heath Forests (57 acres) in Fontana proposed activity areas contain only a small percentage of yellow pine species and a greater dominance of hardwoods. Thus, Alternative B and Alternative C would reduce a small percentage of yellow pine species across the Fontana botanical analysis area.
Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for xeric yellow pine communities is increasing due to prescribed fire management and restoration efforts. The southern pine beetle outbreak in the early 2000s inhibited this trend, but those effects are lessening. Over the last several years, the use of prescribe fire to restore these communities has increased.
Table 3.2.1.1: The effects of alternatives on biological communities. Alternative Alternative Alternative Biological Community A B C Fraser fir forests None None None affected. affected. affected. Northern hardwood forests None None None affected. affected. affected. Carolina hemlock bluff None None None forests affected. affected. affected. Rich cove forests None 94 acres 36 acres affected. Yellow pine forests None affected 57 acres 57 acres Reservoirs None 1 reservoir 1 reservoir affected. affected affected Riparian forests None affected None affected None affected Cold water streams None 0.07 mi 0.07 mi affected. affected affected Coolwater streams None None None affected. affected. affected. Warm water streams None None None affected. affected. affected.
24 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Effects of Alternatives on Special Habitat Components
Forest Communities ≥ 100 years old In general, the age class of a forest community is primarily affected by regeneration harvest. As a result, analyses for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old will be confined to proposed shelterwood with reserves.
Direct and Indirect Effects-Regeneration harvests reduce percent canopy cover and basal area in forest communities ≥100 years old due to the removal of canopy trees. Regeneration harvests in the Fontana project area include shelterwood with reserves. Regeneration harvests affect forested communities ≥ 100 years old by reducing the number and size of forest herbs; decreasing structural diversity; and secondarily increasing shade. This effect would persist for 100 years following harvest.
Alternative A proposes no management activities; therefore, this alternative would not produce direct or indirect effects to forested communities ≥ 100 years old in the Fontana project area.
Alternative B proposes regeneration cuts across approximately 164 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 years old. Alternative C proposes regeneration cuts across approximately 123 acres of forest communities' ≥ 100 years old.
Cumulative Effects: Past effects to forest communities' ≥ 100 yrs. old can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in the Fontana botanical analysis area. There are approximately 2611 acres of forest communities' ≥ 100 years old in the Fontana botanical analysis area; this represents 16% of the area.
Alternative B would reduce forests communities ≥ 100 years old by 164 acres, for a total loss of approximately 6% in the botanical analysis area. For Alternative C, the 123 acre reduction in forest communities' ≥100 years old represents a loss of 5%.
Forest-Wide Trend: Overall, the trend for forest communities ≥100 years old on the Nantahala-Pisgah NF is increasing. For instance, 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 164 or 123 acres of forested communities ≥ 100 years old for Alternative B or C, respectively, would not significantly change the forest wide trend across the Nantahala- Pisgah National Forests.
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). In the southern Appalachian region, ginseng typically occurs in Rich Cove Forests 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
25 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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). Due to the increase in the monetary value of ginseng roots, harvest pressure has increased. 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 2001). Across the Nantahala- Pisgah NF, population sizes appear smaller than normal with fewer than 50 individuals per population (Gary Kauffman, personal communication).
In the Fontana project area, ginseng was located in nine proposed shelterwood with reserves in Rich Cove and Montane-Oak Hickory Forests. The majority of occurrences only contained one to six individuals. A total of 26 individuals were found across the proposed activity areas, 14 of these were three-prong (prong=single compound leaf), 10 were two- prong, and only one was four-prong. The majority of individuals found were in the late juvenile to early reproductive stage (juvenile=two to three prongs; reproductive=three to four prongs (Van der Voort et al. 2003)).
Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would not directly or indirectly affect any ginseng populations in the proposed Fontana activity area. Under Alternative B, individuals may be directly impacted by mechanical crushing from skidding logs or felled trees or 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 NNIP, especially bittersweet. 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. Under Alternative C, three proposed units (23-26, 24-9, and 23-32) would be dropped. All three of these units contain high quality Rich Cove Forests and one unit contains two ginseng individuals. Thus, Alternative C would directly and indirectly impact ginseng less than Alternative B.
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 Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF. The harvesting of roots for human consumption is having the greatest negative impact on American ginseng populations across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF.
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 Alternative B and C would decrease the population size of American ginseng in proposed activity areas containing Rich Cove Forest for approximately 20-40 years.
Forest Wide Trend: The estimated population trend for American ginseng is gradually decreasing across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF primarily due to the commercial harvest of roots,
26 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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). The 94 acres of Rich Cove Forest proposed for regeneration harvests would impact approximately 0.08% of cove forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF. As a result, the Fontana project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for American ginseng across the forest.
3.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS
Boundaries of Aquatic Communities and MIS
This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Fontana 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 necessary 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 Fontana Project consist of the following watersheds: the Cheoah River, Halfmile Branch, Clat Branch, Little Laurel Branch, Laurel Branch, Fishtrap Branch, Buggy Branch, Rocky Point Branch, Farley Branch, Jack Shute Branch, Fax Creek, Welch Cove Branch, Panel Branch, Lewelyn Cove, Bee Cove, Rattlesnake Branch, Blaze Branch, Powell Branch, Poison Cove Branch, Hyde Branch, Tuskegee Creek, Owenby Branch and Deaver Branch, and Fontana Lake.
Existing Conditions for Aquatic Communities and MIS
Rattlesnake Branch, Blaze Branch, Powell Branch, and Poison Cove are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as class WS- IV; Tr waters. Halfmile Branch, Clat Branch, Little Laurel Branch, Laurel Branch, Fishtrap Branch, Buggy Branch, Rocky Point Ferry Branch, Farley Branch, Jack Shute Branch, Fax Creek, Welch Cove Branch, Panel Branch, Hyde Branch, Tuskegee Creek, Owenby Branch, and Deaver Branch are classified as Class C waters. The Cheoah River and Lewellyn Cove are classified as Class C; Tr waters. Class WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in a highly developed watershed and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Tr waters are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater, warmwater streams, and warmwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Fontana 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).
27 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Communities and MIS Evaluated
The aquatic analysis area contains three aquatic communities, warmwater streams, coldwater streams and reservoirs. Special habitat components are not associated with any aquatic resources, and therefore will not be analyzed further (see also Appendix D).
Only aquatic MIS potentially affected by the proposed project are fully evaluated. The following streams provide habitat for wild Rainbow Trout: Tuskeegee Creek, Sawyer Creek, Powell Branch, and the Cheoah River. The following streams provide habitat for Brown Trout: the Cheoah River. Blacknose Dace occur within Tuskeegee Creek, and mottled sculpin occur within the Cheoah River. Redhorse have been documented within the Cheoah River. The Cheoah River provides habitat for smallmouth bass. Three reservoirs occur within the aquatic analysis area; Fontana Lake, Cheoah Lake, and Calderwood Lake. These reservoirs provide habitat for largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and bluegill.
Management activities most likely to affect wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, smallmouth bass, mottled sculpin, redhorse, and Blacknose Dace 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. Activities most likely to affect largemouth bass and bluegill include any changes to the reservoir habitats.
Effects of Alternatives on Communities
Coldwater Streams
MIS associated with the coldwater streams community includes the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi), and Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus). Approximately 28 miles of coldwater streams occur within the analysis area. The aquatic analysis area does not contain any streams with records for the Brook Trout; therefore, this species was eliminated from further analysis.
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: The proposed group selection, slash/burn/planting, 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, invasive species removal, and thinning along Forest Service system roads 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
28 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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 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.
Most of the proposed activities will have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas and effects of timber management would be avoided by implementation of the project design features and BMP’s. BMP effectiveness monitoring in 2012 found that the overall effectiveness of BMP’s in preventing sedimentation of streams from timber sales was 97.1% and BMP’s were successfully implemented 96.7% of the time (Dodd and Jones, 2013). Approximately 5 culvert installations within a project area streams would cause a temporary increase in sediment within the stream channels.
A small quantity of sediments may enter the 5 streams during culvert installation activities; however, these effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below the stream crossing. Monitoring of a recent bottomless arch installation showed revealed no change in percent fines downstream of the bottomless arch installation area compared to upstream reaches (Jason Farmer, unpublished data). The effects of the culvert installations 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. Effects from the culvert installations would be immeasurable at the confluence with any streams providing fish habitat because the effects of the culvert installations would dissipate prior to reaching these streams. Additional culverts may be installed within analysis area waters 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 culvert installations may reduce the quality of the habitat for the coldwater streams community within the five streams by partially filling pools within the first 75 feet below the crossing (Jason Farmer, personal observations). These effects may persist until the next bankfull flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 2.0 years). These effects would dissipate approximately 75 feet downstream of the culvert installation areas.
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
29 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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 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 coldwater streams community 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 shoreline fish habitat improvements along Fontana Lake would have no effects to any streams because the activities would not occur on any streams.
The proposed activities within the aquatic analysis area would impact approximately 75 feet of stream below each crossing (5 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.
Alternative C: The effects of this alternative to the aquatic resources would be similar to Alternative B because it would require the same number of stream crossings for roads.
Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects –
Previous activities within the Fontana 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
30 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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 Fontana analysis area. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the Fontana 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.
There are no other ongoing activities occurring on federal lands within the Fontana 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 the Fontana Project because there would be no effects of the proposed timber management and watershed improvements beyond the project area streams. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands affecting the Fontana Project area waters.
There are no other reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed for the Fontana aquatic analysis area on federal lands; therefore, there would be no known effects from future actions. There are no known future actions planned on private lands that would affect the Fontana Project area waters.
Cumulative Effects –
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects of Alternative B and Alternative C would include the effects of culvert installations/replacements for this project. Alternative B and Alternative C may negatively impact approximately 0.25% 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.
Implementation of either of the action alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the coldwater streams community (Table 3.2.2.1)
Warmwater Streams Community
Approximately 4 miles of warmwater stream habitat occurs within the Fontana Analysis area (Cheoah River). This stream provides habitat for the MIS redhorse (Moxostoma sp.) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu).
The effects of each alternative on the warmwater stream community would be the same as described above for the coldwater stream community because the coldwater streams flow into the coolwater stream. No culvert installations are planned within the Cheoah River watershed; therefore, there would be no effects to any aquatic resources within the Cheoah River. Implementation of either of the action alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the warmwater streams community (Table 3.2.2.1)
31 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Reservoir Community Three reservoirs occur within the Fontana Analysis Area: Fontana Lake, Cheoah Lake, and Calderwood Lake.
The effects of each alternative on the reservoir community would be similar to the effects described above for the coldwater streams community except the proposed fish habitat (cut- cable and/or artificial deepwater structures) improvements for Fontana Lake would increase the habitat complexity of the reservoir shorelines. Implementation of either of the action alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the reservoir community (Table 3.2.2.1)
Table 3.2.2.1. Trend analysis for each alternative on the evaluated communities Effect Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Coldwater No change in forest – No change in No change in forest Streams wide trend forest –wide trend –wide trend
Warmwater No change in forest – No change in No change in forest Streams wide trend forest –wide trend –wide trend
Reservoirs No change in forest – No change in No change in forest wide trend forest –wide trend –wide trend
Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species
Wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, Blacknose Dace, Mottled Sculpin, redhorse sp.
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 and Alternative C: The effects of this alternative 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 5 small headwater streams (see discussion for Coldwater Streams Community above). There would be no other direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS from the Fontana 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 Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, Blacknose Dace, redhorse. The current forest wide trends for wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, Blacknose Dace and redhorse are stable
32 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project and implementation of Alternative B or Alternative C would not affect these population trends because the project design features would prevent visible sediment from entering any stream with fish populations.
Effects of Past, Ongoing, and Future Actions -
The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions on the aquatic resources have been disclosed in the Biological Communities discussion above and would be the same for the aquatic MIS.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects of these alternatives would be temporary sedimentation and increased turbidity within 5 coldwater streams (approximately 0.07 mile). Implementation of this alternative would not change the forest-wide trends for any of the aquatic MIS (Table 3.2.2.2).
Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Bluegill
Direct and Indirect Effects The effects to the reservoir MIS would be the same as described in the Reservoir Community above. Installation of the large woody debris and/or artificial deepwater structures in Fontana Lake would increase structural diversity of the habitat and provide additional spawning habitat for Smallmouth Bass. The current forest wide trends for Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Bluegill are stable. Implementation of this project may increase the forest wide trend for these species by improving habitats.
Table 3.2.2.2. Results of trend analysis of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species Effect Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Wild Rainbow No change No change No change Trout Wild Brown No change No change No change Trout Blacknose Dace No change No change No change Mottled Sculpin No change No change No change Redhorse sp. No change No change No change Largemouth Bass No change Increase No change populations Smallmouth Bass No change Increase No change populations Bluegill No change Increase No change populations
33 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS
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: Special Habitats and associated Management Indicator Species evaluated for the Fontana Integrated Resource Management Project. Species Type Associated Habitat Indicator For Further Analyzed Black Bear Mammal Old forest communities*, hard mast, and large contiguous forest Yes areas with low levels of human disturbance White-tailed Deer Mammal Permanent grass/forb habitat* No Pileated Woodpecker Bird Snag abundance* No Ovenbird Bird Large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest Yes 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 production Yes * Special habitat will not be impacted by project activities.
The proposed activities are not proposed in old forest communities or riparian forests and would not appreciably impact xeric yellow pine forests. There are no proposals for new permanent grass/forb openings, but maintenance of current openings would continue under any alternative. There would not be any impact on snag abundance, because project design criteria for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) safeguards this special habitat. Thus, these habitats and their associated MIS will not be discussed further in this report.
Effects of Alternatives on Evaluated Special Habitats
Project activities are proposed in management areas (MA) 1B, 2A, 3B, and 4A. In most of these areas, forest-wide direction is to provide habitat conditions for species such as black bear and eastern wild turkey. Regeneration activities in Alternative B and Alternative C 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 golden winged warbler. 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: Alternative A would result in a lack of early successional habitat in the project area. Alternative B would result in the creation of 605 acres of new early successional habitat, and Alternative C would result in creation of 557 acres. Other proposed activities would not measurably affect 0-10 year early successional habitat.
34 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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 activities, where early successional habitat was created, have progressed through succession to later age classes. There are currently 323 acres of early successional habitat within the project area. In Alternative B, the proposed action would result in a cumulative increase of new early successional habitat within the analysis area to approximately 928 acres, and, in Alternative C, there would be a cumulative increase of 870 acres. There are no known ongoing or future projects within the analysis area that would affect early successional habitat.
Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for 0-10 year early successional habitat is decreasing due to the reduction in timber harvesting levels. Alternative A would contribute to this downward trend while Alternative B and Alternative C would lessen this decreasing trend by creating new early successional habitat.
Early Successional Habitat (11-20 years)
Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would result in a lack of early successional habitat (11-20 years) in the analysis area. Current levels of 11-20 year early successional habitat, 220 acres, 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 928 acres. Alternative C would eventually result in approximately 870 acres. Other proposed activities would not measurably affect 11-20 year early successional habitat.
Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would contribute to a phasing out of this habitat within the analysis area. In Alternative B and Alternative C, by the time the proposed treatments become 11-20 year old stands, the current extent of this special habitat would no longer be in that age class. However, as the created habitat from the proposed actions reaches this age class, the current areas of 0-10 year habitat (323 acres) would also be aging past 11 years. This succession would cumulatively increase the amount of 11-20 year early successional habitat within the analysis area up to 928 acres in Alternative B and 870 in Alternative C. There are no ongoing or future projects within the analysis area that would affect 11-20 year early successional habitat.
Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for 11-20 year early successional habitat is decreasing due to the reduction in timber harvesting levels. Alternative A would contribute to this downward trend, while Alternative B and Alternative C would lessen this decreasing trend by creating new early successional habitat that will age into the 11-20 year age class.
Large Areas of Contiguous Mature Deciduous Forest
Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would result in an increase in large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest across public lands due to lack of management. Alternative B and Alternative C may decrease some areas with contiguous canopy cover; however, the LRMP sets aside old growth patches and interior bird patches. Activities are
35 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project not proposed in designated old growth. The interior bird patch, which overlaps with the Fontana Project area, consists of compartments 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 119. Compartments 23, 24, and 119 are within the project area. Habitat objectives for this patch would be at least 2,500 acres of contiguous canopy cover with minimal or no interior edge that is at least 0.5 miles wide. Under Alternative B, units 23-26, 23-32, 24-9, 119-16, 119-17, and 119-25 would be harvested within the designated compartments. Under Alternative C, units 119-16, 119-17, and 119-25 would be harvested within the designated compartment cluster. However, Alternative B and Alternative C would address these stated interior bird patch objectives and set aside such a patch of at least 2,500 acres within and adjacent to the designated compartments. Consequently, Alternative B and Alternative C would not appreciably impact large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest within the project area. Other proposed activities would not measurably affect large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest.
Cumulative Effects: The lack of management in Alternative A along with the decrease in timber harvest levels in general would cumulatively contribute to an increase in this special habitat type. Cumulatively, in Alternative B, there would be 5,701 acres (46.1%) of the analysis area under 81 years and 5,643 acres (45.6%) in Alternative C. There are no ongoing or future projects within the project area that would affect large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest.
Forest-wide Trend: The trend for this special habitat is increasing. Due to reduction of timber harvesting throughout the forest, large contiguous mature forest has expanded and increased. Alternative A would contribute to this increasing trend. The amount of harvest in Alternative B and Alternative C would not have an appreciable impact on this special habitat across the forest, because the reduction would be less than 0.1% of current contiguous mature forest across the forest; thus, Alternative B and Alternative C would not impact the forest- wide trend.
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 add approximately 605 acres less than 20 years in Alternative B and 557 acres in Alternative C. Other proposed actions would not have a measurable impact on soft mast production. Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would cumulatively contribute to a decrease in soft mast producing species as these species are associated with age classes less than 20 years. In Alternative B, there would be 1,148 acres of potential soft mast production, and, in Alternative C, there would be 1,090 acres. This availability for soft mast production is ephemeral however, and, after approximately 10 years of maturation, only up to 928 acres of potential soft mast production would be available in the analysis area under Alternative B and 870 under Alternative C. There are no ongoing or future projects within the analysis area that would affect soft mast producing species.
36 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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. Alternative B and Alternative C would contribute to offsetting future downward trends caused by a more recent reduction in harvesting and would further the recent upward trend by creating new 0-10 year habitat and future 11-20 year habitat.
Hard Mast Producing Species
Direct and Indirect Effects: Hard mast producing species are associated with mature forest communities greater than 40 years. Under Alternative A, there will be an increase in mature forest communities which may lead to increased levels of hard mast production. Because most of the proposed harvest is in hard mast producing forest types that are greater than 40 years, Alternative B would decrease the amount of area available for hard mast production by 605 acres. Alternative C would decrease the area available by 557 acres. These reductions are approximately 4.9% and 4.4% respectively of the analysis area. Other proposed activities would not measurably affect hard mast producing species.
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 in maturation. In Alternative B and Alternative C, the cumulative decrease would be offset to some degree by the maturation of other forest communities into age classes above 40 years. The proposed activities, at the time of implementation, would contribute to a cumulative lack of ideal hard mast production areas by approximately 2,899 acres (23.4%) of the analysis area under Alternative B or 2,841 acres (23.0%) under Alternative C. However, as treated areas mature post-implementation, the amount of inadequate hard mast production areas would decrease to 2,372 acres (19.2 %) or 2,314 acres (18.7%) within 10 years and 1,148 acres (9.3%) or 1,090 acres (8.8%) within 20 years under Alternatives B and C respectively. There are no ongoing or future projects within the project area that would affect hard mast producing species.
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. Due to the relatively small amount of ideal hard mast production habitat impacted by proposed harvest, 4.9% for Alternative B or 4.4% for Alternative C, and the aging of current young stands, Alternative B and Alternative C would not appreciably affect this trend.
Table 3.2.3.2: Summary of effects on special habitats within the Fontana Project by alternative Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Early Successional Habitat Indirect Decrease Direct Increase (605 acres) Direct Increase (557 acres) (0-10 years) Early Successional Habitat Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Indirect Increase (11-20 years) Large Areas of Contiguous Indirect Increase Direct Decrease (605 acres) Direct Decrease (557acres) Deciduous Forest
37 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Soft Mast Production Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Indirect Increase Species Hard Mast Producing Indirect Increase Indirect Decrease Indirect Decrease Species
Effects of Alternatives on Associated Management Indicator Species
Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Direct and Indirect Effects: Eastern towhees are associated with early successional habitats. Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of regeneration activities. Although some brushy areas are created from the loss of mature pine trees due to the southern pine beetle outbreak and some habitat may be created from prescribed burns and wildfire, this does not compensate for the lack of active management. Effects on eastern towhees based on change in early successional habitat 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 Alternatives B and C would result in an increase in early successional habitat. Other proposed activities would not have a measurable impact on the eastern towhee.
Cumulative Effects: Because this species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity area, the spatial bounds for cumulative effects encompasses all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. These effects, being associated with early successional habitat, would be similar to the cumulative effects described above for early successional habitat. Alternative A would result in a cumulative adverse effect as this habitat phases out throughout the analysis area due to lack of management. Alternative B and Alternative C would result in a beneficial cumulative increase of new early successional habitat. There are no ongoing or future projects within the analysis area that would affect the eastern towhee.
Forest-wide Trend: 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 habitat that is maturing. Alternative A would add to this downward trend. Alternative B and Alternative C would reduce this trend by creating new early successional habitat.
Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellatus)
Direct and Indirect Effects: Ruffed grouse are strongly associated with early successional (5- 20 years old) forest habitats characterized by thick, shrubby growth. Ruffed grouse often use down woody debris of various sizes for drumming. 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. The availability of grass/forb habitat on seeded roads improves the quality of the existing habitat by providing bugging areas for broods. Effects of the alternatives on ruffed grouse are based on the change in early successional (5- 20 years) forest. The direct and indirect effects based on change in this habitat would be
38 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project similar to the effects described for 0-10 year and 11-20 year early successional communities. Other proposed actions would not measurably impact ruffed grouse. Cumulative Effects: Because this species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, the spatial bounds for cumulative effects encompass all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. The cumulative impact on ruffed groused based on the associated early successional habitat would be the same as the cumulative effects described above for 0-10 year and 11-20 year early successional communities. Cumulatively, Alternative A would decrease associated habitat for the ruffed grouse, while Alternative B and Alternative C would cumulatively increase associated early successional habitat. There are no ongoing or future projects that would affect the ruffed grouse within the project area.
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 reduce 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 special habitat, but Alternative B and Alternative C would reduce the future downward trend by creating additional new habitat.
Black Bear (Ursus americanus)
Direct and Indirect Effects: Black bears require large areas free from disturbance of motorized vehicle, frequent human activity, and intensive timber harvesting. 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 of years of poor mast crops by providing nutritious grazing in the early spring, partially compensating for the loss the 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 habitat to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. Although some brushy areas are created from the loss of mature pine trees due to the southern pine beetle and some habitat may be created from prescribed burns and wildfire, this probably does not compensate for the lack of active management. Effects on black bear under Alternative B and Alternative C, which create new early successional habitat and increase areas available for soft mast production, would be overall beneficial even though simultaneously this alternative would slightly reduce the areas available for hard mast production and large areas of contiguous forest by 4.9% and 4.4% respectively. Under Alternative A, there would be a less diverse landscape which would not be overall beneficial in the long term for the black bear. Other proposed activities would not have a measurable effect on black bears.
Cumulative Effects: Because this species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, the spatial bounds of cumulative effects encompass all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. The cumulative impact on black bears based on creation of new early successional would be similar to the effects
39 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project described above for those special habitats. However, through early successional habitat is beneficial, this species is tied to areas free from disturbance and intensive timber harvesting. The cumulative effects to black bear based on large areas of contiguous mature forest would be similar to the cumulative effects described above for that special habitat. The benefits from the small amount of cumulative early successional habitat under Alternative B or Alternative C would negate the relatively discountable effects from a cumulative short term loss of contiguous mature forest approximately 23.4% or 23.0% respectively across the project area. Alternative A would result in a cumulative decrease in diversity across the landscape. There are no known ongoing or future projects within the analysis are that would affect black bears.
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla)
Direct and Indirect Effects: The ovenbird is associated with mature, large contiguous tracts of deciduous or mixed close-canopy forests. Within this habitat type, this species prefers areas with less ground cover and deep leaf litter. Effects of the alternatives on ovenbirds are based on the alteration of large tracts of closed canopy forest. Thus, direct and indirect effects would be similar to those described above for the associated special habitat. Though Alternative A would indirectly increase the amount of older age classes within the analysis area, aging of stands may not result in the understory characteristics that the ovenbird prefers. Alternative B would directly decrease some areas of mature forest, but this is a relatively small amount (4.9 %) of the analysis area. Alternative C would directly decrease areas of mature forest by 4.4 %. In addition under Alternatives B and C, there would be no impact to designated old growth patches or wilderness within the analysis area, and an interior bird patch would be retained in the designated compartments to satisfy LRMP requirements to protect species that require large areas of contiguous canopied forest. The other proposed actions would not measurably impact ovenbirds.
Cumulative Effects: Because this species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, the spatial bounds of cumulative effects encompass all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Cumulative effects on the ovenbird would be similar to the cumulative effects described above for the associated special habitat. Alternative A would indirectly lead to a cumulative increase in this special habitat across the analysis area, while Alternative B and Alternative C, because the amount of habitat impacted would decrease as forests mature, would not appreciably reduce the amount of this special habitat available for ovenbirds.
Forest-wide Trend: Ovenbird population levels have stayed fairly stable over the last 15 years, according to the annual breeding survey. However, during those 15 years, the number of ovenbird observations fluctuated, increasing from 1997 to 2001, decreasing from 2001 to 2006, and rebounding from 2006 to 2012. With decreasing harvest in recent years, habitat for this species is increasing. Alternative A would lend to the stability of current trends. Alternative B and Alternative C would be unlikely to have a measurable impact on the current trend. Table 3.2.2.3: Summary of effects on MIS within the Fontana Project by alternative Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Eastern Towhee Adverse Beneficial Beneficial
40 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Ruffed Grouse Adverse Beneficial Beneficial Black Bear Negligible Negligible Negligible Ovenbird Beneficial Negligible Negligible
3.2.4 Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats
Table 3.2.4.1 Communities and special habitats: estimated change by alternative Special Habitats Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Rich cove forests None affected. 94 acres 36 acres
Yellow pine forests None affected. 57 acres 57 acres
Reservoirs None affected. 1 reservoir affected 1 reservoir affected
Cold water streams None affected 0.07 mi affected 0.07 mi affected
Cool water streams None affected. None affected. None affected.
Warm water streams None affected. None affected. None affected.
Forest communities ≥ None affected 164 acre reduction. 123 acre reduction. 100+ yr Early successional Absent. 605 acres created. 557 acres created. communities (0-10 yr) Early successional Absent. 605 acres created 557 acres created communities (11-20 yr) after 10 years post- after 10 years post- harvest. harvest. Soft mast-producing Decline due to Indirect increase Indirect increase species (< 20 yr) aging of existing communities Hard mast-producing Increase due to Indirect decrease Indirect decrease species (> 40 yr) aging of existing communities Permanent grass/forb No change. No change. No change. openings Down woody material None affected. Increase on 605 Increase on 557 acres acres.
41 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species
See the Biological Evaluation in Appendix B of this Environmental Assessment for a detailed analysis of effect to proposed, endangered and threatened species.
3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana 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 & E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana Project would have no effects to any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species because no botanical T&E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. 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 Fontana Project would have no effect to any proposed, endangered, or threatened terrestrial wildlife species. Alternative B and Alternative C 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. Further design criteria specifically addressing this species have been developed to essentially eliminate the likelihood of direct impacts. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for wildlife resources. 3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species
See the Biological Evaluation in the Appendix of this Environmental Assessment.
3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species
The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 2.1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.
42 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 2.1 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). Ten aquatic species listed by the Regional Forester as Sensitive are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a of the Biological Evaluation). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of aquatic Sensitive species in Graham County. The wounded darter, Etheostoma vulneratum, occurs within the Cheoah River downstream of Santeetlah Dam. This species does not occur within the tributaries of the Cheoah River; therefore, it was eliminated from further analysis. No aquatic Sensitive species remained after this initial filter (Attachment 1b).
Based upon the results of this filtering process no regionally-sensitive aquatic species were evaluated in this analysis. Therefore, this project will not impact any sensitive aquatic species.
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 Fontana 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, 2010).
Table 3.4.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana 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 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 no suitable habitat is available within proposed treatment areas for the species known or potentially occurring on the Nantahala National Forest. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that the species are not likely to occur within the analysis area.
Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species
43 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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.
Alternative B and Alternative C: No sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to any sensitive aquatic species or their habitats from implementing any of the alternatives. There would be no cumulative impacts resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any sensitive aquatic species resulting from implementation of the Fontana Project because there would be no direct or indirect impacts on any sensitive aquatic species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana Project would have no impact on any sensitive aquatic species because none are known or likely to occur within the proposed treatment areas and the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate prior to reaching suitable habitats for any of the sensitive aquatic species.
Table 3.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C None Present No Effects No Effects No Effects
3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species
Botanical Analysis Area
The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Appendix B, Section 2.2).
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions for botanical resources have been described above for the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources (Appendix B, Section 2.2).
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare plant species were evaluated based on the process described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Appendix B, Section 2.2). One sensitive plant, Megaceros aenigmaticus (A hornwort), was located during botanical surveys (Table 3.2.1).
44 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Survey Information
Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Appendix B, Section 2.2).
Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species
Megaceros aenigmaticus (Hornwort)
Megaceros aenigmaticus is a large, dark green thalloid hornwort with erose margins (Hicks 1992; Schuster 1992). It is a narrow southern Appalachian endemic known to occur in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Megaceros is a haploid asexual hornwort that is dioecious. Male and female populations occur in different watersheds (Villarreal et al. 2012). This hornwort prefers shaded rocks and boulders in small streams that have cool, non-turbid waters with a water depth of 1-2 inches (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Threats to this species’ survival include habitat degradation and lack of sexual reproduction due to the geographic isolation of female and male gametophytes (Villarreal et al. 2012). An increase in sediment load and water flow from upstream disturbance can dislodge or smother individuals. There are at least 78 populations known to occur on the Nantahala National Forest. Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness and the headwaters of the Santeetlah Creek appear to be the center of this species’ distribution with individuals becoming less abundant with distance from these areas. Also, this species occurs more commonly in the headwater streams draining into Nantahala Lake (Gary Kauffman, personal communication).
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 streambed, increase light, and/or increase sediment loads.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are three proposed shelterwood with reserves (20-04, 18-20, and 120-35) that contain perennial streams with Megaceros aenigmaticus (hornwort). The proposed treatment includes ground-based skidding and skyline yarding with approximately 25 ft2 of basal area remaining for the next rotation. Since Megaceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct effects to this species from the commercial timber harvest. Indirectly, this species could be impacted from an increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. However, the streams in these three units would be buffered by 50 feet. Thus, the 50 ft. buffer should reduce any negative indirect impacts to this species.
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Cumulative Effects
45 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative A: Since this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative B and Alternative C: In the early 1990’s, Megaceros aenigmaticus was not a Region 8 sensitive species and was not considered a rare plant by North Carolina Heritage Program. Thus, the impacts to this species caused by past timber management projects during the 1990's are not known. It is suspected that road reconstruction and construction activities resulted in some temporary impacts. Recurrent monitoring at impacted sites outside of the Fontana botanical analysis area have shown that this species can still persist in high numbers post-disturbance (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact populations of this hornwort.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Megaceros aenigmaticus.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives could indirectly impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for Megaceros aenigmaticus across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest.
Table 3.4.2.1: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive botanical species.
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Megaceros No impacts May indirectly May indirectly impact aenigmaticus impact individuals, individuals, but would not (hornwort) but would not impact the viability of this impact the viability species across the forest. of this species across the forest.
Wildlife Analysis Area
The wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.
Existing Conditions
There are four sensitive wildlife species that are known to occur within the wildlife analysis area, but none are known within or adjacent to proposed activity areas. There is potential habitat for other sensitive species that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on habitat community types present in the Fontana Project area. These community types have been described in Section 1.2 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources.
46 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare wildlife species were evaluated based on the process described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs on Cheoah Lake, which is within the wildlife analysis area but not within the area of influence of the proposed actions. Thus, the bald eagle is not considered further. Sensitive species evaluated for the Fontana Project are listed below in Table 3.3.1.
Survey Information
Inventories for sensitive species were not conducted, because habitat is not limited across the forest and the effects analysis is based on assumed presence of sensitive species with potential habitat within or adjacent to activity areas. 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
Table 3.4.3.1: Sensitive terrestrial animal species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Eurycea junaluska Forests near seeps and streams in Amphibian wildlife analysis area Junaluska salamander the Cheoah River system Plethodon teyahalee Moist forests at all elevations Southern Appalachian Amphibian may occur salamander Nesticus sheari On ground in moist or rich a cave spider forests (apparently endemic to Arachnid Graham Co); Known from Joyce may occur Kilmer Wilderness & Wright Creek Haliaeetus leucocephalus Mature forests near large bodies occurs near cut cable Bald eagle Bird of water (for nesting); lakes and treatments sounds Speyeria diana Montane and foothill forest Diana fritillary Butterfly edges and openings; host plant: wildlife analysis area violets (Viola) Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshopper/ Mature oak, hickory, and maple may occur Northern bush katydid Katydid forests Euchlaena milnei Habitats uncertain but are Moth may occur Milne’s euchlaena probably riparian (Graham) Myotis leibii Roosts in hollow trees and in Eastern small-footed bat Mammal rock crevices (warmer months), wildlife analysis area in caves and mines (winter)
47 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species
Junaluska Salamander (Eurycea junaluska)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the Junaluska salamander, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Junaluska salamanders are found in forests near seeps and streams in the Cheoah River system. There are records of this species along the Cheoah River, which is within the analysis area, but no treatments are proposed near these known locations. However, individuals may exist east of the Cheoah River closer to a few of the treatment units that are within or adjacent to the Cheoah River watershed.
Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing. The likelihood of direct effects is lessened, because these activities usually are not implemented in wet areas like seepages and are buffered from streams. Further, salamanders usually forage nocturnally and during the day, when these activities would be implemented, retreat to seeps and streams. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams. Indirectly, these activities would increase solar and wind exposure to the treated sites, which would lead to drying out of treated sites in the short term. As stands regenerate, those sites would become increasingly shaded and revert to more suitable shaded conditions in the long term. Because core habitat would mostly be within buffered zones, these activities would be unlikely to impact core habitat for the Junaluska salamander along streams. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact Junaluska salamanders or habitat. Herbicide use for undesirable tree species in timber units and to combat nonnative invasive plants would not impact the salamander. The herbicide treatments are directed spray, so it would be highly unlikely for an applicator to spray a salamander, and the undesirable tree species and nonnatives that would be treated are not associated with preferred habitat. In addition, an individual would not ingest 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 Junaluska salamander resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. Past harvest within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects similar to the proposed harvest activities. Though timber harvest may potentially alter microhabitat conditions around the treated stands, these effects are ephemeral as stands age. Cumulatively, approximately 1,148
48 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project acres (9.3%) of the wildlife analysis area in Alternative B and 1,090 acres (808%) in Alternative C would be in early successional habitat post implementation, but the remainder of the wildlife analysis area would be in older age classes and include microhabitat conditions required by the Junaluska salamander. Only a small portion of the project area is within the range of the salamander; thus, cumulative impacts to actual Junaluska salamander habitat would be less than described for the entire wildlife analysis area.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impacts on the Junaluska salamander.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the Junaluska salamander.
Southern Appalachian Salamander (Plethodon teyahalee)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the southern Appalachian salamander, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The southern Appalachian salamander inhabits in moist forests at all elevations. These terrestrial salamanders can be found under decaying logs and abundant leaf litter. Timber harvest may cause direct mortality through crushing during implementation if individuals occur within activity areas. Indirectly, these activities increase solar and wind exposure to these sites, which would cause previously moist habitats to become unsuitable, increasing the risk of desiccation for salamanders. However, these effects would be short term, and as the stands regenerate, the areas that may be affected would develop into more suitable conditions. Though timber harvest activities may remove habitat for the southern Appalachian salamander in the short term, the habitat is widespread across the forest and within the wildlife analysis area. Thinning out stands would not cause these potentially detrimental effects as the larger canopy would be left intact and decaying logs and leaf litter would remain in the treated stands. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact southern Appalachian salamanders or habitat. Widening the existing Bee Cove Trail would only add approximately 1.5 feet to each side of the trail. Herbicide use for undesirable tree species and to combat nonnatives would not impact the southern Appalachian salamander. The herbicide treatments are directed spray, so it would be highly unlikely for an applicator to spray a salamander, and undesirable tree species and nonnatives to be treated are not associated with southern Appalachian salamander habitat. Further, an individual would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect.
49 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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 the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. Past silvicultural activities would have had effects similar to the proposed activities. Cumulatively, Alternative B would lead to approximately 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the analysis area in early successional habitat with unsuitable microclimatic conditions for the salamanders, and Alternative C would lead to approximately 1,090 acres (8.8%) of the analysis in unsuitable conditions. The remainder of the wildlife analysis area would include adequately forested habitat with preferred shade and moisture conditions.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the southern Appalachian salamander.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the southern Appalachian salamander.
A Cave Spider (Nesticus sheari)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the cave spider, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no records of Nesticus sheari within the wildlife analysis area. However, this cave spider is apparently endemic to Graham County and is known from sites in Joyce Kilmer Wilderness and Wright Creek on the ground in moist or rich forests. Nesticus species build small space webs in cool, moist, and dark microenvironments and may occur within moist or rich cove forests within the wildlife analysis area.
Tree removal in dark microenvironments within cove forest communities would lead to drying of the moist microclimate and direct or indirect mortality of individuals if they occur within the treated stands. As these treated stands age, the required dark microclimatic conditions would return in the long term, but until those conditions were met, Nesticus would be inhibited from inhabiting these areas. Also, during implementation if individuals occur, the treatments may cause direct mortality through crushing. However, these activities would not impact known population of Nesticus sheari, and the potential habitat exists throughout the wildlife analysis area.
50 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact Nesticus sheari or habitat. Widening the existing Bee Cove Trail would only add approximately 1.5 feet to each side of the trail. Herbicide treatment would not target species associated with preferred habitat and would not affect the cave spider.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects on this cave spider as a result of the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. Effects from past timber harvest activities would be similar to those described for the proposed action if cave spiders occurred within treated areas. These alternatives would result in approximately 1,148 acres (9.3%) and 1,090 acres (8.8%) respectively of the wildlife analysis area in unsuitable habitat by created new early successional habitat. However, the remainder of the wildlife analysis area including known locations for this species would continue to provide suitable habitat. These alternatives would not cause a cumulative detriment to Nesticus sheari populations, because there is extensive cove habitat throughout the wildlife analysis area and in the protected land of Joyce Kilmer Wilderness.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Nesticus sheari.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for Nesticus sheari.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the bald eagle, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Bald eagles nest along Fontana Lake where cut cable treatments for fish habitat may be implemented. No nest trees would be felled, and no tree felling in general would occur within 330 feet of bald eagle nests during the nesting season from December to June so as not to cause noise disturbance to nesting eagles. There are no other proposed activities that occur in proximity to eagle nest locations. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects on bald eagles resulting from these alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the bald eagle resulting from these alternatives.
51 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C: These alternatives would have no impact on the bald eagle.
Diana Fritillary (Speyeria diana)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Diana fritillary, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are records of the Diana fritillary within and adjacent to the wildlife analysis area. This species has been observed within 320 feet of compartment 17 and within 132 feet of stand 121-02. Diana fritillaries inhabit edges and openings in moist, rich mountain forests in association with the larval host plant, Viola species.
If timber harvest were implemented in occupied habitat during the June to September flight period or during the spring as caterpillars emerge from overwintering, harvest activities may cause direct mortality through crushing. However, the proposed silvicultural treatments and associated temporary road construction would create more forest edge conditions that are favored by the fritillary for breeding habitat. Removing competing shrubs and trees would increase solar exposure and resultantly nutrient availability to herbaceous nectar sources for the butterfly. Thinning and temporary road construction would be unlikely to have a measurable effect on the Diana fritillary due to the small scale or temporary nature of the activities and the lack of adverse indirect effects.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact Diana fritillaries or habitat. Herbicide use would be direct foliar spray and is not associated with Diana fritillary food or nectar plants.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Diana fritillary resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably impact habitat. Past silvicultural prescriptions and associated temporary road construction would have similar effects on the Diana fritillary as the proposed actions and would have likely been overall beneficial for this species. Cumulatively, these actions would lead to new early successional habitat and edge which enhances open areas for the fritillary.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Diana fritillary.
52 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the Diana fritillary.
Northern Bush Katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the northern bush katydid, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: North bush katydids inhabit mature oak, hickory, and maple forests where they forage in the treetops. There is potential habitat for the northern bush katydid within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If individuals occur within the treated stands, timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing and indirectly reduce suitably mature forest. However, untreated mature forest is widespread throughout the wildlife analysis area, and the proposed activities would be affecting a minor portion of potential habitat, 4.9% in Alternative B and 4.4% in Alternative C. Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat, widening Bee Cove Trail to bike standards, and thinning young 8 to 15 year old stands would not measurably impact this katydid or its habitat. Herbicide use would be a direct spray to undesirable tree species and nonnatives and would not cause adverse effect on this species. Northern bush katydids live in tree tops and would be unlikely to come into contact with the herbicide treated plants.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the northern bush katydid resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past harvest activities would have had similar effects on the katydid as the proposed actions. These activities and the proposed action would lead to a cumulative amount of 1,148 acres of early successional habitat in Alternative B and 1,090 acres in Alternative C. This acreage is a minor portion, approximately 9.3% and 8.8% respectively, of the wildlife analysis area and would not reduce the availability of habitat for this species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the northern bush katydid.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the northern bush katydid.
Milne’s Euchlaena (Euchlaena milnei)
Direct and Indirect Effects
53 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on Milne’s euchlaena, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The habitat and life history for Milne’s euchlaena is unknown. What is known is that three adult moths were located at Fontana Lake and the habitat is likely riparian. Also, there is one generation per year, with the flight period occurring in June and July. Likely, one of the middle instars overwinters within the leaf litter. The natural food plant is unknown; however, most Euchlaena species feed on a variety of trees and shrubs. The greatest threat to this species would be spraying for gypsy moth and, if the main food plant is shrubs, invasive shrubs and vines.
If associated with riparian habitats, Milne’s euchlaena is unlikely to experience direct or indirect effects as a result of timber harvest. Silvicultural activities are buffered from streams and rivers. If occupied habitat and harvest areas overlap, harvest may cause direct mortality to individuals but should not appreciably decrease the amount of available habitat for this generalist moth. The proposed units would not impact known collection sites. Herbicide use to combat nonnative invasive plants would not have an adverse effect on the moth. Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and widening Bee Cove Trail would not measurably impact this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on Milne’s euchlaena resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would impact habitat. Similar past activities would have been unlikely to have a measurable effect on Milne’s euchlaena based on where the species has been collected in North Carolina. Past actions and the proposed actions would not have a cumulative detriment on the species or appreciably decrease the availability of suitable habitat.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Milne’s euchlaena.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of the existing viability of Milne’s euchlaena.
Eastern Small-Footed Bat (Myotis leibii)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the eastern small-footed bat, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
54 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: Within the warmer months, habitats for the eastern small- footed bat include hollow trees, rock crevices, buildings, and bridges. There is a record of this species within the wildlife analysis area at Cheoah Dam. No activities are proposed near this known occurrence or potential building and bridge habitat. Tree felling occurring between March and mid-November may cause direct mortality if individuals are roosting in a cut tree, because this bat is one of the last bat species to enter hibernacula for the winter and the first to emerge in the spring. The proposed timber activities would not impact rock or manmade habitat. Tree felling that occurs while the bats are in winter hibernacula would have no direct effects on individuals, because the bats would be hibernating in caves and mines. Retention of snags, which is required by the BO for the Indiana bat, would consequently conserve loose bark and hollow roosting trees that the eastern small-footed bat may utilize and would reduce the likelihood of detrimental indirect impacts on eastern small- footed bat tree roost habitat. Temporary road construction may have similar though lesser effects as the proposed timber harvest on roosting habitat but should not measurably impact overall habitat. Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and widening Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would not measurably impact the eastern small-footed bat or associated habitat. Widening the existing Bee Cove Trail would only add approximately 1.5 feet to each side of the trail. Herbicide treatments for nonnatives would not have a measurable impact on the bat; an individual 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 eastern small-footed bat resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would detrimentally impact habitat. Past silvicultural activities would have had similar effects as described for the proposed harvest activities. Cumulatively, these past and proposed actions would not have an overall detrimental impact or reduce the availability of summer roosting habitat within the wildlife analysis area.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the eastern small-footed bat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the eastern small- footed bat.
55 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 3.4.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest sensitive terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C No Impacts May impact May impact Eurycea junaluska individuals but not individuals but not Junaluska salamander viability viability Plethodon teyahalee May impact May impact Southern Appalachian salamander No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Nesticus sheari May impact May impact a cave spider No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts Bald eagle Speyeria diana May impact May impact Diana fritillary No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Scudderia septentrionalis May impact May impact Northern bush katydid No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Euchlaena milnei May impact May impact Milne’s euchlaena No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Myotis leibii May impact May impact Eastern small-footed bat No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability 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). 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.
3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species
Aquatic Analysis Area
The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 3.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.
56 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 3.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.
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.
Fifty-four 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 Graham County. Seven forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These seven 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 two forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis (Table 4.1.1). These species were analyzed for this project because they are either known to occur within the project area or suitable habitat exists for these 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 sensitive aquatic species have been conducted within the Fontana 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, 2010). The hellbender is known to occur within the Cheoah River and may occur within Yellow Creek. However, no activities are proposed within either of these streams and any effects to tributary streams would dissipate prior to reaching habitats suitable for this species because of the distance between the treatment sites and suitable habitat, and the effectiveness of BMP’s for erosion/sedimentation control and herbicide application.
Table 4.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Beraea gorteba Caddisfly Specifics unknown May occur* Baetopus trishae Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur* Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Amphibian Large streams and rivers Known to occur
57 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
*Although these species may occur within the analysis area, the probability is very low. No specific habitat information or element occurrence data are available for the species; therefore, there is no expectation that either species would occur within the Fontana analysis area.
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 forest concern aquatic species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available within proposed treatment areas for the species known or potentially occurring on the Nantahala National Forest. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that the species are not likely to occur within the analysis area.
Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
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.
Alternative B and Alternative C: No forest concern aquatic species are known occur within the proposed treatment areas. No specific habitat information or element occurrence data are available for the two species; therefore, there is no expectation that either species would occur within the Fontana analysis area. If the species occur within the proposed treatment areas where culverts are proposed for installation, then individuals may be impacted by crushing. Sediments produced during culvert installation may affect stream substrate for approximately 75 feet downstream of the crossings until the next high flow event. 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 Fontana Project because there would are no impacts from any past, ongoing, or foreseeable future actions on any forest concern aquatic species.
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
58 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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 stream communities because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.
No impacts would occur to the 3 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, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana Project may impact individuals of the two forest concern aquatic insects, although none are known or likely to occur within the proposed treatment areas. This project may impact individuals of these forest concern aquatic species but would not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the above species because habitats for these species are common across their range and project design features would minimize impacts to these species. Implementation of any of these alternatives would have no impacts to the hellbender because no suitable habitat occurs within the proposed treatment areas and the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate prior to reaching any habitats suitable for the species.
Table 4.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Beraea gorteba No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals Baetopus trishae No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals Cryptobranchus No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts alleganiensis
3.5.2 Botanical Resources Botanical Analysis Area
The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Appendix B, Section 2.2).
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions for botanical resources have been described above for the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources (Appendix B, Section 2.2).
59 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare plant species were evaluated based on the process described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Appendix B, Section 2.2). Three forest concern plant species including, harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa), mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata), and purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera) were located during botanical surveys (Table 4.2.1).
Survey Information
Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Appendix B, Section 2.2).
Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species
Harbinger-of-Spring (Erigenia bulbosa)
Harbinger-of-spring is a perennial plant in the carrot family (Apiaceae). This species seems to prefer rich hardwood forests over calcareous substrate or on rich alluvial deposits (Weakley 2011). It is one of the earliest spring blooming plants, flowering from late February through early April. Although, the harbinger-of-spring is globally secure, it is critically imperiled in the state of North Carolina (NatureServe 2013). Currently, there are only three known occurrences of harbinger-of-spring in North Carolina. Two of these populations occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area and one occurs in the proposed activity area (24-09).
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to the harbinger-of-spring because there would be no disturbance that would affect the population in unit 24-09.
Alternative B:
Shelterwood with reserves: There is one two-aged regeneration unit proposed (24-09) that contains approximately 50- 100 individuals of harbinger-of-spring. This species could not be easily avoided because it is a diminutive plant, only 3-10" tall. Thus, direct impacts from commercial harvesting would likely result in the death or injury of individuals due to mechanical crushing by skidding logs or felled trees.
Since the harbinger-of-spring appears to prefer rich, moist deciduous forests, it may be indirectly impacted by an increase in light, decrease in humidity, and decrease in soil moisture at the forest floor post-timber harvest. In addition, the population of harbinger-of- spring in unit 24-09 would likely be indirectly impacted from an increase in vegetative competition (early successional and non-native invasive plants) post-timber harvest.
60 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Road daylighting: The population of harbinger-of-spring in unit 24-09 extends down to Forest Service Road (FSR) 2624. Thus, if FSR 2624 was selected for road daylighting, individuals of harbinger- of-spring could be directly impacted from felled trees. Also, individuals could be indirectly impacted due to an increase in light and increase in vegetative competition from early successional and non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus).
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Alternative C: Shelterwood with reserves: There would be no direct or indirect effects to the harbinger-of-spring because there would be no disturbance that would affect the population in unit 24-09.
Road daylighting: The population of harbinger-of-spring in unit 24-09 extends down to Forest Service Road (FSR) 2624. Thus, if FSR 2624 was selected for road daylighting, individuals of harbinger- of-spring could be directly impacted from the removal of trees. Also, individuals could be indirectly impacted due to an increase in light and an increase in vegetative competition from early successional and non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus).
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: Since this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative B: There are two populations of harbinger-of-spring in the Fontana botanical analysis area. One population found in 2011 by Ed Schwartzman occurs on private land on the south side of Cheoah Lake and may extend onto the Nantahala National Forest (Ed Schwartzman, personal communication). The second population, found by April Punsalan and David Danley in 2013, occurs in the proposed activity area. Currently, non-native invasive plants are not impacting the two populations of harbinger-of-spring in the Fontana botanical analysis area. If Alternative B is implemented, given the occurrence of bittersweet along FSR 2624, it is likely that the spread of bittersweet would occur in the foreseeable future and would indirectly impact this population.
Alternative C: Currently, non-native invasive plants are not impacting the two populations of harbinger-of-spring in the Fontana botanical analysis area. The occurrence of bittersweet along FSR 2624 would likely increase and indirectly impact the harbinger-of-spring population in unit 24-09 in the foreseeable future if road daylighting was implemented.
61 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would not impact harbinger-of-spring.
Alternative B: This alternative (shelterwood with reserves and road daylighting) would directly and indirectly impact the population of harbinger-of-spring that occurs in unit 24-09. This alternative would not cause a trend towards federal listing for harbinger-of-spring because this species is globally secure (G5). However, because the harbinger-of-spring occurrence in the proposed unit 24-09 is the only known population on the forest, this alternative would impact the viability of this species across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF.
Alternative C: Road daylighting along FSR 2624 could directly and indirectly impact the population of harbinger-of-spring because it occurs in close proximity to the road. If FSR 2624 is selected for road daylighting then this alternative would impact the viability of harbinger-of-spring across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF because this is the only known occurrence. This alternative would not cause a trend towards federal listing for this species.
Recommendation to Minimize Impact
Do not daylight FSR 2624. Treat non-native invasive plants along FSR 2624. To reduce non-target herbicide drift, non-native invasive plant treatment along FSR 2624 should be directed foliar treatments, cut surface or basal stem.
Mountain Camellia (Stewartia ovata)
Mountain camellia is a small deciduous understory tree or large shrub in the family Theaceae (Weakley 2011). It grows to a height of 10-15 ft. (5 m) and blooms late June-July. Mountain camellia is noted for its camellia-like white to creamy flowers. Diagnostic features for this species include light gray bark with intersecting ridges and ciliate leaf margins. Mountain camellia grows mostly in mesic acidic forests among dense ericaceous shrubs or Rhododendron thickets (Weakley 2011). This species is a rare component of understory deciduous forests and has a scattered distribution mostly concentrated in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Globally, it is apparently secure (G4), and occurs from Virginia to Florida (NatureServe 2013). Although this species appears widespread, it is scattered and infrequent across its range (NatureServe 2013). In North Carolina, it is imperiled (S2). Currently, there are approximately 18 mountain camellia populations across the Nantahala- Pisgah National Forest. Eight of these populations occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area. Five of these populations occur in the proposed activity area, including units 22-04, 120-02, 19-01, 19-05 (E), 22-09, and 22-17. Also, individuals occur along the temporary road proposed to access unit 22-17. These occurrences are defined as populations because there is a distance of ≥2 km. (NatureServe 2013) from other individuals.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to mountain camellia because there would be no disturbance that would affect this species.
62 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are six proposed shelterwood with reserves and two proposed temporary roads that contain mountain camellia. Direct impacts from commercial harvesting could result in the death or injury of individuals due to mechanical crushing by skidding logs or felled trees. The construction of the proposed temporary roadbed to access unit 22-17 would likely result in the death or injury of individuals. Since mountain camellia is a small deciduous tree or large shrub, individuals could be easily avoided with a 30 ft. buffer.
Indirectly, individuals in proposed units could be impacted by an increase in early successional plant species, non-native invasive plants, and woody competition post-timber harvest. A 30 ft. buffer around populations or individuals would decrease vegetative competition post-timber harvest. Indirectly, individuals along proposed temporary roads would likely be impacted by an increase in non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet and privet.
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: Since this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative B: There are eight known mountain camellia sites/populations in the Fontana botanical analysis area. There are no known past activities that have directly impacted any of these populations. One individual, a juvenile approximately 2' in height, along the proposed temporary road leading into unit 22-17, had bittersweet wrapped around the stem. Alternative B and C would likely increase the occurrence and spread of non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet, along the proposed temporary road post-disturbance and would indirectly impact mountain camellia.
Adjacent to the proposed unit 22-09 there are two mountain camellia trees that are growing in a Hemlock Hardwood Forest. The individuals appeared to be thriving in the small gap of sunlight created from the dying hemlocks. In the future, the occurrence of mountain camellia may increase in the Fontana botanical analysis area due to an increase in light from hemlock dye-off.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would not impact mountain camellia.
63 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata).
Recommendation to Minimize Impact All mountain camellia individuals were flagged pink in the field. There are three occurrences of mountain camellia that occur on the edge of proposed units (22-04, 19-05, and 120-02) that could be easily buffered or excluded. The proposed unit 22-17 contains four small mountain camellia trees in the eastern portion of the unit in a cove that should be buffered by 30 ft. No vegetation should be cut and the use the use of heavy machinery should not occur in the 30 ft. buffer. Individuals that occur along the proposed temporary road leading into unit 22-9 may be easily avoided because they occur on the edge of the existing roadbed.
Purple Wood Sedge (Carex purpurifera)
Purple wood sedge is a tufted perennial with diagnostic sheath bases that are a deep purplish brown. This species generally occurs in the ecotone between Rich Cove and Montane Oak- Hickory Forests in upper ravine slopes and amongst rock outcrops (Robinson 1982). Also, this occurs in moist, Rich Cove Forests over calcareous or mafic rock (Weakley 2011). Globally, this species is apparently secure (G4?) (NatureServe 2013). Across the Nantahala- Pisgah National Forest, there are approximately 21 populations of purple wood sedge. Three of these populations occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area. These occurrences are defined as populations because there is a distance of ≥2 km. (NatureServe 2013) from other individuals. There is one purple sedge population with individuals in the proposed activity area, along FSR 2619. There are approximately 7-9 clumps along FSR 2619, which would be used to access the proposed unit 121-07.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not directly impact purple wood sedge. This alternative could have an indirect negative impact on purple wood sedge if bittersweet, multiflora rose, and periwinkle are not treated along FSR 2619.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are approximately 7-9 clumps of purple wood sedge growing along FSR 2619. Approximately 3-4 clumps occur in the middle of FSR 2619. Individuals could be directly impacted from road daylighting, grading, or applying gravel to the road. Some of the clumps occur on the road bank and could be easily avoided during road prep work pre-harvest. This species could be indirectly impacted by an increase in non- native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet, post road disturbance.
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
64 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: There appears to be an old homesite off of FSR 2619 that likely increased the occurrence of non-native invasive plants, such as periwinkle, privet, and multiflora rose. If the non-native invasive plants along FSR 2619 are not treated, they will indirectly impact the purple sedge by increasing vegetative competition.
Alternative B and Alternative C: In the past, purple wood sedge populations in the Fontana botanical analysis area were avoided in the Walker Gap Timber Sale. One population near Firescald Ridge may have been impacted by a thinning in the Poison Timber Sale. In 1995, Gary Kauffman reported that the purple wood sedge population (EO# 6) near Firescald Ridge contained approximately 350-500 clumps over approximately 20 hectares. Approximately half of this population may have been impacted during the Posion Timber Sale by a prescribed thinning. In 2013, Gary Kauffman and April Punsalan relocated purple wood sedge clumps adjacent to the Poison Timber Sale and new clumps were identified along FSR 2619 by April Punsalan and David Danley. Thus, this population appears to be viable despite past actions. Also, the proposed actions should not impact the viability of this population because only 7-9 clumps (out of 350-500 clumps) occur on FSR 2619. Currently, there are non-native invasive plants present along FSR 2619. It is highly likely that these would spread in the foreseeable future post road reconstruction and indirectly impact purple sedge clumps along FSR 2619.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative may indirectly impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF for purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera).
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF for purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera).
Recommendation to Minimize Impact No roadside thinning along FSR 2619. Request the presence of a botanist to ensure that off- target herbicide does not result in the death of individuals during NNIP treatment. If purple wood sedge clumps along FSR 2619 cannot be avoided, request the presence of a botanist to relocate close to the site in suitable habitat.
65 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 3.5.2.1: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species.
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Harbinger-of-spring No impact May directly and May directly and indirectly (Erigenia bulbosa) indirectly impact this impact this species. If FSR species. This alternative 2624 is selected for would impact the viability daylighting, then this of this species across the alternative would impact the forest. viability of this species across the forest. Mountain Camellia No impact May directly and May directly and indirectly (Stewartia ovata) indirectly impact this impact this species. This species. This alternative alternative would not impact would not impact the the viability of this species viability of this species across the forest. across the forest. Purple Wood Sedge May indirectly May directly and May directly and indirectly (Carex purpurifera) impact this species. indirectly impact this impact this species. This This alternative species. This alternative alternative would not impact would not impact would not impact the the viability of this species the viability of this viability of this species across the forest. species across the across the forest. forest.
3.5.3 Wildlife Resources Wildlife Analysis Area
The boundary of the wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.
Existing Conditions
There are five forest concern terrestrial animal species that are known to occur within or adjacent to the wildlife analysis area. These are the longtail salamander (Eurycea longicauda), cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea), golden banded skipper (Autochton cellus), dusky azure (Celastrina nigra), and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii). The cerulean warbler occurs throughout the wildlife analysis area and in proximity to proposed units. These areas include FS 2624, Fotnana Dam Overlook, Bee Cove, Walker Gap, FS 2625, High Top, NC 28, Cable Cove, and Poison Cove. The survey years for these occurrences range from 1980 to 2009. There is also potential habitat for other forest concern species that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on habitat community types present in the Fontana Project area. These community types have been described in Section 1.2 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources.
66 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare wildlife species were evaluated based on the process described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. Forest concern species evaluated for the Fontana Project are listed below in Table 3.5.3.1.
Survey Information
Inventories for forest concern species were not conducted, because habitat is not limited across the forest and the effects analysis is based on assumed presence of forest concern species with potential habitat within or adjacent to activity areas. 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
Table 3.5.3.1: Forest concern terrestrial animal species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Desmognathus aeneus Seeps, springs, or streams in Seepage salamander Amphibian forests in extreme southwestern activity area counties Eurycea longicauda Moist woods and floodplains; Amphibian wildlife analysis area Longtail salamander small ponds for breeding Setophaga cerulea Mature hardwood forests; steep Cerulean warbler Bird slopes and coves in mountains activity areas [breeding season only] Autochton cellus Moist woods near streams; host Golden banded skipper Butterfly plant: hog peanut adjacent to activity area (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Celastrina nigra Rich, moist deciduous forests; Dusky azure Butterfly host plant: goat’s beard (Aruncus wildlife analysis area dioicus) Erynnis martialis Upland woods and wooded Mottled duskywing Butterfly edges; host plant: New Jersey tea may occur (Ceanothus americanus) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Woodland openings, glades, and Tawny crescent road banks at higher elevations; Butterfly may occur host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum Melanoplus decoratus Dry woodlands Decorated melanoplus Murphy, Cherokee Co 1800’; Grasshopper Topton, Cherokee Co 3000- may occur 4000’; Blue Ridge, Fannin Co, GA 1700’; Wytheville, Wythe Co, VA 3000-4000’
67 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 3.5.3.1 (continued): Forest concern terrestrial animal species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Corynorhinus rafinesquii Roosts in caves, mines, and rafinesquii Mammal hollow trees, usually near water wildlife analysis area Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods may occur Queen crater Gastropod Glyphyalinia junaluska Cove hardwoods; around logs, Terrestrial Dark glyph forest debris, and mixed may occur Gastropod hardwood sites Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern may occur Pink glyph Gastropod mountains Paravitrea lacteodens Leaf litter on mountainsides in Terrestrial Ramp Cove supercoil Graham County (endemic to this may occur Gastropod area) Patera clarki clarki Terrestrial Forested mountainsides may occur Dwarf proud globe Gastropod Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist may occur Ribbed striate Gastropod forests Eumeces anthracinus Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, Reptile may occur Coal skink roadbanks
Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species
Seepage Salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) & Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the seepage or longtail salamanders, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Seepage salamanders are found beneath leaf litter near seepages or small streams in shaded areas of hardwood or mixed forests. Habitat for this species exists throughout the wildlife analysis area, and individuals have been observed in a seep along the eastern edge of unit 22-25. Though listed as Significantly Rare, Beamer and Lamb (2010) discovered 10 new state localities above the 55 existing localities for North Carolina and modeled the potential habitat across the extreme western North Carolina counties. Longtail salamanders are also found in similar habitat within moist woods and floodplains, often under logs, litter, or rocks during the day. There are records of longtail salamanders along the Cheoah River within 82 feet of compartment 17 but not in proximity to any of the activity areas.
Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing though these activities usually are not implemented in wet areas like seepages and are buffered from streams. Indirectly, these activities increase solar and wind exposure to treated areas, which leads to drying out of treated sites. As stands regenerate, treated areas become
68 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project increasingly shaded and lead to more suitable shaded habitat characteristics in the long term. Because core habitat would mostly be within buffered zones, it is unlikely that these activities would impact the majority of core habitat for these salamander species. Specifically, the seep along the eastern edge of unit 22-25 would be buffered by 50 feet. Salamander ecology would decrease the likelihood of direct effects in terrestrial foraging habitat. Salamanders forage mostly at night when temperatures are cooler and moisture levels are higher. During the day, when the proposed activities would be implemented, salamanders would retreat under leaf litter, logs, and rocks closer to seeps and steams. Erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams. Further, these activities, except for in unit 22-25, are not proposed near known occurrences of these species. A 50 foot buffer of vegetation would be left to preserve the microhabitat characteristics of the seep, lessen impacts to core habitat outside the edges of the seep, and lower the likelihood of direct effects to existing seepage salamanders.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for fish habitat, widening Bee Cove Trail, and herbicide use would not measurably impact seepage salamanders. To meet bike trail standards, the existing Bee Cove Trail would only be widened approximately 1.5 feet on both sides. Herbicide spraying to combat nonnative invasive plants would not affect salamander populations. It would be highly unlikely that an individual would be sprayed, and individuals would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect. The sprouts and nonnatives targeted are not associated with preferred habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on these salamanders resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions that occur within the wildlife analysis area that would detrimentally impact habitat. Past harvest within the wildlife analysis area would have had changed microhabitat characteristics of moister sites contained with activity areas; however, these activities would have been ephemeral as described for the proposed actions. Cumulatively, approximately 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the analysis area in Alternative B and 1,090 acres (8.8%) in Alternative C would be 0-20 year old young forest habitat that may not meet conditions for necessary moisture levels, but the remainder of the wildlife analysis area would be older than 20 years and include microhabitat conditions required by salamanders.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the seepage salamander or the longtail salamander.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the seepage and longtail salamanders.
69 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the cerulean warbler, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Cerulean warblers are found in mature forests and have been observed within the analysis area near activity areas ranging temporally from 1978 to 2003. Spatially these records, which were maintained by Doreen Miller, the previous zone wildlife biologist, are spread throughout the central part of the analysis area, in compartments 23, 24, 119, 120, and 128. Some of these records, for both Alternative B and Alternative C, are along FS 2625 and SR 28 and in Bee Cove. Others are around High Top near 119-16, 119-17, and 119-20, Cable Cove near 120-36, and Poison Cove near 120-30 and 120-39. The records in compartment 128 are not close to any proposed activity areas, and no treatments are proposed in this compartment. Cerulean warblers have also been observed around Walker Gap and along FS 2624 near Alternative B units 23-26, 23-32, and 24-9. The element occurrence records suggest that cerulean warbler densities are not more than 5 territories per 25 acres, because previous surveys resulted in observations of less than 5 territories per 25 acre.
Within Appalachian forests, these birds primarily occur on ridge tops and steep, upper slopes and are associated with oak dominated stands that contain gaps in the forest canopy and vertical structural diversity. Within preferred ridge top forests, this species will favor mesic, north- or northeast-facing slopes. Associated with small interior gaps within large forested tracts, cerulean warblers can be found along interior forest edges, e.g. narrow roads, utility- rights-of-way, trails, and small timber harvests, though they are less abundant near hard edges compared to soft gradual edges. Important components of cerulean warbler habitat include: 1) large diameter trees for nesting; 2) stands dominated by white oaks and hickories as cerulean warblers will forage in white and chestnut oaks and avoid red maple and oaks from the red oak group; 3) grapevines for nesting material, the density of which is positively correlated with nesting success, 4) canopy gaps approximately 400-1000 ft2, which allow trees growing space to form long horizontal branches and dense foliage, creating more structure; 5) understory vegetation, which provides foraging areas for females during incubation/brooding and protection from predators for fledgling young.
Cerulean warblers may respond to treatments that create vertical diversity and small openings. Timber harvest implementation may directly disturb or harm individuals if trees are felled during the breeding season and cerulean warblers are present; however, openings created by the treatments and temporary road construction may encourage cerulean warbler use by mimicking natural disturbance events that create gaps in continuous canopy. Cerulean warblers favor canopy gaps that are approximately 400 to 1,000 ft2, so the proposed treatment units are unlikely to serve as preferred gaps. However, individuals may still position their territories along the edges of the harvest units and forage within the surrounding intact canopy. The proposed timber harvest would not detrimentally reduce the availability of preferred cerulean warbler habitat within the wildlife analysis area, though the
70 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project harvest would reduce preferred habitat within the treatment areas by 605 acres in Alternative B and 557 acres in Alternative C. Intermediate harvest, leaving a residual basal area of 40 to 90 ft2 per acre would be more favorable to the species, but even in heavier harvests, i.e. the proposed 25 residual basal area, individuals would use the edges created to nest and males to project their song.
Studies on harvesting impacts on cerulean warblers in the southern Appalachians have shown that cerulean warblers will utilize edges created by heavier harvest. In the studies used to develop the Cerulean Warbler Management Guidelines (American Bird Conservancy 2013), cerulean warbler territory densities generally increased or were maintained and rarely decreased from pre-harvest levels across all harvest intensities. The light harvests were a single tree removal with an average of 93 residual basal area, medium harvests averaged 62 residual basal area, and heavy harvests were 12 to 34 residual basal area, averaging 27. In addition, each harvest had adjacent buffers. The largest and most consistent increases occurred between 40 to 90 residual basal area with 45 basal area being the most successful. In heavier harvests, territory density increases were delayed approximately 2 to 3 years, which was likely the time needed for the understory vegetation and structure to develop to a desirable level. Than Boves et al (2013) described that though densities increase around recently harvested stands, nesting success decreases. However, he also discussed that while heavier harvest may act as an ecological trap at the local scale due to lower nesting success within harvest units, these same harvests when taken on the broader landscape scale may become a source.
For the management guidelines, the results of post-harvest surveys in the adjacent buffers demonstrated that in the majority of buffers around harvested stands, cerulean warbler density mostly increased or was maintained regardless of the intensity of the adjacent harvest. In addition, the studies concluded that cerulean warblers do not avoid small harvest stands, between about 10 to 27 acres, or their edges. All but four of the proposed units in both Alternative B and Alternative C are from 8 to 28 acres. Consequently, though the proposed treatments may not be the preferred harvest treatment for cerulean warblers according to the management guidelines, individuals would likely still use the edges created by these harvests, and these appealing edges may draw more cerulean warblers to the surrounding area and ideal habitats. An example of these habitats would be areas within the High Top/Bee Cove NCNHP Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA), which overlaps much of the interior bird patch designated in the Forest Plan.
Some landscape-scale considerations the management guidelines present are subjects such as landscape cover and scale of harvesting. In regards to nesting success, the guidelines suggest that these types of habitat alterations in heavily forested areas, with more than 70% forest cover on the six mile scale, are more likely to be effective at attracting cerulean warblers and less likely to influence reproductive success. The Fontana project area is heavily forested with 75% of the age class above 70 years old. Alternative B and Alternative C would only slightly reduce this percentage by creating early successional habitat, 4.9% in Alternative B and 4.4% in Alternative C. The favorable forest cover characteristics in the project area may somewhat offset the negative impacts of heavier harvest on nesting success. As for scale of harvesting, it is important to maintain a significant portion of the area as mature forest cover, with approximately 50% of large forest blocks more than 50 years old. The Fontana project
71 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project area has a greater percentage of mature forest than what is recommended, and these areas are maintained through the unsuitable base which includes designated old growth patches and interior bird patches.
The Forest Plan outlines objectives to provide an area of continuous forest canopy of 2500 acres or more within or adjacent to designated compartment clusters; these interior bird patches can shift within the designated area over time. One of these clusters includes compartments 23, 24, and 119 which are in the project area and 26, 27, and 28 which are outside of the project area. These forest interior bird patches are required by the Forest Plan to retain habitat for bird species that prefer continuous mature forest canopies without disturbance, e.g. ovenbirds. In Alternative B, stands 23-26, 23-32, 24-9, 119-16, 119-17, and 119-25 would be harvested within the entire interior bird patch compartment cluster. However, these harvests would not reduce the acreage below 2500 or fragment the continuous bird patch. In Alternative C, 119-16, 119-17, and 119-25 would be harvested within the entire interior bird patch compartment cluster, but these harvests would not reduce the acreage below 2500 or fragment the continuous bird patch. Because there is suitable mature forest throughout the wildlife analysis area and the forest interior bird patch would not be detrimentally impacted, harvest treatments are unlikely to have a deleterious effect on mature continuous canopy habitat for forest interior birds.
Some stand-scale considerations presented in the management guidelines include local cerulean warbler density, white oak dominance, and topography. The guidelines state that any management should be avoided if there are more than 5 territories per 25 acres and that in areas where there are less than 5, management is ideal. Within the wildlife analysis area, based on past surveys, cerulean warbler territory densities are likely less than 5 per 25 acres. Thus, management does not need to be avoided based on that consideration. The guidelines suggest that retention should include white oak, chestnut oak, hickories, and sugar maples but not red maple or red oaks. The proposed harvest activities, in both alternatives, favor long- lived and hard mast producing species such as chestnut oaks and white oaks. Based on preferred topographical locations for cerulean warblers, harvests located along ridge tops and upper slopes on more mesic, north- and east-facing aspects would be more effective in attracting these warblers. The proposed harvest units are in a variety of aspects across the landscape but situated toward ridge tops and upper slopes.
The guidelines specifically addressed certain silvicultural options. The studies demonstrated that shelterwood harvests generally result in an increase in cerulean warbler densities and intermediate levels of nesting success. Complete overstory removal in the second stage of a standard shelterwood harvest would decrease cerulean warbler densities. However, the shelterwood method used for the Fontana Project in either alternative is a two-age shelterwood with reserves. This method includes only one entry with either clumped or dispersed residuals to create a two-age structure within units. Consequently, the proposed harvest treatments would not completely remove the overstory or detrimentally impact the cerulean warbler. Crop-tree release, or timber stand improvement as it is called in the project, is usually applied in 15 to 20 year old stands. In both action alternatives, the stands treated are about 8 to 15 years old. This practice is used to accelerate development for future harvest and can allow for earlier “canopy differentiation”. The beneficial impacts would not be immediate but appear as the stand develops.
72 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for fish habitat and widening Bee Cove Trail to bike trail standards would not measurably impact cerulean warblers or habitat. Proposed herbicide treatments would be unlikely to have any impact on these warblers. Individuals would not ingest enough exposed insects that were exposed to herbicide to experience an adverse effect, and it would be highly unlikely that an individual would be sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the cerulean warbler resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B: Past silvicultural treatments would have had effects similar to the proposed treatments. The stands in some of the older timber sales, which were implemented around 30 years ago, would have matured into young forest with a relatively intact canopy. Past treatments that have occurred close in proximity to cerulean warbler records do not seem to have had detrimental effects on cerulean warblers. This assertion is based on locations of timber sales and element occurrence records from surveyed years. These sales include the Bee Cove, Cable Cove, Poison Cove, Cable Cove Campground, and Powell Timber Sales from 1981 to 1999.
Before the aforementioned sales, the only known element occurrences of cerulean warblers in the project area were observed along SR 28 in ’78 and at Fontana Dam overlook in ’81. The Bee Cove Timber Sale in ’81 occurred north over the ridge from Black Gum Gap, and the Cable Cove Timber Sale occurred in Cable Cove and along the ridgeline from High Top to Perry Knob in’87. In the ’92 cerulean warbler survey, individuals were observed north of Bee Cove Knob, around Walker Gap, and around Yellow Creek Gap, and, in the ’94 survey, cerulean warblers were observed all along FS 2625, east and northeast of Bee Cove and north of High Top. Also, in the ’95 survey, cerulean warblers were observed around Yellow Creek Gap and the southern portion of the Cable Cove area, three of which were observed off roads SR 1287 and SR 28.
The Poison Cove Timber Sale occurred around Bearpen Gap in ’97, and in ’99 the Cable Cove Campground and Powell Branch Timber Sales occurred within the Cable Cove area and along the north end of Firescald Ridge towards the Little Tennessee River. Subsequent to these harvests, cerulean warblers were observed around the southern end of the Cable Cove area. In the ’02 survey, cerulean warblers were observed along SR 28, FS 2621 around Poison Cove, and FS 2625 around High Top. In the ’03 survey, cerulean warblers were observed around Poison Cove and along FS 2620.
Cumulatively, these harvests have not seemed to decrease the cerulean warbler densities in these areas. Though territory locations may have shifted over time, there is no evidence that particular timber sales necessarily caused these shifts. Cerulean warblers do not seem to have been displaced from the project area, though up to date surveys are needed. The continued existence of cerulean warblers in the wildlife analysis area is supported by protected areas such as forest interior bird patches and by either the beneficial or essentially discountable effects from the proposed method of timber harvest. Consequently, the treatments in Alternative B and Alternative C would not cause a cumulative detriment to
73 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project cerulean warblers. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future activities that would increase or intensify detrimental effects to cerulean warbler populations.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the cerulean warbler.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the cerulean warbler.
Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the golden- winged warbler, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The golden-winged warbler is known to occur outside of the wildlife analysis area, within 800 feet south of compartment 128. However, there is potential habitat for this species adjacent to and within activity areas. Golden-winged warblers inhabit old fields and successional hardwoods during the breeding season. These birds would not be found in the wildlife analysis area outside of the breeding season from April to August, so activities taking place outside these dates would not have any direct impacts on individuals. Timber harvest would unlikely to impact individuals as golden- winged warblers may nest along edges and not within forested stands such as those that would be treated. The proposed harvest may create desirable nesting habitat where adjacent to existing openings with grassy and shrubby characteristics. These warblers prefer to nest along soft edges between openings and young forest stands. Two-age harvest would create young stands that would be suitable about four to five years post-harvest, and residual trees and retained snags would produce suitable song perches. Thinning and temporary road construction may add to desirable nesting habitat if implemented adjacent or in proximity to existing herbaceous openings.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for fish habitat, widening Bee Cove Trail, and herbicide use would have a measurable impact on the golden-winged warbler. Individuals would not ingest enough insects exposed to herbicide to experience an adverse effect, and it is highly unlikely that a warbler would be directly sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the golden-winged warbler resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past harvest overlapping the wildlife analysis area would have similar impacts as the equivalent proposed harvest activities. These actions may cumulatively enhance areas with potential for golden-winged warbler habitat existing within the wildlife analysis area.
74 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the golden-winged warbler.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest and may have beneficial effects on the golden-winged warbler.
Golden Banded Skipper (Autochton cellus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the golden banded skipper, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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. Individuals can often be found in rich woods with sunlit places along creek and dirt roads. Golden banded skippers have two broods, the first from late April into June and the second from July in August. The host plant, hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata) is common across the forest; thus, the proposed actions would be unlikely to decrease the availability of the host plant. There is a record of this butterfly adjacent to compartment 17, which is about 0.5 miles from the nearest TSI unit and about 1 mile from the nearest 2-age unit, 17-19. However, there is potential habitat throughout the analysis area, and there is a general area record which overlaps with the Bee Cove Trail.
Timber harvest and temporary road construction are buffered from creeks and other water sources, so these actions are unlikely to reduce available habitat for the butterfly. Temporary roads, after harvest implementation is completed and the roads reseeded, may serve as future habitat. Widening the Bee Cove Trail may impact individuals, but widening 1.5 feet on both sides of the existing trail would not impact habitat. Herbicide would not impact this butterfly as it would be unlikely that an individual would be sprayed. Targeted plant species are not associated with larval host plants or plants the adults use for nectar sources. Cut cable treatments for fish habitat would have no effect on this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the golden banned skipper resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Harvest that has occurred within the wildlife analysis area would have effects similar to the proposed silvicultural activities. Due to the ephemeral nature of impacts which are not generally detrimental, no adverse cumulative effects would result from implementing this alternative.
75 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the golden banded skipper.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the golden banded skipper.
Dusky Azure (Celastrina nigra)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the dusky azure, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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 in association with the host plant, goat’s beard (Aruncus dioicus). The dusky azure has one brood at the end of March to mid-May or late May at higher elevations. There is a record of this butterfly within 750 feet west of unit 21-22, up higher in elevation and at a steep road bank along SR1246, but there is potential habitat throughout the analysis area.
Timber harvest may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals are present during implementation. These activities may also open up shaded areas to the sun which may make the treated areas unsuitable for the dusky azure, but these areas would be temporary and ephemeral. Additionally, dusky azures will use open areas within their preferred habitat type, so temporary roads may create desirable habitat post-harvest, when the roads are seeded and begin to grow in. The proposed actions would not decrease the overall availability of habitat in proximity to treatments or within the wildlife analysis area; preferred habitat would exist beyond the treatment bounds. Widening 1.5 feet on both sides of the Bee Cove Trail would not impact habitat for this species. Herbicide treatments would be unlikely to impact the butterfly. It would be highly unlikely that an individual would be sprayed, and targeted species are not associated with larval host plants or adult food plants. Cut cable treatments for fish habitat around Fontana Lake would have no impact on the dusky azure.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the dusky azure resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects from these alternatives would be similar to the cumulative effects described above in Alternative B for the similarly moist habitat associated golden banded skipper.
76 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the dusky azure.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the dusky azure.
Mottled Duskywing (Erynnis martialis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the mottled duskywing, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B: 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. There are no records of this species within the wildlife analysis area but potential habitat exists.
Harvest and temporary road construction may create suitable edge habitat but may also cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur in proposed activity areas and are present during implementation. Thinning treatments and widening the Bee Cove Trail would have an appreciable impact on this butterfly. Herbicide treatments are proposed for plant species that are not associated with the mottled duskywing, and it is unlikely that a butterfly would be sprayed. Cut cable treatments for fish habitat would not be in preferred habitat so would have no effect on the mottled duskywing.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the mottled duskwing resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Historical harvesting activities would have effects on the mottled duskywing similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Cumulatively, these activities may have beneficially created more edge and open habitat for this butterfly species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the mottled duskywing.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the mottled duskywing.
77 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Tawny Crescent (Phyciodes batesii maconensis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the tawny crescent, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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 are no known occurrences of this species within the wildlife analysis area, and only units 24-9 and 119-17 in Alternative B and 119-17 in Alternative C extend above 3000 feet but do not quite reach even 3400 feet in elevation. Because these butterflies are mostly found in higher elevations than the activity areas it is unlikely that populations would be present within proposed units, but there is potential habitat within the aforementioned units.
Thinning, timber harvest, and temporary road construction would not decrease the availability of habitat within the wildlife analysis, because most activities are proposed in lower elevations. Further, these activities may be beneficial by opening up the treated areas to sunlight, especially temporary road construction which would transitorily create desirable habitat in areas with drier conditions. If individuals occur within activity areas during implementation, the proposed activities may cause direct mortality through crushing. Minimal widening of the Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would have an overall detrimental impact on this species, and cut cable treatments for fish habitat would have no effect. Herbicide treatments would not target plant species associated with the tawny crescent, and it would be unlikely that a butterfly would be directly sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the tawny crescent resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects resulting from these alternatives would be similar to the cumulative effects described above in Alternative B for the similarly drier, open, and edge associated species, mottled duskywing.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the tawny crescent.
Alternative B: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the tawny crescent.
78 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Smyth’s Green Comma (Polygonia faunus smythi)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on Smyth’s green comma, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Often found in high elevation spruce-fir forests where mixed with hardwoods, Smyth’s green comma can also be found at lower elevations in cool forests mixed with hemlock and hardwoods near streams. There, butterflies can be seen in openings along trails and dirt roads in preferred habitat. There are most likely two broods, one flight likely from June to August and the other overwintering as adults to emerge and fly through May. There is a record of Smyth’s green comma west of compartment 17. There is also potential lower elevation mixed hemlock areas within the project area where this butterfly may occur.
Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals are present during implementation. Opening the canopy through timber harvest in hemlock/hardwood areas would be unfavorable for Smyth’s green comma. Reducing the canopy would cause the treated area to become drier and warmer. Proposed thinning would be unlikely to have the altering effects of timber harvest on preferred habitat, and temporary road construction may create beneficial linear openings for this species after implementation and reseeding, as the road transitions back to being forested. Proposed herbicide use would target species that are not associated with Smyth’s green comma. The host plant is mostly birches which would not be treated. In addition, it would be unlikely for an individual to be directly sprayed. Widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike standard and cut cable treatments for fish habitat would be unlikely to measurable impact this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects on Smyth’s green comma from these alternatives would be similar to the cumulative effects described above from Alternative B on the similarly moist habitat associated species, golden banded skipper.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Smyth’s green comma.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for Smyth’s green comma.
79 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Decorated Melanoplus (Melanoplus decoratus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the decorated melanoplus, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There is potential dry woodland habitat for the decorated melanoplus within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If populations occur within the activity areas, the proposed treatments may cause direct mortality through crushing, but treatments may increase desirable habitat characteristics such as increasing amount of edge and open conditions. Melanoplus species utilize woodland openings to sun themselves, so activities that create these conditions would be beneficial. Herbicide use would be unlikely to impact this species, because removal of the targeted species would not impact preferred habitat characteristics. Also, it would be unlikely that a decorated melanoplus would be sprayed directly. Widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike standards and cut cable treatments for fish habitat would not have an appreciable impact on the decorated melanoplus.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the decorated melanoplus resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past silvicultural activities within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the decorated melanoplus similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Because these effects have minimal detrimental direct effects on individuals and overall beneficial indirect effects on habitat, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of these alternatives.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the decorated melanoplus.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the decorated melanoplus.
Yellow Stoneroot Borer Moth (Papaipema astuta)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the yellow stoneroot borer moth, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The yellow stoneroot borer moth is always found in proximity to large populations of its larval food plant, stoneroot (Collinsonia spp.).
80 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Inhabiting dry-mesic forests, woodlands, and barrens, this moth is usually found along stream corridors where stoneroot grows. The flight period lasts from September into October. This moth overwinters as eggs, and the larvae mature and pupate in August. There may be potential habitat for this species within the analysis area along streams in proximity to proposed activity areas. However, potential habitat would only exist where there are at least 100s of healthy stoneroot stems.
Silvicultural activities are always buffered various distances from streams and wet areas. Consequently, it would be unlikely that these activities would directly impact stoneroot populations. However, if stems occur outside of the established buffer along analysis area streams and wet areas, moths may inhabit areas where direct mortality through crushing can occur. Being inactive during the day, these moths would be vulnerable to direct effects from implementation of these activities if present in the treatment area. However, these activities would not measurably impact stoneroot populations along stream corridors as most stems would be within the stream or wet area buffer. Consequently, the proposed activities would not reduce the availability of potential habitat around treated sites. One of the threats to this moth is competition of nonnative invasive plants with stoneroot. Thus, herbicide treatments to reduce the spread and competition of invasive plants would be beneficial in areas that contain stoneroot.
Other activities such as thinning, temporary road construction, cut cable treatments for fish habitat, and widening Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would not affect the availability of stoneroot population and thus would not appreciably impact this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the yellow stoneroot borer moth resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past harvest within the wildlife analysis area would have had similar effects as the proposed harvest activities. The herbicide activities associated with silvicultural prescriptions would have a cumulative beneficial impact on the yellow stoneroot borer moth when used in areas where nonnative invasive plants are competing with stoneroot. Due to the possible benefits of the proposed project and similar past projects and the simultaneously potential detriments from these activities, the cumulative impact to this species would be negligible.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the yellow stoneroot borer moth.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the yellow stoneroot borer moth.
81 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This species has been observed at Cheoah Dam by compartment 18 and 19, and potential habitat exists throughout the wildlife analysis area. Some habitats like buildings, caves, and mines are not present in the activity areas, but there may be loose-barked roost trees within activity areas. The terms and conditions of the BO for the Indiana bat would also protect this type of roosting habitat for the big-eared bat. Thus, timber harvest is unlikely to affect availability of roosting habitat within the wildlife analysis area. Snags and trees with loose bark would be retained in the units, along with green tree clumps to protect the snags. In addition, timber harvesting may increase foraging habitat. The methods proposed promote a diverse forest structure by creating edge habitat and foraging space for bats. Further, the increased solar exposure to the units leads to a flush of herbaceous and shrub growth that may increase insect prey abundance. Implementation of these activities, though unlikely, may cause direct mortality but would not affect the availability of habitats for this bat.
Cut cable treatments for fish habitat would use trees unsuitable for roosting so would have no effect on these bats. Also, widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would not measurable impact Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Herbicide use would not impact habitat, and it would be unlikely that bat would be directly sprayed or ingest 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 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past silvicultural activities would have had similar effects to the proposed harvest. Cumulatively, harvest activities would not reduce the availability of summer roosting habitat, because roost trees would be generally retained and other roosting habitats are not within the area of influence of these activities.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Rafinesque’s big-eared bat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat.
82 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Queen Crater (Appalachina chilhoweensis), Dark Glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana), Pink Glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia), Ramp Cove Supercoil (Paravitrea lacteodens), Open Supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris), Dwarf Proud Globe (Patera clarki clarki), Ribbed Striate (Striatura exigua)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on these terrestrial gastropods, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Terrestrial gastropods have common microclimatic requirements to protect individuals from desiccation. These snails are vulnerable to actions which alter microclimatic conditions such as increasing soil temperature, air temperature, wind velocity, short-wave radiation, and rates of evaporation and decrease relative humidity. Habitat for these species is usually within cove forests around logs, forest debris, and within leaf litter. The open supercoil has an affinity to rockier coves, and the ribbed striate would be found in moister areas in coves, often preferring swampy areas. The dwarf proud globe is more of a habitat generalist, being found in a variety of forest types. There are historical records of the open supercoil and ramp cove supercoil overlapping with the wildlife analysis area. These general area records are rated as low accuracy for the open supercoil and very low for the ramp cove supercoil. There are no current records of these species within the wildlife analysis area, but these habitats are found in abundance throughout the wildlife analysis area.
Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction can create conditions unfavorable to terrestrial gastropods, but these actions can be mitigated to lessen impacts to these snails. The timber harvest may alter microclimatic conditions, making the treatments sites drier and unsuitable. Leaving coarse woody debris within harvest units would provide sheltered sites for snails and refugia from the drying conditions caused by harvest activities. In addition, leaving patches of uncut trees, as dictated by the Indiana bat BO for snags, would provide refugia in the unit and possibly connective habitat for re-colonization post-harvest. The larger the clumps of trees left, the less impact there would be to terrestrial gastropod communities.
The magnitude of effect on different terrestrial mollusks would depend on habitat age preferences. Old growth species will experience the greatest detrimental impact post-harvest, but habitat generalist like the open supercoil may subsist during harvest and recolonize harvested stands quicker than more specialized species. There would be a low likelihood of impact on old growth dependents, however, because no treatments are proposed in designated old growth communities. Within the analysis area, there are untouched management areas that include suitable old growth for mature forest specific species.
Thinning would affect snails to a lesser degree than 2-age harvest. Temporary road construction would create unsuitable conditions for terrestrial mollusks and barriers to dispersal while activities are being implemented. However, these roads are temporary and would be reseeded after completion of harvest activities. Widening the Bee Cove Trail by
83 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1.5 feet on each side may impact local individuals if they occur within the widened area but would not impact overall habitat for terrestrial gastropods. Cut cable and herbicide treatments would not measurably impact snails. Herbicide would not alter the overstory or affect the availability of the required microclimatic conditions. In addition, because snails would be around decaying logs, among rocks, and under the leaf litter, it would be unlikely that these rare snails would be directly sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on these terrestrial gastropods resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Effects from past harvest would be similar to the effects described for the proposed harvest activities. Harvest activities within the wildlife analysis have not impacted known populations of these rare snails, and would be unlikely to cumulatively decrease the overall availability of habitat for terrestrial mollusks. Cumulatively, there would be 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the analysis area under Alternative B or 1,090 acres (8.8%) under Alternative C in 0-20 year early successional habitat. The remainder of the wildfire analysis area would have potential habitat available for a variety of snail species, and untreated younger forests would be left alone to age into suitably forested and shaded habitat.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the queen crater, dark glyph, pink glyph, ramp cove supercoil, open supercoil, dwarf proud globe, and ribbed striate.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability of known populations across the forest for the queen crater, dark glyph, pink glyph, ramp cove supercoil, open supercoil, dwarf proud globe, and ribbed striate.
Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the coal skink, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Coal skinks are most commonly found in the humid portions of wooded hillsides and rocky slopes, near springs, and along road banks. There are no known occurrences of the coal skink within the wildlife analysis area. Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with activity areas. 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
84 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of coal skink 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. Further the proposed herbicide treatments would not reduce availability of potential habitat for this species. Widening Bee Cove Trail and cut cable treatments for fish habitat along Fontana Lake would not measurably impact coal skinks.
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.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on coal skinks as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact on the coal skink.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the coal skink.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the coal skink.
Table 3.5.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Desmognathus aeneus No Impacts May impact May impact Seepage salamander individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Eurycea longicauda May impact May impact Longtail salamander No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Setophaga cerulea May impact May impact Cerulean warbler No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Autochton cellus May impact May impact Golden banded skipper No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Celastrina nigra May impact May impact Dusky azure No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Erynnis martialis May impact May impact Mottled duskywing No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Phyciodes batesii maconensis May impact May impact Tawny crescent No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability
85 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 3.5.3.2 (continued): Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern terrestrial animal species. Melanoplus decoratus May impact May impact Decorated melanoplus No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii May impact May impact Rafinesque’s big-eared bat No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Appalachina chilhoweensis May impact May impact Queen crater No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Glyphyalinia junaluska May impact May impact Dark glyph No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Glyphyalinia pentadelphia May impact May impact Pink glyph No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Paravitrea lacteodens May impact May impact Ramp Cove supercoil No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Patera clarki clarki May impact May impact Dwarf proud globe No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Striatura exigua May impact May impact Ribbed striate No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Eumeces anthracinus May impact May impact Coal skink No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability
86 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species
Table 3.6.1: Summary of effects determinations for forest concern species evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternatives C Beraea gorteba No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals Baetopus trishae No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals
Desmognathus aeneus No Impacts May impact individuals but May impact individuals but Seepage salamander not viability not viability Eurycea longicauda May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Longtail salamander not viability not viability Setophaga cerulea May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Cerulean warbler not viability not viability Autochton cellus May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Golden banded skipper not viability not viability Celastrina nigra May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Dusky azure not viability not viability Erynnis martialis May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Mottled duskywing not viability not viability Phyciodes batesii May impact individuals but May impact individuals but maconensis No Impacts not viability not viability Tawny crescent Melanoplus decoratus May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Decorated melanoplus not viability not viability Corynorhinus rafinesquii May impact individuals but May impact individuals but rafinesquii not viability not viability No Impacts Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Appalachina May impact individuals but May impact individuals but chilhoweensis No Impacts not viability not viability Queen crater Glyphyalinia junaluska May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Dark glyph not viability not viability Glyphyalinia May impact individuals but May impact individuals but pentadelphia No Impacts not viability not viability Pink glyph Paravitrea lacteodens May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Ramp Cove supercoil not viability not viability Patera clarki clarki May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Dwarf proud globe not viability not viability Striatura exigua May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Ribbed striate not viability not viability Eumeces anthracinus May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Coal skink not viability not viability
87 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.7. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues
3.7.1 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). There is no future boundary for effects because NNIP can increase across the landscape.
Existing Condition
To determine NNIP infestations in the proposed Fontana activity area, Forest Service roads (FSR) and proposed units were surveyed and the percent cover of NNIP was noted. Eight NNIP species were located in the proposed Fontana activity area during the summer of 2013 (Table 3.7.1.1). Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) was the most abundant NNIP along Forest Service roads and in proposed units. There were spotty occurrences of autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), privet (Ligstrum sinese/vulgare), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) across the proposed Fontana activity area. It is expected that these species and possibly additional NNIP could potentially occur in other areas along Forest Service roads adjacent to proposed activity areas.
Oriental bittersweet is highly prevalent across the Fontana botanical analysis area. Ecological factors, such as high quality coves with mesic soil combined with anthropogenic factors, such as highway NC 28, transmission lines, Fontana Village, and managed forests have created an ideal environment for the widespread occurrence of bittersweet in the Fontana botanical analysis area.
Bittersweet is a major land management issue because seedlings can establish and grow in 2% sun (Ellsworth et al. 2004). However, bittersweet seedlings will not grow rapidly until exposed to gaps or high light (Ellsworth et al. 2004). After timber harvests, bittersweet can suppress regeneration by damaging trees from above and below ground competition, by girdling saplings, and by crown and stem deformation (Ellsworth et al. 2004). In addition, once rapid growth occurs, bittersweet is very difficult to control post-disturbance. The "sit and wait" strategy of bittersweet makes this invasive vine a major land management issue.
During botanical field surveys, bittersweet seedlings were found in several proposed units in Rich Cove Forests. Due to these findings, alternative B was altered, and the proposed units 21-17 and 21-12 were dropped to eliminate the risk of bittersweet invasion in high quality Rich Cove Forests. In addition, the proposed unit 123-21 was dropped due to a major bittersweet infestation in a wildlife opening adjacent to the proposed unit.
88 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.7.1.1: Non-native invasive plant species present in proposed Fontana activity areas. Species Occurrence in Activity Area Autumn Olive FSR 2625, FSR 2621 and FSR 2623 (Elaeagnus umbellata) Chinese/European FSR 2626, proposed temp. road for unit 22-17, proposed temp. Privet road for unit 21-26, and FSR 2619 (Ligustrum spp.) Japanese Stiltgrass FSR 2626, FSR 2536B, proposed temp road for unit 22-9, prop. (Microstegium temp. road for 21-26; in western portion of unit 19-05 (22 acres) vimineum) near FSR 2520 Japanese Honeysuckle Proposed temp. road for unit 22-9 (Lonicera japonica) Kudzu FSR 2626 (Pueraria montana) Multiflora Rose FSR 2626, FSR 2624, prop. temp. rd. for 22-17, FSR 2625, and (Rosa multiflora) FSR 2619 Oriental Bittersweet FSR 2520, FSR 251, FSR 251A, FSR 2524, prop. temp. rd. for (Celastrus orbiculatus) 22-17, 21-26, FSR 2624, FSR 2625, FSR 2623, FSR 2621, FSR 2536, FSR 2619, and FSR 520B; prop. temp. rd. for 19-05; in unit 19-05, 21-22, and 23-26 Periwinkle FSR 2619 (Vinca minor) Princess Tree FSR 2624, FSR 2625, FSR 2623, FSR 2626, and prop. temp. rd. (Paulownia tomentosa) for 21-26, in unit 18-20
Non-native invasive plant species and their relative risk of spread to adjacent areas (Gary Kauffman 2010).
Number of Level of Risk Treatment Areas 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
89 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
NNIP Effects in the proposed Fontana activity area
Alternative A-No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects With no timber management or temporary road construction activities, the potential habitat for the outbreak and spread of NNIP infestations would be small in comparison with the two action alternatives. 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.
Cumulative Effects Alternative A would create no disturbance, and therefore produce no cumulative effects for NNIP.
Alternative B and Alternative C-Action Alternatives
Direct and Indirect Effects Under alternative B, the acreage suitable for the spread of NNIP would increase due to ground disturbance, temporary road construction, and roadside thinning. The areas at a higher risk for NNIP infestation include proposed shelterwood with reserve cuts, roadside thinning, and proposed temporary road construction. The eight NNIP found in or adjacent to proposed activity areas would likely increase across the project area along FSR. Oriental bittersweet would likely increase across the project area along FSR and in proposed units or regenerating stands.
Proposed units with Rich Cove and Montane Oak Hickory Forests or concave slopes would be at a higher risk of new bittersweet infestations post-timber harvest in comparison with Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory, Chestnut Oak-Hickory, and Pine-Oak/Heath. In Rich Cove and Montane-Oak Hickory Forests, bittersweet could rapidly exploit the site post-timber harvest. Oriental bittersweet exploits a site by growing into the upper canopy layer. The host vegetation loses vigor from shading created by the vines' foliage and by mechanical damage through girdling (McNab and Meeker 1987). Furthermore, this vine can dominate a site once established by forming an impenetrable thicket that creates dense shade at the forest floor (McNab and Meeker 1987). Forest stands most susceptible to the effects of Oriental bittersweet include the regeneration to development of pole-size timber stands (McNab and Meeker 1987). In a high-quality cove site near Glen Bald, bittersweet suppressed hardwood regeneration by causing stem and crown deformity in a 15-year-old sapling stand of clearcut origin (McNab and Meeker 1987).
Proposed units with existing bittersweet seedling infestations (19-05, 23-26, and 21-22) would be highly susceptible to hardwood regeneration suppression. After timber harvests, bittersweet can suppress regeneration by damaging trees from above and below ground competition, by girdling saplings, and by crown and stem deformation (Ellsworth et al.
90 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
2004). Proposed units adjacent to existing, large bittersweet infestations would be highly susceptible to hardwood suppression via bittersweet vines post-timber harvest. The proposed unit 18-20 would likely experience regeneration suppression post-timber harvest because the western portion of the unit contains Rich Cove Forest that is directly adjacent to a large bittersweet infestation. It is highly likely that the proposed unit 18-20 contains small bittersweet seedlings due to the proximity of the large bittersweet infestation. The western portion of the proposed 18-20 unit that contains Rich Cove Forest and a perennial stream should be excluded or dropped; this would be a 550 ft. buffer or exclusion zone.
Based on the difficult control of bittersweet in regenerating stands in Bent Creek Experimental Forest, McNab and Meeker (1987) suggest that forest managers should be cautious when regenerating stands with bittersweet seedlings. Bittersweet seedlings growing in full to partial sunlight may be able to overtop 1-2 m tall vegetation in one growing season (Ellsworth et al. 2004). Once rapid growth occurs, bittersweet is very difficult to control post-disturbance (Ellsworth et al. 2004). Smith (2012) suggests that bittersweet populations should be eradicated before they are released by a disturbance. Ellsworth et al. (2004) recommends eradicating bittersweet in the understory before selective timber harvests, thinning, or road construction begins.
Since Alternative C contains fewer acres of disturbance than Alternative B, there would be less NNIP spread. Under Alternative C, only 557 acres instead of 605 acres are proposed for shelterwood with reserves. Also, 4.9 miles are proposed for temporary road construction versus 5.9. The proposed alternative C would decrease the amount of NNIP spread across the Fontana botanical analysis area.
Under alternative C, the proposed units 24-09, 23-26, and 23-32 (along with associated temp. road) would be dropped. Alternative C would greatly reduce the occurrence and spread of bittersweet in the Fontana analysis area because units 24-9, 23-26, and 23-32 contain high quality Rich Cove Forests and FSR 2624 (the road adjacent to units) has several current bittersweet infestations. In addition, bittersweet seedlings occur in the proposed unit 23-26 and there is a large bittersweet infestation directly adjacent to the unit. Therefore, bittersweet would likely spread post-timber harvest in unit 23-26 and suppress the regeneration of hardwoods. .
Cumulative Effects There is a long land use history in the Fontana botanical analysis area that has contributed to the density and abundance of NNIP, particularly Oriental bittersweet. Past actions that have contributed to the spread of NNIP species in the Fontana botanical analysis area include the construction of Highway 28, the construction and maintenance of the Fontana-Santeetlah transmission line, the construction and maintenance of Fontana Dam and Village, and the management of timber. Currently, there are no known actions that are contributing to the NNIP spread in the Fontana botanical analysis area. Oriental bittersweet is being treated in the Great Smoky National Park (GSNP) in portions north of Fontana Dam.
Kristine Johnson (Natural Resource Manager, Great Smoky Mountains National Park) reported that bittersweet started to become more widespread approximately 10 years ago in
91 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project portions of the park north of Fontana Dam. To reduce and control the spread of this species in the Cades Cove area, herbicide treatments were used for 6-8 years and applied several times annually (Kristine Johnson, personal communication). The Tennessee Valley Authority treated the Fontana-Santeetlah transmission line for bittersweet twice for five years. After these treatments, there were still viable bittersweet seedlings. Other than the proposed actions (alternative B and C) there are no foreseeable actions that would increase the spread of NNIP in the Fontana botanical analysis area.
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 (MIS Report, pages 784-785). Therefore, this proposal would generate NNIP suitable habitat as follows: Alt. B, 605 acres and 5.9 miles of temporary road and Alt. C, 419 acres and 4.9 miles of temporary road.
D. Recommendations for the Control of NNIP
Due to the widespread occurrence of NNIP in the Fontana project area, the prioritization of where to treat and which species to treat first is highly critical. Due to the prevalence of bittersweet in the Fontana project area, control efforts started Fiscal Year 2013 for this NNIP. Research and past management efforts have shown that bittersweet control efforts via herbicides have to be aggressive. As part of a five year mitigation plan for the removal of NNIP along the Fontana-Santeetlah transmission line, the Tennessee Valley Authority treated Oriental bittersweet along transmission lines twice annually for five years. Many of the plants were eradicated, but viable individuals remained. Thus, eradicating Oriental bittersweet populations in forested areas before they are released by disturbance is the best control method (Smith 2012). The eradication of bittersweet may be impossible for large infestations. Proposed units (18-20, 23-26) directly adjacent to large bittersweet infestations should be buffered or dropped to prevent hardwood suppression or loss of natural resources. The minimization of disturbance is the most effective management strategy for the control of bittersweet infestations due to the species aggressive nature and difficulty to control.
Below is the detailed description on how to treat Oriental bittersweet from Cherri Smith's book/manual "Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina" printed by the N.C. Department of Transportation in 2012.
Prevention and Control Identifying and eradicating populations of C. orbiculatus in forested areas before they are released by a disturbance is the best method of control. It is possible to dig and hand pull small initial populations taking care to remove all of the root system to prevent re-sprouting. All plant material should be bagged and disposed of in the trash.
A successful control technique for low dense patches of C. orbiculatus involves cutting the vegetation to the ground early in the growing season and allowing it to re-sprout. Approximately one month later, spray the foliage with a 2 percent solution of triclopyr.
92 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Where vines have grown into the canopy, cut the stem 2 inches above ground and immediately apply a 50 percent solution of triclopyr to the cut stem. This method is effective as long as the ground is not frozen. All treatments should be followed up the next year to monitor and control new seedlings and root sprouts.
Listed below are proposed activity areas identified as high priority sites for treatment or exclusion due to the risk of bittersweet or other NNIP invasion.
1. Unit 18-20 has a bittersweet infestation adjacent to the proposed unit. This unit would be highly susceptible to bittersweet invasion post-timber harvest because the unit is a Rich Cove Forest with high nutrient and moisture availability. Also, this unit has a princess tree growing in the unit and more saplings may sprout post-timber harvest or disturbance. The western portion of the proposed unit 18-20 that contains Rich Cove Forest and a perennial stream should be excluded or dropped; this would be a 550 ft. buffer or exclusion zone
2. The proposed unit 23-26 has a large bittersweet infestation adjacent to the unit and several bittersweet seedlings in the unit. This unit would be highly susceptible to bittersweet invasion post-timber harvest because the unit is a Rich Cove Forest with high nutrient and moisture availability. The proposed unit 23-26 should be excluded to reduce the risk of bittersweet invasion and hardwood suppression.
3. The proposed unit 19-05 (21 acres) has a high likelihood of bittersweet invasion in the western portion of the unit post-timber harvest. The western portion of the unit is a Rich Cove Forest with bittersweet seedlings along the proposed temporary road leading into the unit.
4. The proposed Unit 21-22 has scattered bittersweet seedlings in the western portion of the unit in a Rich Cove Forest. The occurrence of bittersweet in the western portion of this unit would increase post-timber harvest.
5. Proposed temporary road construction for unit 20-4 has bittersweet seedlings along the existing old logging road. There is a high likelihood that the spread of bittersweet would occur post-disturbance.
6. Proposed road daylighting along FSR with current bittersweet infestations would highly increase the spread and invasion of this species post-disturbance. Current bittersweet infestations occur on FSR 2520, FSR 251, FSR 251A, FSR 2524, prop. temp. rd. for 22-17, 21-26, FSR 2624, FSR 2625, FSR 2623, FSR 2621, FSR 2536, FSR 2619, and FSR 520B, and prop. temp. rd. for 19-05.
7. The proposed unit 19-05 (22 acres) has a Japanese stiltgrass infestation in the western portion of the unit close to FSR 2520. This spread of this infestation would likely increase post-timber harvest.
93 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.7.2 North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas
There are no known research natural areas (RNA) or botanical special interest areas recognized by the current Forest Plan within the Fontana botanical analysis area. Therefore, this proposal would have no effect on any of these areas.
The NC State Natural Heritage Program has designated three Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) (Round Mountain Cove, Firescald Ridge, and High Top/Bee Cove Slopes) that overlap with proposed activity areas. The proposed units 22-4 and 22-25 overlap with the Round Mountain Cove SNHA. The acres proposed for unit 22-25 were reduced to exclude the linear seep or intermittent stream that contains high quality wetland vegetation and seepage salamanders (Desmognathus aeneus). The proposed unit 22-4 contains a small population mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata) on the eastern edge of the unit. These individuals would be buffered by 30 foot exclusion zone to reduce negative impacts to this species.
The proposed units 24-09, 23-32, and 23-26 overlap with the High Top/Bee Cove Slopes. These three units contain high quality Rich Cove Forests; known occurrences of cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea); and the proposed unit 24-09 contains the only known population of harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa) on the Nantahala-Pisgah NF. Under Alternative C, these three proposed units would be dropped.
Alternative B was modified and the proposed units 21-17 and 21-12 were dropped. These two units overlapped with the Farley Branch SNHA. These two units were dropped because they contained high quality Rich Cove Forests and there were NNIP concerns. Thus, this proposal would not impact any acres in the Farley Branch SNHA. A small portion of the proposed unit 120-02 overlaps with the Firescald Ridge SNHA. This unit contains a small population of mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata) that could be easily buffered by 30 foot exclusion zone.
3.8. Soil and Water Resources
Existing Condition
The proposed project activities occur in Graham County. The Soil Survey of analysis area for the county was conducted using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey to determine soil types in the proposed project activity areas. The common soil series and distributions are presented in Table 3.7.1. The most abundant soil series is the Sylco-Cataska complex followed by the Spivey-Santeetlah / Spivey-Whiteoak complexes. Both are loamy, well-drained mesic soils in the Typic Dystrudepts and Typic Humudepts soil orders. All of the soil map units are used for woodland. There are few floodplain and no prime farmland soils in the project area. The existing access roads have a good grass cover on them at present.
94 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A
There would be no new effects to soil or water quality as a result of management activities. Forest Service roads would not receive the benefits incurred from roadside thinning (ie, increased sunlight to the roadbed, and thus more road drying during inclement weather). Alternatives B and C. Existing culverts that need maintenance or replacement would not have this work accomplished.
Alternatives B and C
Alternative B would entail modestly more ground disturbance than Alternative C. Construction and reconstruction of log landings would result in some soil exposure and compaction; the landings would be promptly seeded after use. 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 upon harvest unit closure, and these locations would be reused if future harvesting were proposed. Temporary road construction and use would result in soil disturbance and compaction. Erosion and sedimentation from the temporary road would be managed through the use of silt fences and other control features. The road would be treated with a grass seed mixture and allowed to be reclaimed by the forest at the conclusion of the project.
Table 3.8.1 Soils in the Fontana Project analysis area (AA) by soil series and relative abundance. Map Unit Percent Map Unit Name Symbol of AA AkB Alarka-Wesser complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes, occasionally 0.7% flooded CsF Cheoah-Jeffrey complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, very rocky 4.7% CwA Cullowhee-Ela complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally 0.1% flooded DrB Dillard loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes, rarely flooded 0.1% DtE Ditney-Unicoi-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, 0.2% very stony JtD Junaluska-Tsali complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 0.5% JtE Junaluska-Tsali complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 1.8% JtF Junaluska-Tsali complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes 0.1% LnC Lonon-Northcove complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery 0.4% LnD Lonon-Northcove complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, bouldery 2.3% LtD Luftee-Anakeesta complex, windswept, 15 to 30 percent slopes, 0.3% very rocky
95 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
LtE Luftee-Anakeesta complex, windswept, 30 to 50 percent slopes, 0.3% very rocky NtE Northcove-Lonon complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, very 2.5% bouldery SbE Snowbird loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 0.2% SdD Soco-Stecoah complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, rocky 0.2% SdE Soco-Stecoah complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, rocky 0.7% SnE Soco-Stecoah complex, windswept, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 1.1% SpE Spivey-Santeetlah complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, very 10.1% bouldery SpF Spivey-Santeetlah complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, very 2.3% bouldery SvD Spivey-Whiteoak complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, bouldery 5.0% SwB Statler loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, rarely flooded 0.1% SyD Sylco-Cataska complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, very rocky 3.5% SyE Sylco-Cataska complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, very rocky 8.2% SyF Sylco-Cataska complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, very rocky 53.7%
All silvicultural activities would be conducted according to LRMP standards and guidelines, and to the NC Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (BMPs). Some old existing culverts may need replacement and would be replaced with new ones as necessary. 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. This is because the effects described above are expected to stay on-site within the analysis area.
Watershed research to date indicates that there would be little short or long-term adverse effects of the proposed two-aged regeneration harvesting 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. Nantahala RD 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 FS administrators.
96 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives
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 C of this project, included some surface exposure, soil compaction on parts of previous harvest units, and minor sedimentation on the days culverts are installed. There are no known projects occurring on private lands currently or in the foreseeable future which would affect the project area lands. There are no other currently-planned or foreseeable future Forest Service projects in the analysis area.
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 (Alternatives B and C) are the expected direct and indirect effects of the actions proposed in Alternatives B and C as described above. 3.9 Air Resources
Existing Condition
The Fontana project area is designated as a Class II air quality area. It currently meets national ambient air quality standards (Bill Jackson, NFsNC Air Quality Specialist, personal communication).
Direct and Indirect Effects
None of the alternatives is 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. Prescribed burn plans for the two proposed burns 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 analysis area. No ongoing projects are occurring that would affect air quality. Also, there are no additional Forest Service projects currently planned in this analysis area.
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.
97 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.10. 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 Fontana Project occur on all slope aspects. Species composition in the area compartments consists predominantly of cove or upland hardwoods and pine-hardwood mixtures. Most stands (over 9,000 acres, or 78%) are inventoried as aged over 60 years (Refer to Figure 1.2.3).
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 61-100 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 sawtimber-sized trees, scattered or clumped throughout younger timber.
There have been multiple entries into these compartments over the past several decades, including SPB salvage harvests in the early 2000s. All regenerated stands have been certified as successfully reforested. Current early successional habitat (stands ages 0-10) exist on 403 acres.
Small patch old growth units are in the process of being designated.
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.
Alternative B - Regeneration of the proposed stands would initiate approximately 605 acres of stands aged 0-10 in the compartments. Regeneration would originate from a combination of advanced reproduction, stump sprouts and new seedlings of the species present on the sites Species composition would be similar to that of the current stands. Treating competing vegetation in the form of undesirable tree 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 insure 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
98 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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 605 acres of regeneration are within the watershed-level analysis area of 12,376 acres. Thus, Alternative B would create early successional habitat (stands aged 0-10 years) on 5% of the national forest lands in the analysis area. The LRMP states (page III-31) that there is no minimum amount of early successional habitat required for MA 4, but the maximum should not exceed 10%. In addition, the LRMP states (page III-31) that the minimum amount of early successional habitat required for MA 3 is 5% and the maximum is 15%. Since there are currently 403 acres (primarily in SPB treatment units) in the analysis area in this habitat, the proposed action would result in there being a maximum of 8.1% of this type of habitat over the next 10 years following the regeneration harvests. Given that the project proposes this small percentage of early successional habitat to be achieved by timber stand regeneration, there would be much older forest remaining for black bears and other species that prefer older forests. Moreover, many wildlife species rely on the soft mast and structure provided by this younger habitat. Although the regeneration activities might temporarily displace some animals in the area, most species’ territories are large enough such that the temporary disturbance would not negatively affect them. As 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.
In addition to the regeneration of stands, one young, white pine stand (22 acres) would be thinned to increase the growth and vigor of the trees. This treatment would allow a merchantable product to be removed while increasing the vigor and future growth of the remaining trees. A non-merchantable stand improvement treatment would also be performed across 42 areas (419 acres). This treatment will reap benefits in the future by allowing desirable species in these young stands, i.e. oaks, hickories, shortleaf pine, etc., to grow into the developing overstory.
Alternative C - The effects would be natural regeneration of hardwoods on approximately 557 acres. This would result in creating early successional habitat across 4.5% of the analysis area. The free thinning and stand improvement treatments and effects would be the same as Alternative B.
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.
Alternative B - There are no other proposed future management activities that would affect the timber/vegetation resources in the project compartments. The effects of Alternative B
99 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project combined with previous sales 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 605 acres of mature stands into the age 0-10 class. Except for 403 acres remaining in the early successional age class, stands harvested in the previous entry are now on the verge of entering the 20-30 year age class. In addition, the combination of Alternative B stand regeneration activities and past stand regeneration activities 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 lands.
Alternative C - There are no ongoing or proposed future management activities that would affect the timber/vegetation resources in the project compartments. The effects of Alternative C combined with previous sales 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 557 acres of mature stands into the age 0-10 class (refer to Appendix C, Age Class Distribution). Except for 403 acres remaining in the early successional age class, stands harvested in the previous entry are now in the 11-20 year age class. In addition, the combination of Alternative C stand regeneration activities and past stand regeneration activities 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 lands.
3.11 Heritage Resources
Affected Environment
A heritage resource inventory was completed for the proposed project. Several previous cultural resource surveys (FS 1987, 1988, 1990) have been conducted in proximity to and included portions of the Fontana Project. One previously recorded archeological site is within the proposed project area. The site was assessed as potentially eligible to the NRHP when first located and must be protected and avoided by all project activities. The report is completed has 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.
100 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternatives B and C - Direct effects to cultural resources are not expected to result from either action alternative 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 will be addressed, if needed, by monitoring of the area during and after project implementation.
3.12 Recreation Resources
Existing Condition
The Fontana analysis area is bordered by the Appalachian Trail to the south and west with Forest Service lands serving a foreground and middleground viewsheds for the trail. All proposed treatment sites were subjected to analysis to ensure that visual quality objectives (VQOs) would be met. Forest Interior Breeding Bird Habitat Area Number Eight is within the analysis area; no activities are planned within the borders and they are included in the analysis to determine wildlife effects. The Fontana Village development is located in the analysis area and there is high use to Forest Service trails near Fontana Village. Much of the recreational use in the area is dispersed use associated with activities such as scenic driving, hiking, biking, hunting, birding, fishing, wildflower observing, and gathering of forest products.
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 and wildlife viewing) in the project area since there would be no new early successional habitat or restored riparian areas provided by management activities.
Alternative B – There would be an increase in the amount of trail designated for mountain bike use in the area. There would be no negative effects to day use visitors, and no negative effects to persons using the Appalachian Trail or other trails. No treatments or actions would be taken in the Breeding Bird Habitat Area, thus there would be no effects to it. For effects of proposed project activities on scenery resources, refer to the Scenery Analysis in Section 3.12.
101 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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 regenerated hardwood stands more suitable for ruffed grouse hunting than squirrel hunting following project completion. Bird watchers might be more likely to see or hear rufus-sided towhees, chestnut-sided warblers, and indigo buntings in the new early successional habitat following regeneration. Blackberries would increase in the regenerated stands while they remain in early successional habitat, with a resultant increase in berry picking opportunities. Habitat improvements would create new opportunities for wildlife viewing. Stream restoration treatments would create more opportunities for fishing.
Alternative C – There would be an increase in the amount of trail designated for mountain bike use in the area. There would be no negative effects to day use visitors, and no negative effects to persons using the Appalachian Trail or other trails. No treatments or actions would be taken in the Breeding Bird Habitat Area, thus there would be no effects to it. For effects of proposed project activities on scenery resources, refer to the Scenery Analysis in Section 3.12.
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 regenerated hardwood stands more suitable for ruffed grouse hunting than squirrel hunting following project completion. Bird watchers might be more likely to see or hear rufus-sided towhees, chestnut-sided warblers, and indigo buntings in the new early successional habitat following regeneration. Blackberries would increase in the regenerated stands while they remain in early successional habitat, with a resultant increase in berry picking opportunities. Habitat improvements would create new opportunities for wildlife viewing. Stream restoration treatments would create more opportunities for fishing.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A - There would be no cumulative effects for Alternative A.
Alternative B - Past projects and pine beetle treatments in this area created several acres of early successional habitat. Of that, 403 acres remain. Effects of Alternative B would be the creation of recreational opportunities associated with approximately 605 new acres of early successional habitat, such as better hunting and increased wildlife viewing. Because the stands currently aged 0 to 10 years and classified as early successional habitat will exceed age ten between the time of this analysis and the implementation of treatments in 2014 and
102 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
2015, the cumulative amount of early successional habitat and its associated benefits would also be approximately 605 acres.
Alternative C - The amount of new early successional habitat available for recreational users using that kind of habitat would be approximately 557 acres. Cumulatively, early successional habitat and its associated benefits would be the same 557 acres.
3.13 Scenery
Existing Condition
The project area encompasses approximately 13,376 acres, with the majority of the treatments proposed in Management Area (MA) 4 and MA 2, Sensitivity Level 2, with a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Partial Retention (PR) in the general area. The balance of the treatment units are in compartments classified as MA 4D with a PR VQO.
Direction for the PR VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape (LRMP at G-1) and to meet the VQO within two growing seasons after treatment.
Proposed actions would meet the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5 pages III-79-83) in the MA 2 and MA 4 parts of the project area.
The following actions will be taken to ensure that VQOs are met while conducting treatments viewed from the Appalachian Trail.
Work in unit 119-16 would be conducted so that 40 square feet of residual basal area would be left in the western half of the unit, leaving more residual basal area at the tops of ridges. The western half of unit 119-17 would be dropped from silvicultural treatments.
Work in units 22-2 and 22-25 would be conducted to ensure that residual basal area would be clumped at the highest elevations of the stands to meet partial retention VQOs for the Appalachian Trail middleground, in which management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and actions meet VQOs within two growing seasons.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A - There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenery resources.
Alternative B - All proposed harvest units would meet their assigned VQOs.
103 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
For dispersed recreation users such as hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, hunters, and wildlife viewers, the proposed management activities would be buffered in areas adjacent to existing trails, and would meet their assigned VQOs within the required timeframe.
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 lands within two or three full growing seasons. Because the proposed activities for Alternative C would meet their assigned VQOs, there would be minor effects to the visual resource from these proposed actions. There are no ongoing activities in the project area that would affect scenery, and none currently planned for the future. There are no actions on private lands that are affecting the scenery resource on the national forest lands in the project area. Thus, if Alternative C were implemented, cumulative effects would be minimal short-term changes to the scenery resources.
Alternative C - All units would meet their assigned VQOs.
For dispersed recreation users such as hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, hunters, and wildlife viewers, the proposed management activities would be buffered in areas adjacent to existing trails, and would meet their assigned VQOs within the required timeframe.
Cumulative Effects - Cumulative effects for Alternative C would be the same as described for Alternative B above.
104 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.14 Social and Economic Considerations
Existing Condition
The directly affected social and economic environment for this project is the local vicinity, which includes Graham County communities near the project area. Indirect effects would apply to the surrounding area.
A financial analysis for the timber sale portion of the project was conducted primarily to compare the relative costs and benefits associated with each alternative. 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 provide golden-winged warbler habitat, cerulean warbler habitat, and other game and non-game wildlife habitat improvement, forest management, recreation, and economic benefits would be foregone.
Alternative B - The project would benefit the local economy by directly providing several months of work for a local logging company 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 1,815 cubic feet of mixed hardwood sawtimber, 1,815 cubic feet of low grade hardwood sawtimber, 2,240 cubic feet of oak sawtimber, 1,815 cubic feet of low grade hardwood sawtimber, 5,104 cubic feet of hardwood pulp, white pine sawtimber, and low- grade sawtimber would be offered for sale in the local market. The total value of the timber released to the local economy would be approximately $376,340.
Alternative C - There would be benefits to the economy as described in paragraph one under Alternative B.
An estimated 1,641 cubic feet of mixed hardwood sawtimber, 1,641 cubic feet of low grade hardwood sawtimber, 2,188 cubic feet of oak sawtimber, 1,094 cubic feet of low grade hardwood sawtimber, 4,464 cubic feet of hardwood pulp, white pine sawtimber, and low- grade sawtimber would be offered for sale in the local market. The total value of the timber released to the local economy would be approximately $317,134.
105 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
3.15 Road Management
Existing Condition
Current access to the area is via several state and Forest Service (FS) roads. Many of the FS roads are open to public vehicular use, with a few roads being seasonally closed to public use from about December 31 to April 1 each year. Some roads and road segments are closed to public use and are seeded in a wildlife grass-forb mixture.
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.
Alternative B – 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.
Alternative C – 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..
Cumulative Effects
Because there would be no changes to current road management practices, there would be no cumulative effects to road management from implementing any project alternative. Because no changes are proposed to the FS road system, a separate Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP) is not required for this project.
3.16 Climate Change
Climate change is discussed here in two ways: 1) how climate change affects analysis area resources, and 2) how the project area alternatives affect climate change. Note: Some of the material in this section is adapted from (quoted) and referenced by the Cherokee National Forest Big Creek EA, July 2009.
Existing Condition, and How Climate Change Affects Analysis Area Resources
The existing condition is an analysis area that is typical of the southern Appalachians, with a range of elevations from approximately 1,400 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-changed 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 2001). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the United States. However, the models differ considerably. One predicts little change in precipitation
106 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project until 2030, followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 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’ (cold-adapted ones such as northern hardwoods) ranges 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.
Fontana Project Effects on Climate Change
Scope of Analysis
The scope of this analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on climate change includes the 12,376 acres of national forest lands in the compartments that comprise the analysis area. The time frame 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 and C - It is not expected that the action alternatives (B and C) 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 70 and older. In addition, it is anticipated that the existing forest types in the stands to be regenerated will regenerate naturally to these same forest types; climate change will not make any difference.
Each of the action alternatives (B and C) 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’
107 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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.
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 US 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 th eastern U.S. harvest in the 19-20 century, 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 US forests (Birdsey et al. 2007).
108 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cumulative Effects to Climate Change
For the action alternatives, the contribution of the proposed project activities to the carbon cycle is extremely small. Conducting regeneration harvesting on approximately 605 acres (Alternative B) or 557 acres (Alternative C) would result in new early successional habitat on 4.9% or 4.5% of the total 12,376 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.
4 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4.1. List of Preparers
This document was prepared by Steverson Moffat, Nantahala Zone Natural Resources Planner. The Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared by Jason Farmer, Nantahala National Forest Fisheries 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:
Sheryl Bryan, National Forests in North Carolina Wildlife Biologist David Casey, Silviculturist, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger District Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Gary Kauffman, National Forests in North Carolina Botanist Steverson Moffat, NEPA Planning Team Leader, Nantahala National Forest Eric Pullium, GIS Specialist, Nantahala National Forest
109 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
April Punsalan, Botanist/Ecologist, Nantahala National Forest Duke Rankin, Former Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Le’Andra Smith, Former Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Lauren Stull, District Ranger, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger Districts Andrew Triplett, Archaeologist, Nantahala National Forest
Susan Loeb Laura DeWald Clemson Folks National Forests in North Carolina Ecological Restoration Steering Committee
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.
110 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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.
Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S. 2004. Carbon Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in the United States, 1952-2040. Environmental Managment. 33(4): 433-442. Jackson, Bill. 2002. Personal communication regarding air quality classification for areas on the Nantahala National Forest. Asheville, NC.
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.
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.
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/
USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Forest Health Protection Website: Herbicide Risk Assessments. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml
111 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
5 APPENDIX - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
PROPOSED ACTION
1.0 PROPOSED ACTION
Refer to Section 2 of this EA.
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 Fontana 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 Fontana Project consist of the following watersheds: the Cheoah River, Halfmile Branch, Clat Branch, Little Laurel Branch, Laurel Branch, Fishtrap Branch, Buggy Branch, Rocky Point Branch, Farley Branch, Jack Shute Branch, Fax Creek, Welch Cove Branch, Panel Branch, Lewelyn Cove, Bee Cove, Rattlesnake Branch, Blaze Branch, Powell Branch, Poison Cove Branch, Hyde Branch, Tuskegee Creek, Owenby Branch and Deaver Branch, and Fontana Lake.
Existing Conditions
The Cheoah River, Halfmile Branch, Clat Branch, Little Laurel Branch, Laurel Branch, Fishtrap Branch, Buggy Branch, Rocky Point Ferry Branch, Farley Branch, Jack Shute Branch, Fax Creek, Welch Cove Branch, Panel Branch, Hyde Branch, Tuskegee Branch, Owenby Branch, and Deaver Branch are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C. Rattlesnake Branch, Blaze Branch, Powell Branch, and Poison Cove are classified as Class WS-IV waters. Lewellyn Cove Branch is classified as Class C; Tr. Class WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Tr waters are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Fontana Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of boulders, cobble and large gravel. Analysis area streams are
112 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2010).
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 & E species in Graham County. Two aquatic T & E species remained after this initial filter (spotfin chub, Cyprinella monacha, and Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana). These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Both of these species occur within the Cheoah River but do not occur within the tributaries. One timber harvest area occurs within the watershed approximately 0.7 mile upstream on Halfmile Branch. No harvest activities would occur within the riparian area of this stream; therefore, there would be no effects to the stream. No proposed activities would occur near or within the Cheoah River and no suitable habitat exists within Halfmile Branch. Based upon the results of this filtering process no proposed, endangered, or threatened species were evaluated for this analysis (Attachment 1b). Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis. No aquatic T & E species were considered further in this analysis because they do not occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect any aquatic T & E species.
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 Fontana 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.
No aquatic T & E species have been found during previous surveys within the aquatic analysis area. Furthermore, the Fontana analysis area does not provide suitable habitat for any aquatic T & E species.
Table 2.1.1: Known and potential threatened and endangered aquatic species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana 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 & ES Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional aquatic surveys for T & E species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available for any aquatic threatened
113 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project 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 Fontana 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 & 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, or Alternative C. There would be no cumulative effects resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any aquatic T & E species resulting from implementation of the Fontana Project because there would be no direct or indirect effects of the Fontana Project on any aquatic T & E species and because there are no aquatic T & E species within the aquatic analysis area.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana 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 & E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Table 2.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B1 Alternative B Alternative C None Present No Effects No Effects No Effects No Effects
2.2 Botanical Resources
Botanical Analysis Area
The botanical analysis area or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is defined as the total area within two kilometers of any proposed treatment unit or activity area. The botanical analysis area definition was selected because it is analogous to NatureServes' (2013) 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 TES and FC plant species have the highest likelihood of occurring in the proposed activity areas. In addition, the Fontana 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 TES and FC plant species that occur within proposed activity areas.
114 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
The botanical analysis area for the Fontana project consists of 33,486 acres, occurring in the northern portion of Graham County. Approximately 16,507 of the acres in the botanical analysis area occur on the Nantahala National Forest.
Existing Conditions
The Fontana botanical analysis area contains mostly low elevation mesic, dry-mesic to dry plant communities, including Rich Cove Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, Pine-Oak Heath, and Canada Hemlock Forest (Table 2.2.1) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The elevation ranges from approximately 1500-1800 ft. (457- 548 m.) near Fontana Lake to 2500-3500 ft. (762-1066 m.) on the upper slopes and ridges. Generally, the Rich Cove Forest type occurs on broad, sheltered north and northeast facing slopes with the Acidic Cove Forest type occurring on narrow sheltered slopes. The Rich Cove Forests in the Yellow Creek Mountains (Bee Cove and Walker Gap) occur over pockets of calcsilicate rock that support a rich forest with high productivity (Schwartzman 2012). These sites support plant species not commonly found in the mountains, such as pawpaw (Asimina triloba), leatherwood (Dirca palustris) and yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea) (Schwartzman 2012). Boulderfields and rockoutcrops are interspersed throughout the Rich Cove Forests.
In the Fontana botanical analysis area, Rich Cove and Acidic Cove Forests' grade into Montane-Oak Hickory Forest on partially sheltered ridgetops or along lower ridges. The Montane-Oak Hickory Forests in the Fontana botanical analysis area contain mature second- growth forests with large trees averaging 16-20" in diameter (Schwartzman 2012). On south and southwest exposed ridges and knobs, Pine-Oak Heath and Chestnut Oak Forest occur. Some of the sheltered low ridges in the Fontana botanical analysis area contain Canada hemlock forest or hemlock hardwood forest, which are thinning and dying back due to the hemlock woolly adelgid.
115 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 2.2.1: Plant communities in the Fontana botanical analysis area and in the proposed activity areas (data derived from the potential natural vegetation model and botanical field surveys).
Analysis Area Activity Area Forest Communities Acres Percent Acres Percent High Elevation Red Oak 60 0.3 0 0 Northern Hardwood Cove 2 0.01 0 0 Acidic Cove 3887 23 78 12 Rich Cove 701 4 87 14 Montane Oak-Hickory 7532 46 270 43 Chestnut Oak/Heath 237 1 21 3 Pine-Oak/Heath 3167 19 56 8 Shortleaf Pine-Oak Heath 17 0.1 20 3 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory 547 3.3 87 14 Mixed Oak Heath 7 0.04 0 0 Alluvial Forest 360 2 0 0 Approximate Totals 16517 625
Species Evaluated and Rationale
All 415 federally threatened & endangered, Region 8 sensitive (TES), and National Forest in North Carolina forest concern (FC) plant species were initially considered in this analysis. TES and FC plant species with the greatest likelihood of occurring in the proposed activity area were determined by:
1. Reviewing the list of TES and FC plants species that occur across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest and their habitat preferences.
2. Reviewing the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program element occurrence (EO) records for TES and FC plant species that occur in Graham County.
3. Consulting with individuals knowledgeable of the area and associated flora (Ed Schwartzman, Botanist, NC Natural Heritage Program, Gary Kauffman, Botanist/Ecologist, National Forests in North Carolina).
4. Reviewing TES and FC element occurrence (EO) records that occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area.
5. Performing botanical field surveys in proposed activity areas.
There are 68 TES and FC plant species that are known or historically known to occur in Graham County (Attachment 2). Out of these TES and FC plant species, one federally threatened plant, Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), five region 8 sensitive, and 10 forest
116 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project concern plant species are known or historically known to occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area (Table 2.2.2). Out of these TES and FC plant species, the sensitive plant, Megaceros aenigmaticus (Hornwort) and three forest concern plant species, including harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa), mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata), and purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera) were found in proposed activity areas during botanical surveys conducted in 2013 (Table 2.2.2). No federally listed plant species were located during botanical field surveys. An effects analysis for Virginia spiraea was not performed because this species does not occur in the proposed activity area. In addition, there is no potential suitable habitat for Virginia spiraea in the proposed project area. Virginia spiraea occurs in riverside scour zones and in Montane Alluvial Forests along the Cheoah River. Because plants are rooted species that must be present in the proposed activity areas to undergo effects, only TES and FC plant species found within the proposed activity areas underwent an effects analysis.
Previous Survey Information
Site survey reports completed for the Graham County Inventory (Farley Branch, Round Mountain Cove, and High Top/Bee Cove) by Ed Schwartzman were reviewed to identify any TES and FC plant species or specialized habitat in proposed activity areas. Gary Kauffman, Botanist, NFsNC, reported areas with the highest potential of TES and FC species based upon past botanical surveys in the area.
New Surveys Conducted
New surveys were conducted in proposed activity areas to identify TES and FC plant species that would be impacted by the proposed project. Botanical field surveys were conducted in April, May, June, July, and October 2013 by David Danley (Botanist/Ecologist, Pisgah National Forest) and April Punsalan (Botanist/Ecologist, Nantahala National Forest). The majority of the botanical surveys were conducted in April, May, and June 2013.
While the survey focused on TES and FC plant species within the botanical analysis area, all 415 federally threatened & endangered, Region 8 sensitive (TES), and National Forest in North Carolina forest concern (FC) 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 TES and FC plant species. Overall, survey intensity varied depending on botanical diversity, presence of indicator species, and presence of TES and FC plant species. The sensitive plant, Megaceros aenigmaticus (Hornwort) and three forest concern plant species, including harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa), mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata), and purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera) were found in proposed
117 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
activity areas during botanical surveys conducted in 2013 (Table 2.2.2). No federally listed plant species were located during botanical field surveys.
Table 2.2.2: Documented TES and FC plant species in the Fontana botanical analysis area. Species Natural Community/Habitat Local Occurrence Federally Threatened and Endangered Plants Virginia Spiraea Riverside Scour Zone, In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Spiraea virginiana) Montane Alluvial Forest proposed activity area Region 8 Regional Forester's Sensitive Plant Species (S) Vascular Plants Rock Skullcap (Scutellaria Northern Hardwood Forest, In the botanical analysis area, not in the saxatilis) Boulderfield Forest, Rich proposed activity area Cove Forest Mountain Thaspium (Thaspium Rich Cove Forest, Basic Historical occurrence in the botanical analysis pinnatifidum) Montane Oak-Hickory, area, not in the proposed activity area Roadside, mafic rock Nonvascular Plants Megaceros aenigmaticus Stream In the proposed activity area (Unit 20/04, (Hornwort) Unit 18/20, and 120/35) Plagiochila sciophila Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock In the botanical analysis area, not in the (A Liverwort) Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest proposed activity area in Gorge Sullivant's Leafy Liverwort Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Plagiochila sullivanti var. proposed activity area sullivanti) Forest Concern Species (FC) Vascular Plants Appalachian Filmy-Fern Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Trichomanes boschianum) proposed activity area Bleeding Heart Montane Acidic Cliff, In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Dicentra eximia) Montane Mafic Cliff proposed activity area Climbing Fumitory Rich Cove Forest, Montane In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Adlumia fungosa) Acidic Cliff, Montane proposed activity area Calcareous Cliff Dwarf Filmy-Fern Montane Acidic Cliff, Grotto, In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Trichomanes petersii) Gorge proposed activity area Harbinger-of-Spring Rich Woods In the proposed activity area (Unit 24/09) (Erigenia bulbosa) Huger's Carrion-Flower Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Smilax hugeri) Hickory, mafic rock, Dry- proposed activity area Mesic Oak Forest Mountain Camellia Acidic Cove Forest, Montane In the proposed activity area (Unit 22/04, (Stewartia ovata) Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic 22/17, 19/05, 19/01, 22/09, and 120/02) Oak Forest Purple Fringeless Orchid Southern Appalachian Bog, In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Platanthera peramoena) Seep, Marsh, rocky bar and proposed activity area shore, Montane Alluvial Forest Purple Wood Sedge Rich Cove Forest, Montane In the proposed activity area (along FSR (Carex purpurifera) Alluvial Forest 2619) Nonvascular Plants Copper Moss Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides In the botanical analysis area, not in the (Scopelophila ligulata) proposed activity area
118 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
No proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species occurs within the proposed activity areas for the Fontana project. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species from the implementation of Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C.
Determination of Effect
The alternatives proposed for the Fontana project (Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C) would have no effect on any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.
Table 2.2.3: Determination of effect for each alternative on the evaluated endangered or threatened plant species.
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C None Present No Effects No Effects No Effects
2.3 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife Analysis Area
The terrestrial wildlife analysis area used for this proposal is the same as the Fontana Project area. 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 are analyzed using the activity area boundaries. All potential cumulative effects on wildlife resources are analyzed using the larger wildlife analysis area.
Existing Conditions
The endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is protected in Graham County by the Biological Opinion (BO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Protection of the Indiana Bat. There are records of Indiana bats, individual bat captures and maternity roost locations, within and adjacent to the wildlife analysis area. Timber harvest and other activities that may cause direct effects to Indiana bats are not covered under the BO if located within 1.5 miles of a known maternity roost. The proposed units’ proximities to Indiana bat records are summarized below in Table 2.3.2.
119 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Potentially affected rare wildlife species were identified by: 1) reviewing the rare species list for wildlife species that may occur on the Nantahala National Forest and their habitat preferences (see Attachment 3); 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.
Species were filtered by those that may occur in Graham County, according to the NCNHP, and then by those that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on NCNHP GIS element occurrence records. These species were then filtered further by habitat information and the availability of that habitat within the proposed activity areas. Species that are not tracked by the NCNHP and could potentially occur within the proposed activity areas were added to the list of species to be analyzed. Species with habitat that does not occur within proposed activity areas were not discussed further, because without habitat present within the area of influence of proposed actions, no direct or indirect effects would result on these species.
On October 2, 2013, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2013). As a proposed species, the northern long-eared bat is considered in this analysis, and as a species that occurs in Graham County, the northern long-eared bat is evaluated further in the effects discussion below.
Survey Information
Past survey efforts for the Indiana bat have included acoustic monitoring, mist netting for captures, and tracking individuals to roost trees. Acoustic surveys, using AnabatII bat detectors, were conducted by Susan Loeb, Southern Research Station Research Ecologist, from July to August 2012. These surveys resulted in positive acoustic results for Indiana bats in twelve units which are listed below in Table 2.3.2. A positive acoustic result indicates that Indiana bats are present in these stands and likely foraging but does not necessarily signify that individuals are roosting within the aforementioned units.
Table 2.3.1: Proposed, threatened, and endangered terrestrial animal species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and buildings may occur Northern long-eared bat (warmer months); in caves and mines (winter months) Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose wildlife analysis Indiana bat bark and snags (warmer months); in area caves (winter months)
120 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 2.3.2: Fontana Project treatment unit proximity to Indiana bat records*. Compartment Unit Type of Record 17 19 Acoustic 18 20 Acoustic 19 1 Acoustic 19 5 Acoustic 19 11 Acoustic 20 4 Maternity Roost, Capture, Acoustic 21 22 Maternity Roost, Acoustic 21 26 Maternity Roost, Acoustic 22 4 Maternity Roost, Capture, Acoustic 22 9 Maternity Roost, Capture, Acoustic 22 17 Maternity Roost, Capture, Acoustic 22 25 Maternity Roost, Capture, Acoustic 23 26 Acoustic 23 32 Acoustic 24 9 Acoustic 119 16 Maternity Roost, Capture 119 17 Maternity Roost, Capture 119 20 Maternity Roost, Capture, Acoustic 119 25 Maternity Roost, Capture 120 2 Maternity Roost, Capture 120 30 Maternity Roost, Capture 120 35 Maternity Roost, Capture 120 36 Maternity Roost, Capture 120 39 Maternity Roost, Capture 121 2 None 121 7 Maternity Roost, Capture 123 8 Maternity Roost, Capture * Records mentioned indicate that the unit listed is within 1.5 miles of that type of record.
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 and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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. If roosting in a cut tree, adults can escape by flying, but non-volant pups would not be able to escape. There are known maternity colonies and potential maternity roosts within and
121 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project adjacent to the proposed activity areas. To essentially eliminate the probability of disturbing Indiana bat maternity colonies while allowing harvest activities to be implemented between April 15 and October 15, specific design criteria have been developed, with input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to protect known and potential maternity roosts.
Any tree felling activities that are proposed within 1.5 miles of known maternity roosts or positive acoustic records would be treated as such: 1) Susan Loeb, a qualified wildlife biologist with the Southern Research Station, and/or Eric Winters, her technician with specific experience in the Fontana Project area, would identify potential maternity roost trees within activity areas, 2) each potential or known maternity roost tree would be marked with white paint as a wildlife tree; 3) an 80 foot buffer would be marked around each potential or known maternity roost tree to protect the tree from unintentional impacts.
In all activity areas, this proposal would also comply with the terms and conditions of the BO and the standards set forth in Amendment 25 to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan to reduce the likelihood of direct effects.
These standards include retention of standing trees with more than 25% exfoliating bark, shellbark and shagbark hickories, snags greater than 3 inches dbh, and hollow, den, or cavity trees as practicable. Within the first 30 ft. 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 ft. of such streams. 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 9 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 ft. of the snag.
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 significantly. Indiana bats may respond positively to habitat disturbance, particularly where forests are even-aged and closed-canopied. A diverse landscape may benefit Indiana bats, because dense overstory and understory inhibit bat movement and foraging.
Other proposed activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat, widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike trail standards, and herbicide use would not have any detrimental effects on the Indiana bat. Cut cable treatments remove live trees that would not serve as Indiana bat roosts. Vegetation removal to widen Bee Cove Trail would not measurably impact habitat, and if a potential roost tree or snag needed to be removed along the trail, tree felling would occur between October 15 and April 15 when Indiana bats are in hibernacula.
122 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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.
Alternative B: A habitat suitability model (HSM) based on Indiana bat habitat characteristics described in the BO was used to estimate cumulative habitat change from the baseline within the Fontana Project Area. These cumulative effects are based off past harvest activities and the proposed actions, because there are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the analysis area that would appreciably alter Indiana bat habitat. The HSM 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 B) as input into the model. The resultant output illustrates the worst-case scenario percent change from baseline habitat suitability within the analysis area based on the maximum alternative in combination with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
According to the HSM, the maximum alternative of the Fontana Project would result in a cumulative 2.42% decrease in suitable habitat within the wildlife 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.
The 14 maternity colonies that exist within 1.5 miles of harvest activities were run through a modified version of the HSM to determine the amount of change from baseline suitability that would occur within a two mile buffer. The maximum alternative would result in a 2.3% alteration of baseline habitat around all colonies. In addition, each maternity colony was individual run through the modified HSM. According to the HSM, the cumulative habitat change from baseline suitability did not exceed 5% for any known maternity roost, with changes ranging from 0.9% to 3.8%. The largest cumulative change around a known maternity colony within 1.5 miles of harvest activities is shown above in Figure 2.3.2, where current activity is the known maternity colony and historic is proposed and past harvest.
123 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Figure 2.3.1: HSM output: worst-case Indiana bat habitat change from baseline suitability.
Figure 2.3.2: HSM output: largest habitat alteration for known Indiana bat maternity colonies.
124 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the Indiana bat
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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. Further design criteria specifically addressing this species have been developed to essentially eliminate the likelihood of direct impacts. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for wildlife resources.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
The effects of the Fontana Project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.
The greatest threat to the northern long-eared bat 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 August 2012, this disease has been confirmed in 22 states, including North Carolina, and 5 Canadian provinces and suspect in 4 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.
The proposed reservoir fisheries habitat improvements, trail improvements, wildlife opening maintenance/improvements, and non-native invasive species treatments would have no effects to the northern long-eared bat.
Common forest management activities, including timber harvest, timber stand improvements, and forest road construction, are not a threat to this species. The range is widespread across the United States and Canada though the northern long-eared bat is less common in the southern part of its range. In the warmer months, this species is opportunistic, choosing roosts in live trees or snags regardless of tree species, underneath bark or in cavities and crevices. Timber management would not have a detrimental effect on habitat. Some beneficial impacts from timber management include the creation of more open conditions within the forest conducive to bats foraging for flying insects. 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. Consequently, dormant season activities between October 15 and April 15 would be unlikely to have any direct impacts on the northern long-eared bat. With
125 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project negligible direct and indirect or possibly beneficial indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative effects that would impact this species.
The project design criteria listed above for the Indiana bat and adherence to the terms and conditions of the BO for the Indiana bat would provide the necessary protections to the northern long-eared bat.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects of the Fontana Project upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the northern long-eared bat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Implementation of Alternative B or Alternative C would result in no jeopardy to the northern long-eared bat, because all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. Further design criteria specifically addressing the Indiana bat have been developed to essentially eliminate the likelihood of direct impacts. Given the similarity of habitats used by these two species of bats, the protections afforded to the Indiana bat would also provide protections to the northern long-eared bat.
Once this species is listed, the determination of effects would be reviewed and modified. If required, informal concurrence for the resulting determination would be sought upon subsequent listing and modification of the determination of effects statement.
Table 2.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Myotis septentrionalis No Effects No Jeopardy No Jeopardy Northern long-eaered bat Myotis sodalis Not Likely to Adversely Not Likely to Adversely No Effects Indiana bat Affect Affect
2.4 Effect Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana 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 & E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana Project would have no effects to any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species because no botanical T&E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.
126 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative A of the Fontana Project would have no effect to any proposed, endangered, or threatened terrestrial wildlife species. Alternative B and Alternative C 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. Further design criteria specifically addressing this species have been developed to essentially eliminate the likelihood of direct impacts. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for wildlife resources.
Implementation of Alternative B or Alternative C would result in no jeopardy to the northern long-eared bat, because all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. Further design criteria specifically addressing the Indiana bat have been developed to essentially eliminate the likelihood of direct impacts. Given the similarity of habitats used by these two species of bats, the protections afforded to the Indiana bat would also provide protections to the northern long- eared bat.
2.5 Consultation History
A Biological Assessment for the Fontana Project was submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for concurrence on February 12, 2014.
3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES
3.1 Aquatic Resources
Aquatic Analysis Area
The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 2.1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 2.1 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). Ten aquatic species listed by the Regional Forester as Sensitive 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 aquatic Sensitive species in Graham County. The wounded darter, Etheostoma vulneratum, occurs within the Cheoah River downstream of Santeetlah Dam. This species does not occur within the tributaries of the Cheoah River; therefore, it was
127 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project eliminated from further analysis. No aquatic Sensitive species remained after this initial filter (Attachment 1b).
Based upon the results of this filtering process no regionally-sensitive aquatic species were evaluated in this analysis. Therefore, this project will not impact any sensitive aquatic species.
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 Fontana 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, 2010).
Table 3.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana 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 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 no suitable habitat is available within proposed treatment areas for the species known or potentially occurring on the Nantahala National Forest. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that the species are not likely to occur within the analysis area.
Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species
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.
Alternative B and Alternative C: No sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to any sensitive aquatic species or their habitats from implementing any of the alternatives. There would be no cumulative impacts resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any sensitive aquatic species resulting from implementation of the Fontana Project because there would be no direct or indirect impacts on any sensitive aquatic species.
Determination of Effect
128 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative A, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana Project would have no impact on any sensitive aquatic species because none are known or likely to occur within the proposed treatment areas and the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate prior to reaching suitable habitats for any of the sensitive aquatic species.
Table 3.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C None Present No Effects No Effects No Effects
3.2 Botanical Resources
Botanical Analysis Area
The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions for botanical resources have been described above for the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources (Section 2.2).
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare plant species were evaluated based on the process described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Section 2.2). One sensitive plant, Megaceros aenigmaticus (A hornwort), was located during botanical surveys (Table 3.2.1).
Survey Information
Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).
Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species
Megaceros aenigmaticus (Hornwort)
Megaceros aenigmaticus is a large, dark green thalloid hornwort with erose margins (Hicks 1992; Schuster 1992). It is a narrow southern Appalachian endemic known to occur in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Megaceros is a haploid asexual hornwort that is dioecious. Male and female populations occur in different watersheds (Villarreal et al. 2012). This hornwort prefers shaded rocks and boulders in small streams that have cool, non-turbid waters with a water depth of 1-2 inches (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Threats
129 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project to this species’ survival include habitat degradation and lack of sexual reproduction due to the geographic isolation of female and male gametophytes (Villarreal et al. 2012). An increase in sediment load and water flow from upstream disturbance can dislodge or smother individuals. There are at least 78 populations known to occur on the Nantahala National Forest. Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness and the headwaters of the Santeetlah Creek appear to be the center of this species’ distribution with individuals becoming less abundant with distance from these areas. Also, this species occurs more commonly in the headwater streams draining into Nantahala Lake (Gary Kauffman, personal communication).
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 streambed, increase light, and/or increase sediment loads.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are three proposed shelterwood with reserves (20/04, 18/20, and 120/35) that contain perennial streams with Megaceros aenigmaticus (hornwort). The proposed treatment includes ground-based skidding and skyline yarding with approximately 25 ft2 of basal area remaining for the next rotation. Since Megaceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct effects to this species from the commercial timber harvest. Indirectly, this species could be impacted from an increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. However, the streams in these three units would be buffered by 50 feet. Thus, the 50 ft. buffer should reduce any negative indirect impacts to this species. Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: Since this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative B and Alternative C: In the early 1990’s, Megaceros aenigmaticus was not a Region 8 sensitive species and was not considered a rare plant by North Carolina Heritage Program. Thus, the impacts to this species caused by past timber management projects during the 1990's are not known. It is suspected that road reconstruction and construction activities resulted in some temporary impacts. Recurrent monitoring at impacted sites outside of the Fontana botanical analysis area have shown that this species can still persist in high numbers post-disturbance (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Fontana botanical analysis area that would impact populations of this hornwort.
130 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would not impact Megaceros aenigmaticus.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives could indirectly impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for Megaceros aenigmaticus across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest.
Table 3.2.1: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive botanical species.
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Megaceros No impacts May indirectly May indirectly impact aenigmaticus impact individuals, individuals, but would not (hornwort) but would not impact the viability of this impact the viability species across the forest. of this species across the forest.
3.3 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife Analysis Area
The wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.
Existing Conditions
There are four sensitive wildlife species that are known to occur within the wildlife analysis area, but none are known within or adjacent to proposed activity areas. There is potential habitat for other sensitive species that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on habitat community types present in the Fontana Project area. These community types have been described in Section 1.2 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources.
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare wildlife species were evaluated based on the process described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs on Cheoah Lake, which is within the wildlife analysis area but not within the area of influence of the proposed actions. Thus, the bald eagle is not considered further. Sensitive species evaluated for the Fontana Project are listed below in Table 3.3.1.
Survey Information
Inventories for sensitive species were not conducted, because habitat is not limited across the forest and the effects analysis is based on assumed presence of sensitive species with
131 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project potential habitat within or adjacent to activity areas. 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
Table 3.3.1: Sensitive terrestrial animal species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Eurycea junaluska Forests near seeps and streams in Amphibian wildlife analysis area Junaluska salamander the Cheoah River system Plethodon teyahalee Moist forests at all elevations Southern Appalachian Amphibian may occur salamander Nesticus sheari On ground in moist or rich a cave spider forests (apparently endemic to Arachnid Graham Co); Known from Joyce may occur Kilmer Wilderness & Wright Creek Haliaeetus leucocephalus Mature forests near large bodies occurs near cut cable Bald eagle Bird of water (for nesting); lakes and treatments sounds Speyeria diana Montane and foothill forest Diana fritillary Butterfly edges and openings; host plant: wildlife analysis area violets (Viola) Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshopper/ Mature oak, hickory, and maple may occur Northern bush katydid Katydid forests Euchlaena milnei Habitats uncertain but are Moth may occur Milne’s euchlaena probably riparian (Graham) Myotis leibii Roosts in hollow trees and in Eastern small-footed bat Mammal rock crevices (warmer months), wildlife analysis area in caves and mines (winter)
Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species
Junaluska Salamander (Eurycea junaluska)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the Junaluska salamander, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Junaluska salamanders are found in forests near seeps and streams in the Cheoah River system. There are records of this species along the Cheoah River, which is within the analysis area, but no treatments are proposed near these known locations. However, individuals may exist east of the Cheoah River closer to a few of the treatment units that are within or adjacent to the Cheoah River watershed.
Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing. The likelihood of direct effects is lessened, because these activities usually
132 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project are not implemented in wet areas like seepages and are buffered from streams. Further, salamanders usually forage nocturnally and during the day, when these activities would be implemented, retreat to seeps and streams. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams. Indirectly, these activities would increase solar and wind exposure to the treated sites, which would lead to drying out of treated sites in the short term. As stands regenerate, those sites would become increasingly shaded and revert to more suitable shaded conditions in the long term. Because core habitat would mostly be within buffered zones, these activities would be unlikely to impact core habitat for the Junaluska salamander along streams. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact Junaluska salamanders or habitat. Herbicide use for undesirable tree species in timber units and to combat nonnative invasive plants would not impact the salamander. The herbicide treatments are directed spray, so it would be highly unlikely for an applicator to spray a salamander, and the undesirable tree species and nonnatives that would be treated are not associated with preferred habitat. In addition, an individual would not ingest 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 Junaluska salamander resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. Past harvest within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects similar to the proposed harvest activities. Though timber harvest may potentially alter microhabitat conditions around the treated stands, these effects are ephemeral as stands age. Cumulatively, approximately 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the wildlife analysis area in Alternative B and 1,090 acres (808%) in Alternative C would be in early successional habitat post implementation, but the remainder of the wildlife analysis area would be in older age classes and include microhabitat conditions required by the Junaluska salamander. Only a small portion of the project area is within the range of the salamander; thus, cumulative impacts to actual Junaluska salamander habitat would be less than described for the entire wildlife analysis area.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impacts on the Junaluska salamander.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the Junaluska salamander.
133 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Southern Appalachian Salamander (Plethodon teyahalee)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the southern Appalachian salamander, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The southern Appalachian salamander inhabits in moist forests at all elevations. These terrestrial salamanders can be found under decaying logs and abundant leaf litter. Timber harvest may cause direct mortality through crushing during implementation if individuals occur within activity areas. Indirectly, these activities increase solar and wind exposure to these sites, which would cause previously moist habitats to become unsuitable, increasing the risk of desiccation for salamanders. However, these effects would be short term, and as the stands regenerate, the areas that may be affected would develop into more suitable conditions. Though timber harvest activities may remove habitat for the southern Appalachian salamander in the short term, the habitat is widespread across the forest and within the wildlife analysis area. Thinning out stands would not cause these potentially detrimental effects as the larger canopy would be left intact and decaying logs and leaf litter would remain in the treated stands. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact southern Appalachian salamanders or habitat. Widening the existing Bee Cove Trail would only add approximately 1.5 feet to each side of the trail. Herbicide use for undesirable tree species and to combat nonnatives would not impact the southern Appalachian salamander. The herbicide treatments are directed spray, so it would be highly unlikely for an applicator to spray a salamander, and undesirable tree species and nonnatives to be treated are not associated with southern Appalachian salamander habitat. Further, an individual 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 cumulative effects on the southern Appalachian salamander as a result of the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. Past silvicultural activities would have had effects similar to the proposed activities. Cumulatively, Alternative B would lead to approximately 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the analysis area in early successional habitat with unsuitable microclimatic conditions for the salamanders, and Alternative C would lead to approximately 1,090 acres (8.8%) of the analysis in unsuitable conditions. The remainder of the wildlife analysis area would include adequately forested habitat with preferred shade and moisture conditions.
134 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the southern Appalachian salamander.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the southern Appalachian salamander.
A Cave Spider (Nesticus sheari)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the cave spider, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no records of Nesticus sheari within the wildlife analysis area. However, this cave spider is apparently endemic to Graham County and is known from sites in Joyce Kilmer Wilderness and Wright Creek on the ground in moist or rich forests. Nesticus species build small space webs in cool, moist, and dark microenvironments and may occur within moist or rich cove forests within the wildlife analysis area.
Tree removal in dark microenvironments within cove forest communities would lead to drying of the moist microclimate and direct or indirect mortality of individuals if they occur within the treated stands. As these treated stands age, the required dark microclimatic conditions would return in the long term, but until those conditions were met, Nesticus would be inhibited from inhabiting these areas. Also, during implementation if individuals occur, the treatments may cause direct mortality through crushing. However, these activities would not impact known population of Nesticus sheari, and the potential habitat exists throughout the wildlife analysis area.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact Nesticus sheari or habitat. Widening the existing Bee Cove Trail would only add approximately 1.5 feet to each side of the trail. Herbicide treatment would not target species associated with preferred habitat and would not affect the cave spider.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects on this cave spider as a result of the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. Effects from past timber harvest activities would be similar to those described for the proposed action if cave spiders occurred within treated areas. These alternatives would result in approximately
135 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1,148 acres (9.3%) and 1,090 acres (8.8%) respectively of the wildlife analysis area in unsuitable habitat by created new early successional habitat. However, the remainder of the wildlife analysis area including known locations for this species would continue to provide suitable habitat. These alternatives would not cause a cumulative detriment to Nesticus sheari populations, because there is extensive cove habitat throughout the wildlife analysis area and in the protected land of Joyce Kilmer Wilderness.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Nesticus sheari.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for Nesticus sheari.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the bald eagle, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Bald eagles nest along Fontana Lake where cut cable treatments for fish habitat may be implemented. No nest trees would be felled, and no tree felling in general would occur within 330 feet of bald eagle nests during the nesting season from December to June so as not to cause noise disturbance to nesting eagles. There are no other proposed activities that occur in proximity to eagle nest locations. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects on bald eagles resulting from these alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the bald eagle resulting from these alternatives.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C: These alternatives would have no impact on the bald eagle.
Diana Fritillary (Speyeria diana)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Diana fritillary, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
136 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are records of the Diana fritillary within and adjacent to the wildlife analysis area. This species has been observed within 320 feet of compartment 17 and within 132 feet of stand 121/02. Diana fritillaries inhabit edges and openings in moist, rich mountain forests in association with the larval host plant, Viola species.
If timber harvest were implemented in occupied habitat during the June to September flight period or during the spring as caterpillars emerge from overwintering, harvest activities may cause direct mortality through crushing. However, the proposed silvicultural treatments and associated temporary road construction would create more forest edge conditions that are favored by the fritillary for breeding habitat. Removing competing shrubs and trees would increase solar exposure and resultantly nutrient availability to herbaceous nectar sources for the butterfly. Thinning and temporary road construction would be unlikely to have a measurable effect on the Diana fritillary due to the small scale or temporary nature of the activities and the lack of adverse indirect effects.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and trail widening to bike trail standards would not measurably impact Diana fritillaries or habitat. Herbicide use would be direct foliar spray and is not associated with Diana fritillary food or nectar plants.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the Diana fritillary resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably impact habitat. Past silvicultural prescriptions and associated temporary road construction would have similar effects on the Diana fritillary as the proposed actions and would have likely been overall beneficial for this species. Cumulatively, these actions would lead to new early successional habitat and edge which enhances open areas for the fritillary.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the Diana fritillary.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the Diana fritillary.
Northern Bush Katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the northern bush katydid, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
137 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: North bush katydids inhabit mature oak, hickory, and maple forests where they forage in the treetops. There is potential habitat for the northern bush katydid within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If individuals occur within the treated stands, timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing and indirectly reduce suitably mature forest. However, untreated mature forest is widespread throughout the wildlife analysis area, and the proposed activities would be affecting a minor portion of potential habitat, 4.9% in Alternative B and 4.4% in Alternative C. Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat, widening Bee Cove Trail to bike standards, and thinning young 8 to 15 year old stands would not measurably impact this katydid or its habitat. Herbicide use would be a direct spray to undesirable tree species and nonnatives and would not cause adverse effect on this species. Northern bush katydids live in tree tops and would be unlikely to come into contact with the herbicide treated plants.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the northern bush katydid resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past harvest activities would have had similar effects on the katydid as the proposed actions. These activities and the proposed action would lead to a cumulative amount of 1,148 acres of early successional habitat in Alternative B and 1,090 acres in Alternative C. This acreage is a minor portion, approximately 9.3% and 8.8% respectively, of the wildlife analysis area and would not reduce the availability of habitat for this species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the northern bush katydid.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the northern bush katydid.
Milne’s Euchlaena (Euchlaena milnei)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on Milne’s euchlaena, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The habitat and life history for Milne’s euchlaena is unknown. What is known is that three adult moths were located at Fontana Lake and the habitat is likely riparian. Also, there is one generation per year, with the flight period occurring in June and July. Likely, one of the middle instars overwinters within the leaf litter. The natural food plant is unknown; however, most Euchlaena species feed on a variety
138 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project of trees and shrubs. The greatest threat to this species would be spraying for gypsy moth and, if the main food plant is shrubs, invasive shrubs and vines.
If associated with riparian habitats, Milne’s euchlaena is unlikely to experience direct or indirect effects as a result of timber harvest. Silvicultural activities are buffered from streams and rivers. If occupied habitat and harvest areas overlap, harvest may cause direct mortality to individuals but should not appreciably decrease the amount of available habitat for this generalist moth. The proposed units would not impact known collection sites. Herbicide use to combat nonnative invasive plants would not have an adverse effect on the moth. Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and widening Bee Cove Trail would not measurably impact this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on Milne’s euchlaena resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would impact habitat. Similar past activities would have been unlikely to have a measurable effect on Milne’s euchlaena based on where the species has been collected in North Carolina. Past actions and the proposed actions would not have a cumulative detriment on the species or appreciably decrease the availability of suitable habitat.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Milne’s euchlaena.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of the existing viability of Milne’s euchlaena.
Eastern Small-Footed Bat (Myotis leibii)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the eastern small-footed bat, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Within the warmer months, habitats for the eastern small- footed bat include hollow trees, rock crevices, buildings, and bridges. There is a record of this species within the wildlife analysis area at Cheoah Dam. No activities are proposed near this known occurrence or potential building and bridge habitat. Tree felling occurring between March and mid-November may cause direct mortality if individuals are roosting in a cut tree, because this bat is one of the last bat species to enter hibernacula for the winter and the first to emerge in the spring. The proposed timber activities would not impact rock or manmade habitat. Tree felling that occurs while the bats are in winter hibernacula would have no direct effects on individuals, because the bats would be hibernating in caves and
139 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project mines. Retention of snags, which is required by the BO for the Indiana bat, would consequently conserve loose bark and hollow roosting trees that the eastern small-footed bat may utilize and would reduce the likelihood of detrimental indirect impacts on eastern small- footed bat tree roost habitat. Temporary road construction may have similar though lesser effects as the proposed timber harvest on roosting habitat but should not measurably impact overall habitat. Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat and widening Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would not measurably impact the eastern small-footed bat or associated habitat. Widening the existing Bee Cove Trail would only add approximately 1.5 feet to each side of the trail. Herbicide treatments for nonnatives would not have a measurable impact on the bat; an individual 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 eastern small-footed bat resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the wildlife analysis area that would detrimentally impact habitat. Past silvicultural activities would have had similar effects as described for the proposed harvest activities. Cumulatively, these past and proposed actions would not have an overall detrimental impact or reduce the availability of summer roosting habitat within the wildlife analysis area.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the eastern small-footed bat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the eastern small- footed bat.
Table 3.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered and threatened terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C No Impacts May impact May impact Eurycea junaluska individuals but not individuals but not Junaluska salamander viability viability Plethodon teyahalee May impact May impact Southern Appalachian salamander No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Nesticus sheari May impact May impact a cave spider No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts Bald eagle Speyeria diana May impact May impact Diana fritillary No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability
140 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Scudderia septentrionalis May impact May impact Northern bush katydid No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Euchlaena milnei May impact May impact Milne’s euchlaena No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Myotis leibii May impact May impact Eastern small-footed bat No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability
4.0 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES
4.1 Aquatic Resources
Aquatic Analysis Area
The aquatic analysis area has been described above in Section 2.1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for the aquatic resources have been described above in Section 2.1 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Aquatic Resources.
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.
Fifty-four 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 Graham County. Seven forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These seven 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 two forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis (Table 4.1.1). These species were analyzed for this project because they are either known to occur within the project area or suitable habitat exists for these species. Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis.
141 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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 Fontana 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, 2010). The hellbender is known to occur within the Cheoah River and may occur within Yellow Creek. However, no activities are proposed within either of these streams and any effects to tributary streams would dissipate prior to reaching habitats suitable for this species because of the distance between the treatment sites and suitable habitat, and the effectiveness of BMP’s for erosion/sedimentation control and herbicide application.
Table 4.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Beraea gorteba Caddisfly Specifics unknown May occur* Baetopus trishae Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur* Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Amphibian Large streams and rivers Known to occur
*Although these species may occur within the analysis area, the probability is very low. No specific habitat information or element occurrence data are available for the species; therefore, there is no expectation that either species would occur within the Fontana analysis area.
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 forest concern aquatic species were conducted for this project because no suitable habitat is available within proposed treatment areas for the species known or potentially occurring on the Nantahala National Forest. Recent, reliable, existing data for the sensitive species were used in this analysis to determine that the species are not likely to occur within the analysis area.
Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
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.
Alternative B and Alternative C: No forest concern aquatic species are known occur within the proposed treatment areas. No specific habitat information or element occurrence data are available for the two species; therefore, there is no expectation that either species would
142 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project occur within the Fontana analysis area. If the species occur within the proposed treatment areas where culverts are proposed for installation, then individuals may be impacted by crushing. Sediments produced during culvert installation may affect stream substrate for approximately 75 feet downstream of the crossings until the next high flow event. 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 Fontana Project because there would are no impacts from any past, ongoing, or foreseeable future actions on any forest concern aquatic species.
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 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 stream communities because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.
No impacts would occur to the 3 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, Alternative B, or Alternative C of the Fontana Project may impact individuals of the two forest concern aquatic insects, although none are known or likely to occur within the proposed treatment areas. This project may impact individuals of these forest concern aquatic species but would not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the above species because habitats for these species are common across their range and project
143 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project design features would minimize impacts to these species. Implementation of any of these alternatives would have no impacts to the hellbender because no suitable habitat occurs within the proposed treatment areas and the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate prior to reaching any habitats suitable for the species.
Table 4.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Beraea gorteba No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals Baetopus trishae No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals Cryptobranchus No Impacts No Impacts No Impacts alleganiensis
4.2 Botanical Resources
Botanical Analysis Area
The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions for botanical resources have been described above for the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources (Section 2.2).
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare plant species were evaluated based on the process described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Section 2.2). Three forest concern plant species including, harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa), mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata), and purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera) were located during botanical surveys (Table 4.2.1).
Survey Information
Surveys conducted within the botanical analysis area have been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).
Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species
Harbinger-of-Spring (Erigenia bulbosa)
144 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Harbinger-of-spring is a perennial plant in the carrot family (Apiaceae). This species seems to prefer rich hardwood forests over calcareous substrate or on rich alluvial deposits (Weakley 2011). It is one of the earliest spring blooming plants, flowering from late February through early April. Although, the harbinger-of-spring is globally secure, it is critically imperiled in the state of North Carolina (NatureServe 2013). Currently, there are only three known occurrences of harbinger-of-spring in North Carolina. Two of these populations occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area and one occurs in the proposed activity area (24/09).
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to the harbinger-of-spring because there would be no disturbance that would affect the population in unit 24/09.
Alternative B: Shelterwood with reserves: There is one two-aged regeneration unit proposed (24/09) that contains approximately 50- 100 individuals of harbinger-of-spring. This species could not be easily avoided because it is a diminutive plant, only 3-10" tall. Thus, direct impacts from commercial harvesting would likely result in the death or injury of individuals due to mechanical crushing by skidding logs or felled trees.
Since the harbinger-of-spring appears to prefer rich, moist deciduous forests, it may be indirectly impacted by an increase in light, decrease in humidity, and decrease in soil moisture at the forest floor post-timber harvest. In addition, the population of harbinger-of- spring in unit 24/09 would likely be indirectly impacted from an increase in vegetative competition (early successional and non-native invasive plants) post-timber harvest.
Road daylighting: The population of harbinger-of-spring in unit 24/09 extends down to Forest Service Road (FSR) 2624. Thus, if FSR 2624 was selected for road daylighting, individuals of harbinger- of-spring could be directly impacted from felled trees. Also, individuals could be indirectly impacted due to an increase in light and increase in vegetative competition from early successional and non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus).
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Alternative C: Shelterwood with reserves: There would be no direct or indirect effects to the harbinger-of-spring because there would be no disturbance that would affect the population in unit 24/09.
145 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Road daylighting: The population of harbinger-of-spring in unit 24/09 extends down to Forest Service Road (FSR) 2624. Thus, if FSR 2624 was selected for road daylighting, individuals of harbinger- of-spring could be directly impacted from the removal of trees. Also, individuals could be indirectly impacted due to an increase in light and an increase in vegetative competition from early successional and non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus). Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: Since this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative B: There are two populations of harbinger-of-spring in the Fontana botanical analysis area. One population found in 2011 by Ed Schwartzman occurs on private land on the south side of Cheoah Lake and may extend onto the Nantahala National Forest (Ed Schwartzman, personal communication). The second population, found by April Punsalan and David Danley in 2013, occurs in the proposed activity area. Currently, non-native invasive plants are not impacting the two populations of harbinger-of-spring in the Fontana botanical analysis area. If Alternative B is implemented, given the occurrence of bittersweet along FSR 2624, it is likely that the spread of bittersweet would occur in the foreseeable future and would indirectly impact this population. There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Fontana botanical analysis area that would impact this species.
Alternative C: Currently, non-native invasive plants are not impacting the two populations of harbinger-of-spring in the Fontana botanical analysis area. The occurrence of bittersweet along FSR 2624 would likely increase and indirectly impact the harbinger-of-spring population in unit 24/09 in the foreseeable future if road daylighting was implemented. . There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Fontana botanical analysis area that would impact this species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would not impact harbinger-of-spring.
Alternative B: This alternative (shelterwood with reserves and road daylighting) would directly and indirectly impact the population of harbinger-of-spring that occurs in unit 24/09. This alternative would not cause a trend towards federal listing for harbinger-of-spring because this species is globally secure (G5). However, because the harbinger-of-spring occurrence in the proposed unit 24/09 is the only known population on the forest, this alternative would impact the viability of this species across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF.
146 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative C: Road daylighting along FSR 2624 could directly and indirectly impact the population of harbinger-of-spring because it occurs in close proximity to the road. If FSR 2624 is selected for road daylighting then this alternative would impact the viability of harbinger-of-spring across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF because this is the only known occurrence. This alternative would not cause a trend towards federal listing for this species.
Recommendation to Minimize Impact Do not daylight FSR 2624. Treat non-native invasive plants along FSR 2624. To reduce non-target herbicide drift, non-native invasive plant treatment along FSR 2624 should be directed foliar treatments, cut surface or basal stem.
Mountain Camellia (Stewartia ovata)
Mountain camellia is a small deciduous understory tree or large shrub in the family Theaceae (Weakley 2011). It grows to a height of 10-15 ft. (5 m) and blooms late June-July. Mountain camellia is noted for its camellia-like white to creamy flowers. Diagnostic features for this species include light gray bark with intersecting ridges and ciliate leaf margins. Mountain camellia grows mostly in mesic acidic forests among dense ericaceous shrubs or Rhododendron thickets (Weakley 2011). This species is a rare component of understory deciduous forests and has a scattered distribution mostly concentrated in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Globally, it is apparently secure (G4), and occurs from Virginia to Florida (NatureServe 2013). Although this species appears widespread, it is scattered and infrequent across its range (NatureServe 2013). In North Carolina, it is imperiled (S2). Currently, there are approximately 18 mountain camellia populations across the Nantahala- Pisgah National Forest. Eight of these populations occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area. Five of these populations occur in the proposed activity area, including units 22/04, 120/02, 19/01, 19/05 (E), 22/09, and 22/17. Also, individuals occur along the temporary road proposed to access unit 22/17. These occurrences are defined as populations because there is a distance of ≥2 km. (NatureServe 2013) from other individuals.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to mountain camellia because there would be no disturbance that would affect this species.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are six proposed shelterwood with reserves and two proposed temporary roads that contain mountain camellia. Direct impacts from commercial harvesting could result in the death or injury of individuals due to mechanical crushing by skidding logs or felled trees. The construction of the proposed temporary roadbed to access unit 22/17 would likely result in the death or injury of individuals. Since mountain camellia is a small deciduous tree or large shrub, individuals could be easily avoided with a 30 ft. buffer.
147 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Indirectly, individuals in proposed units could be impacted by an increase in early successional plant species, non-native invasive plants, and woody competition post-timber harvest. A 30 ft. buffer around populations or individuals would decrease vegetative competition post-timber harvest. Indirectly, individuals along proposed temporary roads would likely be impacted by an increase in non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet and privet.
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: Since this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are eight known mountain camellia sites/populations in the Fontana botanical analysis area. There are no known past activities that have directly impacted any of these populations. One individual, a juvenile approximately 2' in height, along the proposed temporary road leading into unit 22/17, had bittersweet wrapped around the stem. Alternative B and C would likely increase the occurrence and spread of non-native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet, along the proposed temporary road post-disturbance and would indirectly impact mountain camellia.
Adjacent to the proposed unit 22/09 there are two mountain camellia trees that are growing in a Hemlock Hardwood Forest. The individuals appeared to be thriving in the small gap of sunlight created from the dying hemlocks. In the future, the occurrence of mountain camellia may increase in the Fontana botanical analysis area due to an increase in small canopy openings from hemlock dye-off. There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Fontana botanical analysis area that would impact this species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would not impact mountain camellia.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata).
Recommendation to Minimize Impact All mountain camellia individuals were flagged pink in the field. There are three occurrences of mountain camellia that occur on the edge of proposed units (22/04, 19/05, and 120/02) that could be easily buffered or excluded. The proposed unit 22/17 contains four small mountain camellia trees in the eastern portion of the unit in a cove that should be
148 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project buffered by 30 ft. No vegetation should be cut and the use the use of heavy machinery should not occur in the 30 ft. buffer. Individuals that occur along the proposed temporary road leading into unit 22/9 may be easily avoided because they occur on the edge of the existing roadbed.
Purple Wood Sedge (Carex purpurifera)
Purple wood sedge is a tufted perennial with diagnostic sheath bases that are a deep purplish brown. This species generally occurs in the ecotone between Rich Cove and Montane Oak- Hickory Forests in upper ravine slopes and amongst rock outcrops (Robinson 1982). Also, this species occurs in moist, Rich Cove Forests over calcareous or mafic rock (Weakley 2011). Globally, this species is apparently secure (G4?) (NatureServe 2013). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are approximately 21 populations of purple wood sedge. Three of these populations occur in the Fontana botanical analysis area. These occurrences are defined as populations because there is a distance of ≥2 km. (NatureServe 2013) from other individuals. There is one purple sedge population with individuals in the proposed activity area, along FSR 2619. There are approximately 7-9 clumps along FSR 2619, which would be used to access the proposed unit 121/07.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not directly impact purple wood sedge. This alternative could have an indirect negative impact on purple wood sedge if bittersweet, multiflora rose, and periwinkle are not treated along FSR 2619.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are approximately 7-9 clumps of purple wood sedge growing along FSR 2619. Approximately 3-4 clumps occur in the middle of FSR 2619. Individuals could be directly impacted from road daylighting, grading, or applying gravel to the road. Some of the clumps occur on the road bank and could be easily avoided during road prep work pre-harvest. This species could be indirectly impacted by an increase in non- native invasive plants, particularly bittersweet, post road disturbance.
Other proposed activities, such as free thinning, stand improvement, cut and cable, Bee Cove trail improvement, and wildlife opening maintenance/improvement would not directly or indirectly impact this species because it is not known to occur in any of these areas.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: There appears to be an old homesite off of FSR 2619 that likely increased the occurrence of non-native invasive plants, such as periwinkle, privet, and multiflora rose. If the non-native invasive plants along FSR 2619 are not treated, they may indirectly impact the purple sedge by increasing vegetative competition.
149 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative B and Alternative C: In the past, purple wood sedge populations in the Fontana botanical analysis area were avoided in the Walker Gap Timber Sale. One population near Firescald Ridge may have been impacted by a thinning in the Poison Timber Sale. In 1995, Gary Kauffman reported that the purple wood sedge population (EO# 6) near Firescald Ridge contained approximately 350-500 clumps over approximately 20 hectares. Approximately half of this population may have been impacted during the Posion Timber Sale by a prescribed thinning. In 2013, Gary Kauffman and April Punsalan relocated purple wood sedge clumps adjacent to the Poison Timber Sale and new clumps were identified along FSR 2619 by April Punsalan and David Danley. Thus, this population appears to be viable despite past actions. Also, the proposed actions should not impact the viability of this population because only 7-9 clumps (out of 350-500 clumps) occur on FSR 2619. Currently, there are non-native invasive plants present along FSR 2619. It is highly likely that these would spread in the foreseeable future post road reconstruction and indirectly impact purple sedge clumps along FSR 2619. There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Fontana botanical analysis area that would impact this species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative may indirectly impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF for purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera).
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may directly and indirectly impact individuals, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the Nantahala-Pisgah NF for purple wood sedge (Carex purpurifera).
Recommendation to Minimize Impact No roadside thinning along FSR 2619. Request the presence of a botanist to ensure that off- target herbicide does not result in the death of individuals during NNIP treatment. If purple wood sedge clumps along FSR 2619 cannot be avoided, request the presence of a botanist to relocate close to the site in suitable habitat.
Table 4.2.1: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species.
Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Harbinger-of-spring No impact May directly and May directly and indirectly (Erigenia bulbosa) indirectly impact this impact this species. If FSR species. This alternative 2624 is selected for would impact the viability daylighting, then this of this species across the alternative would impact the forest. viability of this species across the forest. Mountain Camellia No impact May directly and May directly and indirectly (Stewartia ovata) indirectly impact this impact this species. This species. This alternative alternative would not impact would not impact the the viability of this species viability of this species across the forest.
150 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
across the forest. Purple Wood Sedge May indirectly May directly and May directly and indirectly (Carex purpurifera) impact this species. indirectly impact this impact this species. This This alternative species. This alternative alternative would not impact would not impact would not impact the the viability of this species the viability of this viability of this species across the forest. species across the across the forest. forest. 4.3 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife Analysis Area
The boundary of the wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.
Existing Conditions
There are five forest concern terrestrial animal species that are known to occur within or adjacent to the wildlife analysis area. These are the longtail salamander (Eurycea longicauda), cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea), golden banded skipper (Autochton cellus), dusky azure (Celastrina nigra), and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii). The cerulean warbler occurs throughout the wildlife analysis area and in proximity to proposed units. These areas include FS 2624, Fotnana Dam Overlook, Bee Cove, Walker Gap, FS 2625, High Top, NC 28, Cable Cove, and Poison Cove. The survey years for these occurrences range from 1980 to 2009. There is also potential habitat for other forest concern species that may occur within the wildlife analysis area based on habitat community types present in the Fontana Project area. These community types have been described in Section 1.2 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources.
Species Evaluated and Rationale
Rare wildlife species were evaluated based on the process described above in Section 1.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. Forest concern species evaluated for the Fontana Project are listed below in Table 4.3.1.
Survey Information
Inventories for forest concern species were not conducted, because habitat is not limited across the forest and the effects analysis is based on assumed presence of forest concern species with potential habitat within or adjacent to activity areas. 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
151 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Table 4.3.1: Forest concern terrestrial animal species in Graham County evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Desmognathus aeneus Seeps, springs, or streams in Seepage salamander Amphibian forests in extreme southwestern activity area counties Eurycea longicauda Moist woods and floodplains; Amphibian wildlife analysis area Longtail salamander small ponds for breeding Setophaga cerulea Mature hardwood forests; steep Cerulean warbler Bird slopes and coves in mountains activity areas [breeding season only] Autochton cellus Moist woods near streams; host Golden banded skipper Butterfly plant: hog peanut adjacent to activity area (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Celastrina nigra Rich, moist deciduous forests; Dusky azure Butterfly host plant: goat’s beard (Aruncus wildlife analysis area dioicus) Erynnis martialis Upland woods and wooded Mottled duskywing Butterfly edges; host plant: New Jersey tea may occur (Ceanothus americanus) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Woodland openings, glades, and Tawny crescent road banks at higher elevations; Butterfly may occur host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum Melanoplus decoratus Dry woodlands Decorated melanoplus Murphy, Cherokee Co 1800’; Grasshopper Topton, Cherokee Co 3000- may occur 4000’; Blue Ridge, Fannin Co, GA 1700’; Wytheville, Wythe Co, VA 3000-4000’ Corynorhinus rafinesquii Roosts in caves, mines, and rafinesquii Mammal hollow trees, usually near water wildlife analysis area Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods may occur Queen crater Gastropod Glyphyalinia junaluska Cove hardwoods; around logs, Terrestrial Dark glyph forest debris, and mixed may occur Gastropod hardwood sites Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern may occur Pink glyph Gastropod mountains Paravitrea lacteodens Leaf litter on mountainsides in Terrestrial Ramp Cove supercoil Graham County (endemic to this may occur Gastropod area) Patera clarki clarki Terrestrial Forested mountainsides may occur Dwarf proud globe Gastropod Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist may occur Ribbed striate Gastropod forests Eumeces anthracinus Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, Reptile may occur Coal skink roadbanks
Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species
152 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Seepage Salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) & Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the seepage or longtail salamanders, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Seepage salamanders are found beneath leaf litter near seepages or small streams in shaded areas of hardwood or mixed forests. Habitat for this species exists throughout the wildlife analysis area, and individuals have been observed in a seep along the eastern edge of unit 22/25. Though listed as Significantly Rare, Beamer and Lamb (2010) discovered 10 new state localities above the 55 existing localities for North Carolina and modeled the potential habitat across the extreme western North Carolina counties. Longtail salamanders are also found in similar habitat within moist woods and floodplains, often under logs, litter, or rocks during the day. There are records of longtail salamanders along the Cheoah River within 82 feet of compartment 17 but not in proximity to any of the activity areas.
Timber harvest and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing though these activities usually are not implemented in wet areas like seepages and are buffered from streams. Indirectly, these activities increase solar and wind exposure to treated areas, which leads to drying out of treated sites. As stands regenerate, treated areas become increasingly shaded and lead to more suitable shaded habitat characteristics in the long term. Because core habitat would mostly be within buffered zones, it is unlikely that these activities would impact the majority of core habitat for these salamander species. Specifically, the seep along the eastern edge of unit 22/25 would be buffered by 50 feet. Salamander ecology would decrease the likelihood of direct effects in terrestrial foraging habitat. Salamanders forage mostly at night when temperatures are cooler and moisture levels are higher. During the day, when the proposed activities would be implemented, salamanders would retreat under leaf litter, logs, and rocks closer to seeps and steams. Erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering potential streams. Further, these activities, except for in unit 22/25, are not proposed near known occurrences of these species. A 50 foot buffer of vegetation would be left to preserve the microhabitat characteristics of the seep, lessen impacts to core habitat outside the edges of the seep, and lower the likelihood of direct effects to existing seepage salamanders.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for fish habitat, widening Bee Cove Trail, and herbicide use would not measurably impact seepage salamanders. To meet bike trail standards, the existing Bee Cove Trail would only be widened approximately 1.5 feet on both sides. Herbicide spraying to combat nonnative invasive plants would not affect salamander populations. It would be highly unlikely that an individual would be sprayed, and individuals would not consume enough exposed insects to experience an adverse effect. The sprouts and nonnatives targeted are not associated with preferred habitat.
153 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on these salamanders resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions that occur within the wildlife analysis area that would detrimentally impact habitat. Past harvest within the wildlife analysis area would have had changed microhabitat characteristics of moister sites contained with activity areas; however, these activities would have been ephemeral as described for the proposed actions. Cumulatively, approximately 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the analysis area in Alternative B and 1,090 acres (8.8%) in Alternative C would be 0-20 year old young forest habitat that may not meet conditions for necessary moisture levels, but the remainder of the wildlife analysis area would be older than 20 years and include microhabitat conditions required by salamanders.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the seepage salamander or the longtail salamander.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the seepage and longtail salamanders.
Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the cerulean warbler, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Cerulean warblers are found in mature forests and have been observed within the analysis area near activity areas ranging temporally from 1978 to 2003. Spatially these records, which were maintained by Doreen Miller, the previous zone wildlife biologist, are spread throughout the central part of the analysis area, in compartments 23, 24, 119, 120, and 128. Some of these records, for both Alternative B and Alternative C, are along FS 2625 and SR 28 and in Bee Cove. Others are around High Top near 119/16, 119/17, and 119/20, Cable Cove near 120/36, and Poison Cove near 120/30 and 120/39. The records in compartment 128 are not close to any proposed activity areas, and no treatments are proposed in this compartment. Cerulean warblers have also been observed around Walker Gap and along FS 2624 near Alternative B units 23/26, 23/32, and 24/9. The element occurrence records suggest that cerulean warbler densities are not more than 5 territories per 25 acres, because previous surveys resulted in observations of less than 5 territories per 25 acre.
Within Appalachian forests, these birds primarily occur on ridge tops and steep, upper slopes and are associated with oak dominated stands that contain gaps in the forest canopy and
154 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project vertical structural diversity. Within preferred ridge top forests, this species will favor mesic, north- or northeast-facing slopes. Associated with small interior gaps within large forested tracts, cerulean warblers can be found along interior forest edges, e.g. narrow roads, utility- rights-of-way, trails, and small timber harvests, though they are less abundant near hard edges compared to soft gradual edges. Important components of cerulean warbler habitat include: 1) large diameter trees for nesting; 2) stands dominated by white oaks and hickories as cerulean warblers will forage in white and chestnut oaks and avoid red maple and oaks from the red oak group; 3) grapevines for nesting material, the density of which is positively correlated with nesting success, 4) canopy gaps approximately 400-1000 ft2, which allow trees growing space to form long horizontal branches and dense foliage, creating more structure; 5) understory vegetation, which provides foraging areas for females during incubation/brooding and protection from predators for fledgling young.
Cerulean warblers may respond to treatments that create vertical diversity and small openings. Timber harvest implementation may directly disturb or harm individuals if trees are felled during the breeding season and cerulean warblers are present; however, openings created by the treatments and temporary road construction may encourage cerulean warbler use by mimicking natural disturbance events that create gaps in continuous canopy. Cerulean warblers favor canopy gaps that are approximately 400 to 1,000 ft2, so the proposed treatment units are unlikely to serve as preferred gaps. However, individuals may still position their territories along the edges of the harvest units and forage within the surrounding intact canopy. The proposed timber harvest would not detrimentally reduce the availability of preferred cerulean warbler habitat within the wildlife analysis area, though the harvest would reduce preferred habitat within the treatment areas by 605 acres in Alternative B and 547 acres in Alternative C. Intermediate harvest, leaving a residual basal area of 40 to 90 ft2 per acre would be more favorable to the species, but even in heavier harvests, i.e. the proposed 25 residual basal area, individuals would use the edges created to nest and males to project their song.
Studies on harvesting impacts on cerulean warblers in the southern Appalachians have shown that cerulean warblers will utilize edges created by heavier harvest. In the studies used to develop the Cerulean Warbler Management Guidelines (American Bird Conservancy 2013), cerulean warbler territory densities generally increased or were maintained and rarely decreased from pre-harvest levels across all harvest intensities. The light harvests were a single tree removal with an average of 93 residual basal area, medium harvests averaged 62 residual basal area, and heavy harvests were 12 to 34 residual basal area, averaging 27. In addition, each harvest had adjacent buffers. The largest and most consistent increases occurred between 40 to 90 residual basal area with 45 basal area being the most successful. In heavier harvests, territory density increases were delayed approximately 2 to 3 years, which was likely the time needed for the understory vegetation and structure to develop to a desirable level. Than Boves et al (2013) described that though densities increase around recently harvested stands, nesting success decreases. However, he also discussed that while heavier harvest may act as an ecological trap at the local scale due to lower nesting success within harvest units, these same harvests when taken on the broader landscape scale may become a source.
155 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
For the management guidelines, the results of post-harvest surveys in the adjacent buffers demonstrated that in the majority of buffers around harvested stands, cerulean warbler density mostly increased or was maintained regardless of the intensity of the adjacent harvest. In addition, the studies concluded that cerulean warblers do not avoid small harvest stands, between about 10 to 27 acres, or their edges. All but four of the proposed units in both Alternative B and Alternative C are from 8 to 28 acres. Consequently, though the proposed treatments may not be the preferred harvest treatment for cerulean warblers according to the management guidelines, individuals would likely still use the edges created by these harvests, and these appealing edges may draw more cerulean warblers to the surrounding area and ideal habitats. An example of these habitats would be areas within the High Top/Bee Cove NCNHP Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA), which overlaps much of the interior bird patch designated in the Forest Plan.
Some landscape-scale considerations the management guidelines present are subjects such as landscape cover and scale of harvesting. In regards to nesting success, the guidelines suggest that these types of habitat alterations in heavily forested areas, with more than 70% forest cover on the six mile scale, are more likely to be effective at attracting cerulean warblers and less likely to influence reproductive success. The Fontana project area is heavily forested with 75% of the age class above 70 years old. Alternative B and Alternative C would only slightly reduce this percentage by creating early successional habitat, 4.9% in Alternative B and 4.4% in Alternative C. The favorable forest cover characteristics in the project area may somewhat offset the negative impacts of heavier harvest on nesting success. As for scale of harvesting, it is important to maintain a significant portion of the area as mature forest cover, with approximately 50% of large forest blocks more than 50 years old. The Fontana project area has a greater percentage of mature forest than what is recommended, and these areas are maintained through the unsuitable base which includes designated old growth patches and interior bird patches.
The Forest Plan outlines objectives to provide an area of continuous forest canopy of 2500 acres or more within or adjacent to designated compartment clusters; these interior bird patches can shift within the designated area over time. One of these clusters includes compartments 23, 24, and 119 which are in the project area and 26, 27, and 28 which are outside of the project area. These forest interior bird patches are required by the Forest Plan to retain habitat for bird species that prefer continuous mature forest canopies without disturbance, e.g. ovenbirds. In Alternative B, stands 23/26, 23/32, 24/9, 119/16, 119/17, and 119/25 would be harvested within the entire interior bird patch compartment cluster. However, these harvests would not reduce the acreage below 2500 or fragment the continuous bird patch. In Alternative C, 119/16, 119/17, and 119/25 would be harvested within the entire interior bird patch compartment cluster, but these harvests would not reduce the acreage below 2500 or fragment the continuous bird patch. Because there is suitable mature forest throughout the wildlife analysis area and the forest interior bird patch would not be detrimentally impacted, harvest treatments are unlikely to have a deleterious effect on mature continuous canopy habitat for forest interior birds.
Some stand-scale considerations presented in the management guidelines include local cerulean warbler density, white oak dominance, and topography. The guidelines state that any management should be avoided if there are more than 5 territories per 25 acres and that
156 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project in areas where there are less than 5, management is ideal. Within the wildlife analysis area, based on past surveys, cerulean warbler territory densities are likely less than 5 per 25 acres. Thus, management does not need to be avoided based on that consideration. The guidelines suggest that retention should include white oak, chestnut oak, hickories, and sugar maples but not red maple or red oaks. The proposed harvest activities, in both alternatives, favor long- lived and hard mast producing species such as chestnut oaks and white oaks. Based on preferred topographical locations for cerulean warblers, harvests located along ridge tops and upper slopes on more mesic, north- and east-facing aspects would be more effective in attracting these warblers. The proposed harvest units are in a variety of aspects across the landscape but situated toward ridge tops and upper slopes.
The guidelines specifically addressed certain silvicultural options. The studies demonstrated that shelterwood harvests generally result in an increase in cerulean warbler densities and intermediate levels of nesting success. Complete overstory removal in the second stage of a standard shelterwood harvest would decrease cerulean warbler densities. However, the shelterwood method used for the Fontana Project in either alternative is a two-age shelterwood with reserves. This method includes only one entry with either clumped or dispersed residuals to create a two-age structure within units. Consequently, the proposed harvest treatments would not completely remove the overstory or detrimentally impact the cerulean warbler. Crop-tree release, or timber stand improvement as it is called in the project, is usually applied in 15 to 20 year old stands. In both action alternatives, the stands treated are about 8 to 15 years old. This practice is used to accelerate development for future harvest and can allow for earlier “canopy differentiation”. The beneficial impacts would not be immediate but appear as the stand develops.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for fish habitat and widening Bee Cove Trail to bike trail standards would not measurably impact cerulean warblers or habitat. Proposed herbicide treatments would be unlikely to have any impact on these warblers. Individuals would not ingest enough exposed insects that were exposed to herbicide to experience an adverse effect, and it would be highly unlikely that an individual would be sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the cerulean warbler resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B: Past silvicultural treatments would have had effects similar to the proposed treatments. The stands in some of the older timber sales, which were implemented around 30 years ago, would have matured into young forest with a relatively intact canopy. Past treatments that have occurred close in proximity to cerulean warbler records do not seem to have had detrimental effects on cerulean warblers. This assertion is based on locations of timber sales and element occurrence records from surveyed years. These sales include the Bee Cove, Cable Cove, Poison Cove, Cable Cove Campground, and Powell Timber Sales from 1981 to 1999.
Before the aforementioned sales, the only known element occurrences of cerulean warblers in the project area were observed along SR 28 in ’78 and at Fontana Dam overlook in ’81.
157 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
The Bee Cove Timber Sale in ’81 occurred north over the ridge from Black Gum Gap, and the Cable Cove Timber Sale occurred in Cable Cove and along the ridgeline from High Top to Perry Knob in’87. In the ’92 cerulean warbler survey, individuals were observed north of Bee Cove Knob, around Walker Gap, and around Yellow Creek Gap, and, in the ’94 survey, cerulean warblers were observed all along FS 2625, east and northeast of Bee Cove and north of High Top. Also, in the ’95 survey, cerulean warblers were observed around Yellow Creek Gap and the southern portion of the Cable Cove area, three of which were observed off roads SR 1287 and SR 28.
The Poison Cove Timber Sale occurred around Bearpen Gap in ’97, and in ’99 the Cable Cove Campground and Powell Branch Timber Sales occurred within the Cable Cove area and along the north end of Firescald Ridge towards the Little Tennessee River. Subsequent to these harvests, cerulean warblers were observed around the southern end of the Cable Cove area. In the ’02 survey, cerulean warblers were observed along SR 28, FS 2621 around Poison Cove, and FS 2625 around High Top. In the ’03 survey, cerulean warblers were observed around Poison Cove and along FS 2620.
Cumulatively, these harvests have not seemed to decrease the cerulean warbler densities in these areas. Though territory locations may have shifted over time, there is no evidence that particular timber sales necessarily caused these shifts. Cerulean warblers do not seem to have been displaced from the project area, though up to date surveys are needed. The continued existence of cerulean warblers in the wildlife analysis area is supported by protected areas such as forest interior bird patches and by either the beneficial or essentially discountable effects from the proposed method of timber harvest. Consequently, the treatments in Alternative B and Alternative C would not cause a cumulative detriment to cerulean warblers. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future activities that would increase or intensify detrimental effects to cerulean warbler populations.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the cerulean warbler.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the cerulean warbler.
Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the golden- winged warbler, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The golden-winged warbler is known to occur outside of the wildlife analysis area, within 800 feet south of compartment 128. However, there is potential habitat for this species adjacent to and within activity areas. Golden-winged warblers inhabit old fields and successional hardwoods during the breeding season. These birds would not be found in the wildlife analysis area outside of the breeding season from
158 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
April to August, so activities taking place outside these dates would not have any direct impacts on individuals. Timber harvest would unlikely to impact individuals as golden- winged warblers may nest along edges and not within forested stands such as those that would be treated. The proposed harvest may create desirable nesting habitat where adjacent to existing openings with grassy and shrubby characteristics. These warblers prefer to nest along soft edges between openings and young forest stands. Two-age harvest would create young stands that would be suitable about four to five years post-harvest, and residual trees and retained snags would produce suitable song perches. Thinning and temporary road construction may add to desirable nesting habitat if implemented adjacent or in proximity to existing herbaceous openings.
Other activities such as cut cable treatments for fish habitat, widening Bee Cove Trail, and herbicide use would have a measurable impact on the golden-winged warbler. Individuals would not ingest enough insects exposed to herbicide to experience an adverse effect, and it is highly unlikely that a warbler would be directly sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the golden-winged warbler resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past harvest overlapping the wildlife analysis area would have similar impacts as the equivalent proposed harvest activities. These actions may cumulatively enhance areas with potential for golden-winged warbler habitat existing within the wildlife analysis area.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no effect on the golden-winged warbler.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest and may have beneficial effects on the golden-winged warbler.
Golden Banded Skipper (Autochton cellus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the golden banded skipper, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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. Individuals can often be found in rich woods with sunlit places along creek and dirt roads. Golden banded skippers have two broods, the first from late April into June and the second from July in August. The host plant, hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata) is common across the forest; thus, the proposed actions would be unlikely to decrease the availability of
159 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project the host plant. There is a record of this butterfly adjacent to compartment 17, which is about 0.5 miles from the nearest TSI unit and about 1 mile from the nearest 2-age unit, 17/19. However, there is potential habitat throughout the analysis area, and there is a general area record which overlaps with the Bee Cove Trail.
Timber harvest and temporary road construction are buffered from creeks and other water sources, so these actions are unlikely to reduce available habitat for the butterfly. Temporary roads, after harvest implementation is completed and the roads reseeded, may serve as future habitat. Widening the Bee Cove Trail may impact individuals, but widening 1.5 feet on both sides of the existing trail would not impact habitat. Herbicide would not impact this butterfly as it would be unlikely that an individual would be sprayed. Targeted plant species are not associated with larval host plants or plants the adults use for nectar sources. Cut cable treatments for fish habitat would have no effect on this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the golden banned skipper resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Harvest that has occurred within the wildlife analysis area would have effects similar to the proposed silvicultural activities. Due to the ephemeral nature of impacts which are not generally detrimental, no adverse cumulative effects would result from implementing this alternative.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the golden banded skipper.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the golden banded skipper.
Dusky Azure (Celastrina nigra)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the dusky azure, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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 in association with the host plant, goat’s beard (Aruncus dioicus). The dusky azure has one brood at the end of March to mid-May or late May at higher elevations. There is a record of this butterfly within 750 feet west of unit 21/22, up higher in elevation and at a steep road bank along SR1246, but there is potential habitat throughout the analysis area.
160 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Timber harvest may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals are present during implementation. These activities may also open up shaded areas to the sun which may make the treated areas unsuitable for the dusky azure, but these areas would be temporary and ephemeral. Additionally, dusky azures will use open areas within their preferred habitat type, so temporary roads may create desirable habitat post-harvest, when the roads are seeded and begin to grow in. The proposed actions would not decrease the overall availability of habitat in proximity to treatments or within the wildlife analysis area; preferred habitat would exist beyond the treatment bounds. Widening 1.5 feet on both sides of the Bee Cove Trail would not impact habitat for this species. Herbicide treatments would be unlikely to impact the butterfly. It would be highly unlikely that an individual would be sprayed, and targeted species are not associated with larval host plants or adult food plants. Cut cable treatments for fish habitat around Fontana Lake would have no impact on the dusky azure.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the dusky azure resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects from these alternatives would be similar to the cumulative effects described above in Alternative B for the similarly moist habitat associated golden banded skipper.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the dusky azure.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the dusky azure.
Mottled Duskywing (Erynnis martialis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the mottled duskywing, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B: 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. There are no records of this species within the wildlife analysis area but potential habitat exists.
Harvest and temporary road construction may create suitable edge habitat but may also cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur in proposed activity areas and are present during implementation. Thinning treatments and widening the Bee Cove Trail would have an appreciable impact on this butterfly. Herbicide treatments are proposed for plant
161 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project species that are not associated with the mottled duskywing, and it is unlikely that a butterfly would be sprayed. Cut cable treatments for fish habitat would not be in preferred habitat so would have no effect on the mottled duskywing.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the mottled duskwing resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Historical harvesting activities would have effects on the mottled duskywing similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Cumulatively, these activities may have beneficially created more edge and open habitat for this butterfly species.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the mottled duskywing.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the mottled duskywing.
Tawny Crescent (Phyciodes batesii maconensis)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the tawny crescent, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: 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 are no known occurrences of this species within the wildlife analysis area, and only units 24/9 and 119/17 in Alternative B and 119/17 in Alternative C extend above 3000 feet but do not quite reach even 3400 feet in elevation. Because these butterflies are mostly found in higher elevations than the activity areas it is unlikely that populations would be present within proposed units, but there is potential habitat within the aforementioned units.
Thinning, timber harvest, and temporary road construction would not decrease the availability of habitat within the wildlife analysis, because most activities are proposed in lower elevations. Further, these activities may be beneficial by opening up the treated areas to sunlight, especially temporary road construction which would transitorily create desirable habitat in areas with drier conditions. If individuals occur within activity areas during implementation, the proposed activities may cause direct mortality through crushing. Minimal widening of the Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would have an overall detrimental impact on this species, and cut cable treatments for fish habitat would have no effect.
162 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Herbicide treatments would not target plant species associated with the tawny crescent, and it would be unlikely that a butterfly would be directly sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on the tawny crescent resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects resulting from these alternatives would be similar to the cumulative effects described above in Alternative B for the similarly drier, open, and edge associated species, mottled duskywing.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the tawny crescent.
Alternative B: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the tawny crescent.
Smyth’s Green Comma (Polygonia faunus smythi)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on Smyth’s green comma, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Often found in high elevation spruce-fir forests where mixed with hardwoods, Smyth’s green comma can also be found at lower elevations in cool forests mixed with hemlock and hardwoods near streams. There, butterflies can be seen in openings along trails and dirt roads in preferred habitat. There are most likely two broods, one flight likely from June to August and the other overwintering as adults to emerge and fly through May. There is a record of Smyth’s green comma west of compartment 17. There is also potential lower elevation mixed hemlock areas within the project area where this butterfly may occur.
Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals are present during implementation. Opening the canopy through timber harvest in hemlock/hardwood areas would be unfavorable for Smyth’s green comma. Reducing the canopy would cause the treated area to become drier and warmer. Proposed thinning would be unlikely to have the altering effects of timber harvest on preferred habitat, and temporary road construction may create beneficial linear openings for this species after implementation and reseeding, as the road transitions back to being forested. Proposed herbicide use would target species that are not associated with Smyth’s green comma. The host plant is mostly birches which would not be treated. In addition, it would be unlikely for an individual to be directly sprayed. Widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike standard and cut cable treatments for fish habitat would be unlikely to measurable impact this species.
163 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The cumulative effects on Smyth’s green comma from these alternatives would be similar to the cumulative effects described above from Alternative B on the similarly moist habitat associated species, golden banded skipper.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Smyth’s green comma.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for Smyth’s green comma.
164 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Decorated Melanoplus (Melanoplus decoratus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the decorated melanoplus, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: There is potential dry woodland habitat for the decorated melanoplus within the wildlife analysis area and activity areas. If populations occur within the activity areas, the proposed treatments may cause direct mortality through crushing, but treatments may increase desirable habitat characteristics such as increasing amount of edge and open conditions. Melanoplus species utilize woodland openings to sun themselves, so activities that create these conditions would be beneficial. Herbicide use would be unlikely to impact this species, because removal of the targeted species would not impact preferred habitat characteristics. Also, it would be unlikely that a decorated melanoplus would be sprayed directly. Widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike standards and cut cable treatments for fish habitat would not have an appreciable impact on the decorated melanoplus.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the decorated melanoplus resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past silvicultural activities within the wildlife analysis area would have had effects on the decorated melanoplus similar to the equivalent proposed actions. Because these effects have minimal detrimental direct effects on individuals and overall beneficial indirect effects on habitat, no adverse cumulative effects would occur as a result of these alternatives.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the decorated melanoplus.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the decorated melanoplus.
Yellow Stoneroot Borer Moth (Papaipema astuta)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the yellow stoneroot borer moth, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: The yellow stoneroot borer moth is always found in proximity to large populations of its larval food plant, stoneroot (Collinsonia spp.).
165 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Inhabiting dry-mesic forests, woodlands, and barrens, this moth is usually found along stream corridors where stoneroot grows. The flight period lasts from September into October. This moth overwinters as eggs, and the larvae mature and pupate in August. There may be potential habitat for this species within the analysis area along streams in proximity to proposed activity areas. However, potential habitat would only exist where there are at least 100s of healthy stoneroot stems.
Silvicultural activities are always buffered various distances from streams and wet areas. Consequently, it would be unlikely that these activities would directly impact stoneroot populations. However, if stems occur outside of the established buffer along analysis area streams and wet areas, moths may inhabit areas where direct mortality through crushing can occur. Being inactive during the day, these moths would be vulnerable to direct effects from implementation of these activities if present in the treatment area. However, these activities would not measurably impact stoneroot populations along stream corridors as most stems would be within the stream or wet area buffer. Consequently, the proposed activities would not reduce the availability of potential habitat around treated sites. One of the threats to this moth is competition of nonnative invasive plants with stoneroot. Thus, herbicide treatments to reduce the spread and competition of invasive plants would be beneficial in areas that contain stoneroot.
Other activities such as thinning, temporary road construction, cut cable treatments for fish habitat, and widening Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would not affect the availability of stoneroot population and thus would not appreciably impact this species.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the yellow stoneroot borer moth resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past harvest within the wildlife analysis area would have had similar effects as the proposed harvest activities. The herbicide activities associated with silvicultural prescriptions would have a cumulative beneficial impact on the yellow stoneroot borer moth when used in areas where nonnative invasive plants are competing with stoneroot. Due to the possible benefits of the proposed project and similar past projects and the simultaneously potential detriments from these activities, the cumulative impact to this species would be negligible.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the yellow stoneroot borer moth.
Alternative B and Alternative C: These alternatives may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the yellow stoneroot borer moth.
Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii)
Direct and Indirect Effects
166 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This species has been observed at Cheoah Dam by compartment 18 and 19, and potential habitat exists throughout the wildlife analysis area. Some habitats like buildings, caves, and mines are not present in the activity areas, but there may be loose-barked roost trees within activity areas. The terms and conditions of the BO for the Indiana bat would also protect this type of roosting habitat for the big-eared bat. Thus, timber harvest is unlikely to affect availability of roosting habitat within the wildlife analysis area. Snags and trees with loose bark would be retained in the units, along with green tree clumps to protect the snags. In addition, timber harvesting may increase foraging habitat. The methods proposed promote a diverse forest structure by creating edge habitat and foraging space for bats. Further, the increased solar exposure to the units leads to a flush of herbaceous and shrub growth that may increase insect prey abundance. Implementation of these activities, though unlikely, may cause direct mortality but would not affect the availability of habitats for this bat.
Cut cable treatments for fish habitat would use trees unsuitable for roosting so would have no effect on these bats. Also, widening the Bee Cove Trail to bike standards would not measurable impact Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Herbicide use would not impact habitat, and it would be unlikely that bat would be directly sprayed or ingest 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 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Past silvicultural activities would have had similar effects to the proposed harvest. Cumulatively, harvest activities would not reduce the availability of summer roosting habitat, because roost trees would be generally retained and other roosting habitats are not within the area of influence of these activities.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on Rafinesque’s big-eared bat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat.
167 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Queen Crater (Appalachina chilhoweensis), Dark Glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana), Pink Glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia), Ramp Cove Supercoil (Paravitrea lacteodens), Open Supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris), Dwarf Proud Globe (Patera clarki clarki), Ribbed Striate (Striatura exigua)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on these terrestrial gastropods, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Terrestrial gastropods have common microclimatic requirements to protect individuals from desiccation. These snails are vulnerable to actions which alter microclimatic conditions such as increasing soil temperature, air temperature, wind velocity, short-wave radiation, and rates of evaporation and decrease relative humidity. Habitat for these species is usually within cove forests around logs, forest debris, and within leaf litter. The open supercoil has an affinity to rockier coves, and the ribbed striate would be found in moister areas in coves, often preferring swampy areas. The dwarf proud globe is more of a habitat generalist, being found in a variety of forest types. There are historical records of the open supercoil and ramp cove supercoil overlapping with the wildlife analysis area. These general area records are rated as low accuracy for the open supercoil and very low for the ramp cove supercoil. There are no current records of these species within the wildlife analysis area, but these habitats are found in abundance throughout the wildlife analysis area.
Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction can create conditions unfavorable to terrestrial gastropods, but these actions can be mitigated to lessen impacts to these snails. The timber harvest may alter microclimatic conditions, making the treatments sites drier and unsuitable. Leaving coarse woody debris within harvest units would provide sheltered sites for snails and refugia from the drying conditions caused by harvest activities. In addition, leaving patches of uncut trees, as dictated by the Indiana bat BO for snags, would provide refugia in the unit and possibly connective habitat for re-colonization post-harvest. The larger the clumps of trees left, the less impact there would be to terrestrial gastropod communities.
The magnitude of effect on different terrestrial mollusks would depend on habitat age preferences. Old growth species will experience the greatest detrimental impact post-harvest, but habitat generalist like the open supercoil may subsist during harvest and recolonize harvested stands quicker than more specialized species. There would be a low likelihood of impact on old growth dependents, however, because no treatments are proposed in designated old growth communities. Within the analysis area, there are untouched management areas that include suitable old growth for mature forest specific species.
Thinning would affect snails to a lesser degree than 2-age harvest. Temporary road construction would create unsuitable conditions for terrestrial mollusks and barriers to dispersal while activities are being implemented. However, these roads are temporary and would be reseeded after completion of harvest activities. Widening the Bee Cove Trail by
168 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1.5 feet on each side may impact local individuals if they occur within the widened area but would not impact overall habitat for terrestrial gastropods. Cut cable and herbicide treatments would not measurably impact snails. Herbicide would not alter the overstory or affect the availability of the required microclimatic conditions. In addition, because snails would be around decaying logs, among rocks, and under the leaf litter, it would be unlikely that these rare snails would be directly sprayed.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on these terrestrial gastropods resulting from the no action alternative.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Effects from past harvest would be similar to the effects described for the proposed harvest activities. Harvest activities within the wildlife analysis have not impacted known populations of these rare snails, and would be unlikely to cumulatively decrease the overall availability of habitat for terrestrial mollusks. Cumulatively, there would be 1,148 acres (9.3%) of the analysis area under Alternative B or 1,090 acres (8.8%) under Alternative C in 0-20 year early successional habitat. The remainder of the wildfire analysis area would have potential habitat available for a variety of snail species, and untreated younger forests would be left alone to age into suitably forested and shaded habitat.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the queen crater, dark glyph, pink glyph, ramp cove supercoil, open supercoil, dwarf proud globe, and ribbed striate.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability of known populations across the forest for the queen crater, dark glyph, pink glyph, ramp cove supercoil, open supercoil, dwarf proud globe, and ribbed striate.
Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the coal skink, because no action would be taken and lack of action would not measurably affect individuals or habitat.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Coal skinks are most commonly found in the humid portions of wooded hillsides and rocky slopes, near springs, and along road banks. There are no known occurrences of the coal skink within the wildlife analysis area. Timber harvest, thinning, and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with activity areas. 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
169 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project activities that would impact the microclimatic characteristics of the habitat. Consequently harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of coal skink 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. Further the proposed herbicide treatments would not reduce availability of potential habitat for this species. Widening Bee Cove Trail and cut cable treatments for fish habitat along Fontana Lake would not measurably impact coal skinks.
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.
Alternative B and Alternative C: Direct and indirect effects from the proposed actions, which are similar in effect on coal skinks as past harvest activities would have been, would not have a measurable cumulative impact on the coal skink.
Determination of Effect
Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the coal skink.
Alternative B and Alternative C: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the coal skink.
Table 4.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Desmognathus aeneus No Impacts May impact May impact Seepage salamander individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Eurycea longicauda May impact May impact Longtail salamander No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Setophaga cerulea May impact May impact Cerulean warbler No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Autochton cellus May impact May impact Golden banded skipper No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Celastrina nigra May impact May impact Dusky azure No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Erynnis martialis May impact May impact Mottled duskywing No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Phyciodes batesii maconensis May impact May impact Tawny crescent No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability
170 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Melanoplus decoratus May impact May impact Decorated melanoplus No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii May impact May impact Rafinesque’s big-eared bat No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Appalachina chilhoweensis May impact May impact Queen crater No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Glyphyalinia junaluska May impact May impact Dark glyph No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Glyphyalinia pentadelphia May impact May impact Pink glyph No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Paravitrea lacteodens May impact May impact Ramp Cove supercoil No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Patera clarki clarki May impact May impact Dwarf proud globe No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Striatura exigua May impact May impact Ribbed striate No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability Eumeces anthracinus May impact May impact Coal skink No Impacts individuals but not individuals but not viability viability
171 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
4.4 Summary of Effects Determinations for Forest Concern Species
Table 4.4.1: Summary of effects determinations for forest concern species evaluated for the Fontana Project. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternatives C Beraea gorteba No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals Baetopus trishae No Impacts May Impact Individuals May Impact Individuals
Desmognathus aeneus No Impacts May impact individuals but May impact individuals but Seepage salamander not viability not viability Eurycea longicauda May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Longtail salamander not viability not viability Setophaga cerulea May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Cerulean warbler not viability not viability Autochton cellus May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Golden banded skipper not viability not viability Celastrina nigra May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Dusky azure not viability not viability Erynnis martialis May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Mottled duskywing not viability not viability Phyciodes batesii May impact individuals but May impact individuals but maconensis No Impacts not viability not viability Tawny crescent Melanoplus decoratus May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Decorated melanoplus not viability not viability Corynorhinus rafinesquii May impact individuals but May impact individuals but rafinesquii not viability not viability No Impacts Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Appalachina May impact individuals but May impact individuals but chilhoweensis No Impacts not viability not viability Queen crater Glyphyalinia junaluska May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Dark glyph not viability not viability Glyphyalinia May impact individuals but May impact individuals but pentadelphia No Impacts not viability not viability Pink glyph Paravitrea lacteodens May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Ramp Cove supercoil not viability not viability Patera clarki clarki May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Dwarf proud globe not viability not viability Striatura exigua May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Ribbed striate not viability not viability Eumeces anthracinus May impact individuals but May impact individuals but No Impacts Coal skink not viability not viability
172 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
5.0 PREPARERS
Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest April Punsalan, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Le’Andra Smith, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest
/s/ Jason Farmer February 21, 2014
Jason Farmer Fisheries Biologist Nantahala National Forest Cheoah Ranger District 1070 Massey Branch Road Robbinsville, NC 28771
173 Environmental Assessment Fontana 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.
Cantrell, Mark. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801.
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.
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. 2011. Two decades of forestry best management practices monitoring – Executive summary. USDA, Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 4 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.
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.
174 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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.
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.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to mollusca. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages.
Ridout, S. 2003. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University. Richmond, Virginia.
Scientific Council Report on Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices.
Scientific Council Report on Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues of North Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices.
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.
Terwilliger, K. (editor). 1991. Virginia’s endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pages.
175 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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.
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
Biotics Database. 2013. As maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Cox, P.B., and A. Dattilo. 2013. Activities related to Fontana-Santeetlah transmission line mitigation. Report of field reviews. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN.
Danley, D., and G. Kauffman. 2004. Non-native invasive plants that occur on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest. A report written for the U.S. Forest Service.
Ellsworth, J.W., R.A. Harrington, and J.H. Fownes. 2004. Survival, growth and gas exchange of Celastrus orbiculatus seedlings in sun and shade. The American Midland Naturalist 151(2): 233-240.
Goff, G.F., G.A. Dawson, and J.J. Rochow 1982. Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species. Environmental Management, Vol.6: 4.
Hicks, M. L. Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina. 1992. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. 240 p.
McNab, W.H., and D.L. Loftis. 2002. Probability of occurrence and habitat features for oriental bittersweet in an oak forest in the southern Appalachian mountains, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 45-54.
Miller, J.H., S.T. Manning, and S.F. Enloe. 2010. A management guide for invasive plants in southern forests. General Technical Report. United States Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8, Arlington (VA): Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed June 2013).
Renzaglia, K. S., J. C. Villarreal, and R. J. Duff. 2009. Hornwort phylogeny and classification revisited. Bryophyte Biology (Second Edition) by B. Goffinet and A. J. Shaw (editors).
176 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Robbins, S.C. 2000. Comparative analysis of management regimes and medicinal plant trade monitoring mechanisms for American ginseng and goldenseal. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1422-1434.
Robinson, A.F. 1982. Endangered and threatened species of the southeastern United States including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.
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.
Schuster, R.M. 1992. On Megaceros aenigmaticus Schust. The Bryologist 95(3): 305-315.
Schwartzman, E. 2012. Site survey report for the high top/bee cove slopes significant natural heritage area. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raliegh, NC.
Smith, Cherri. 2012. Invasive exotic plants of North Carolina. Report written for the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Van der Voort, M.E., B. Bailey, D.E. Samuel, and J.B. McGraw. 2003. Recovery of populations of goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) and American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) following harvest. The American Midland Naturalist: 149 (2): 282- 292.
Villarreal, J.C., L.L. Forrest, K. McFarland, and B. Goffinet. 2012. Chloroplast, mitochondrial, and nuclear microsatellites from the southern Appalachian hornwort, Nothoceros aenigmaticus (Dendrocerotaceae). American Journal of Botany 99(3): 88-90.
Weakley, Alan. 2011. Flora of the southern and mid-Atlantic states. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Wildlife
Bakermans, M.H. et al. 2011. Golden-winged Warbler Habitat Best Management Practices for Forestlands in Maryland and Pennsylvania. American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, Virginia. 26 pp.
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
177 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Boves, T.J., et al. 2013. Emulating natural disturbances for declining late-succesional species: a case study of the consequences for cerulean warblers (Setophaga cerulea). PLoS ONE, 8(1): e52107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052107.
Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on October 28, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/lizards/Eumant/Eum_ant.html
Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Pygmy Salamander (Desmognathus wrighti). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on October 28, 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 the Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center Purchase Knob Great Smoky Mountains National Park in cooperation with ATBI/Discover Life in America project.
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.
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.
Hall, S. 2012. Comments on rare moths in western NC. Pers. Comm.
Harrison, J. R. 1967. Observations on the Life History, Ecology, and Distribution of Desmognathus aeneus aeneus Brown and Bishop. American Midland Naturalist, 77(2):356-370.
Hedin, M.C. 1997. Speciational history in a diverse clade of habitat- specialized spiders (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus): inferences form geographic-based sampling. Evolution, 51(6):1929-1945.
Jordan, S.F. & S.H. Black. 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. 2012. Butterflies of North Carolina, Nineteenth Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program non-publication.
178 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Morrison, B. Species Profile – Long-tailed Salamander (Eurycea longicauda). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on October 28 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/salamanders/eurlon.htm
Morse, A.P. 1904. New Acridiidae from the southeastern states. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 11(1):7-13.
O’Keefe, J.M., et al. 2013. Effects of riparian buffer width on activity and detection of common bats in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37(2):319-326.
Otte, D. 2002. Studies of Melanoplus. 1. Review of the Viridipes Group (Acrididae: Melanoplinae). Journal of Orthoptera Research, 11(2):91-118.
Petranka, J.W. et al. 1993. Effects of Timber Harvesting on Southern Appalachian Salamanders. Conservation Biology, 7(2):363-370.
Petranka, J.W. & C.K. Smith. 2005. A functional analysis of streamside habitat use by southern Appalachian salamanders: Implications for riparian forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 210:443-454.
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., 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.
Sharpe, T.L. 1996. Wildlife Profiles: Appalachian Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus obscurus. Division of Conservation Education, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, 2pp.
Taylor, D.A.R. 2006. Forest Management & Bats. Bat Conservation International.
Thompson, F.R, III, ed. 2006. Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. General Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, MN: USDA, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82pp.
Wood, P.B., et al. 2013. Cerulean Warbler Management Guidelines for Enhancing Breeding Habitat in Appalachian Hardwood Forests. American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, Virginia. 28pp
Wood, P.B., et al. 2005. Cerulean warbler use of regenerated clearcut and two-age harvests. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(3):851-858
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-
179 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
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.
Van Horn, M. A. & T. M. Donovan. 2011. Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/088doi:10.2173/bna.88
180 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: 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 Bivalve Fusconaia barnesiana Lower Little TN River and Hiwassee River Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Valley River, Historic Record, Cherokee Co. Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Streams in Little TN River, Macon Co.
Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Streams in Hiwassee River drainage
Crustacean Cambarus reburrus Tributary to Horsepasture River, Transylvannia Co.; upper French Broad River Crustacean Cambarus chaugaensis Streams in Savannah River drainage, Jackson, Macon, and Transylvannia Co.; SC and GA Dragonfly Macromia margarita Rivers, Macon, Swain, Transylvannia Co.; Caldwell Co. Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Large streams and rivers, Little TN River system, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.; Cheoah River, Graham Fish Percina squamata Higher gradient upland rivers, Tennessee River system, Cherokee, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co. Forest Amphibian Cryptobranchus Rivers and large streams, TN and Concern alleganiensis Savannah River systems Amphibian Necturus maculosus Wayah Cr, Cullasaja R. - Macon, Fires Creek - Clay Bivalve Alasmidonta viridis Little Tennessee River, Macon, Swain Co.
181 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution 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 Little TN, French Broad and Pigeon Rivers, historic records ; Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Jackson, Macon, Swain Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme Little TN and Hiwassee drainages, Cherokee, Clay, Macon, Swain Co. Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis Hiwassee River system, Cherokee and Clay Co.; French Broad River system Bivalve Villosa iris Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Martin and Brasstown Crks; French Broad R.; Cherokee, Clay, Jackson, Macon, Swain Caddisfly Beraea gorteba Specifics unknown*
Caddisfly Brachycentrus etowahensis Hiwassee River; Cherokee County
Caddisfly Goerita flinti Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Swain County Caddisfly Homoplecta monticola Scattered sites in Jackson and Macon Counties Caddisfly Hydropsyche carolina Cullasaja River and Whitewater River; Jackson and Macon Counties Caddisfly Oropsyche howellae Streams in Jackson and Macon Counties Caddisfly Polycentropus colei Streams in Great Smoky Mountains National Park; Swain County Caddisfly Rhyacophila accola Oconaluftee River, Swain County Caddisfly Rhyacophila celadon Seeps and streams; Swain County Crustacean Cambarus acanthura Burrowing crayfish; Cherokee and Clay Counties Crustacean Cambarus nodosus Seeps and other mucky areas in Hiwassee River watershed; Cherokee and Clay Counties Crustacean Cambarus tuckasegee Streams in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson and Macon Counties Crustacean Orconectes sp. 3 Graham County Crustacean Skistodiaptomus Lake Ravenel, Macon Co. carolinensis Dragonfly Ladona julia Bogs and marshes in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County
182 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Dragonfly Stylurus scudderi Streams and rivers (Jackson, Macon, Swain Counties) Fish Clinostomus funduloides Little TN River drainage and Hiwassee sp. 1 River watershed; Cherokee, Clay,Graham, Jackson, Macon, and Swain Co. Fish Erimystax insignis Hiwassee River, Cherokee and Clay Co. eristigma
Fish Etheostoma inscriptum Large streams in Savannah River system; Jackson and Macon Counties Fish Hybopsis rubrifrons Jackson County Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Reported in Little TN River system and Hiwassee River watershed; Cherokee, Clay, Macon, Swain, Jackson Co.; Cane River system Fish Micropterus coosae Savannah River system, Transylvannia and Jackson Co. 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 Sander canadensis Large streams, rivers, reservoirs in Hiwassee River system, Cherokee Co.; French Broad River system Gastropod Elimia christyi Hiwassee River and tributaries (Cherokee County) Mayfly Ameletus tertius Jackson County, Panthertown Valley; Great Smoky Mtn National Park - Swain; Wilson Creek – Caldwell County Mayfly Attenella margarita Eagle Creek (Swain County)
183 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Mayfly Baetopus trishae Specifics unknown*
Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae UT Cullasaga River, Macon Co.; Mull Crk, Jackson Co.; Cove Crk, Haywood Co.; Swain Co. Stonefly Rasvena terna Great Smoky Mtn. National Park Stonefly Zapada chila Small streams, Beech Flat Prong, Tuckasegee River watershed - Swain Co.; Ashe Co.
Attachment 1b: Endangered, threatened, sensitive, and forest concern aquatic species evaluated for the Fontana Project. This analysis includes known and potentially occurring rare aquatic species from Graham County, NC, and the Little Tennessee River system. 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 occur3 Fish Erimonax monachus Does not occur3 Sensitive Species Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Does not occur3 Forest Concern Species Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Lampsilis fasciola Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Villosa iris Not likely to occur1 Caddisfly Beraea gorteba May occur2 Crustacean Orconectes sp. 3 Not likely to occur1 Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 Not likely to occur1 Mayfly Baetopus trishae May occur2
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.
184 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Attachment 1c: Aquatic resources in the Little Tennessee River watershed contained in the Fontana Project area. Class WS-III waters are protected as water supplies and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. 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 Cheoah River - 3.9 C; Tr Halfmile Branch - 1.7 C Clat Branch - 0.8 C Little Laurel Branch - 0.6 C Laurel Branch - 0.7 C Fishtrap Branch1 - 0.9 C Buggy Branch - 0.5 C UT Buggy Branch 0.1 0.3 Rocky Point Ferry Branch - 1.1 C Unnamed Tributary (UT) Rocky Point Ferry Branch 0.2 0.4 Farley Branch 2.0 C UT Farley Branch 0.4 0.4 Jack Shute Branch - 1.2 C Fax Creek - 1.6 C UT1 Fax Creek5 0.3 0.3 UT2 Fax Creek 0.4 0.7 UT3 Fax Creek 0.3 0.3 Welch Cove - 2.0 C UT Welch Cove 1.0 1.0 Round Mountain Cove - 0.6 Panel Branch - 1.2 C Lewellyn Cove - 0.8 C; Tr Bee Cove - 1.3 Rattlesnake Branch - 1.3 WS-IV Blaze Branch - 0.3 WS-IV Powell Branch - 1.9 WS-IV UT Powell Branch 0.8 0.8 Poison Cove 0.1 0.3 WS-IV Hyde Branch 0.1 0.1 C Tuskegee Creek 0.2 1.3 C Owenby Branch - 0.3 C Deaver Branch2 - 1.1 C UT Deaver Branch3 0.2 0.2 UT Cheoah Lake4 0.1 0.4
185 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
1. Fishtrap Branch is a small Rosgen Type B stream channel with an old logging road crossing. Log bridge abutments are still in place from the previous crossing although not culvert or bridge is currently in place. The average bankfull width is approximately 1.5 meter. The substrate consists of 5% boulder, 20% cobble, 40% large gravel, 15% small gravel, and 20% sand. The overstory vegetation consists of red maple, yellow poplar, black birch, and black oak. The understory vegetation consists of rhododendron , and dog hobble. The stream contains no fish habitat. 2. Deaver Branch is a small B/A stream channel near the proposed temporary road construction. The average bankfull width of this stream is 1 meter. The substrate consists of boulder (5%), cobble (5%), large gravel (30%), small gravel (30%), and sand (30%). The understory vegetation is rhododendron. The overstory vegetation is yellow poplar, black birch, and black oak. The stream provides no fish habitat. An existing culvert is plugged and has diverted the stream over the culvert fill creating a bank scour. 3. UT Deaver Branch is a small B stream channel with a bankfull width of 0.5 meters. The substrate consists of small gravel (20%), sand (60%), and silt (20%). The overstory vegetation consists of red maple, yellow poplar, and black birch. The understory vegetation consists of rhododendron, hemlock, buckeye, dog hobble and basswood. An existing stream crossing (corrugated metal pipe) has been plugged and is diverting stream flow along the road bed for approximately 100 feet. 4. UT Cheoah Lake (near Unit 22/9) is a small A/B stream channel with a bankfull width of 2 meters. The stream substrate consists of bedrock (5%), boulder (10%), cobble (10%), large gravel (5%), small gravel (30%), and sand (40%). The overstory vegetation consists of yellow poplar, cucumbertree, birch, red maple, and sourwood. The understory vegetation consists of rhododendron, dog hobble, birch, and cucumbertree. 5. UT 1 Fax Creek is a small spring near Unit 22/4. The bankfull width is 0.5 meters and contains very little surface water. The overstory vegetation consists of yellow poplar, birch, and dead hemlock. The understory vegetation consists of red maple, sugar maple, birch, and rhododendron.
186 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Attachment 2: Threatened and endangered, region 8 sensitive, and forest concern plant species that occur in Graham County, North Carolina.
COMMON Forest SPECIES FORM Natural Communities, habitat NAME Status Northern Hardwood Cove Forest, Trailing Vascular Aconitum reclinatum Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, High Elevation Wolfsbane plant Seep, Rich Cove Forest Climbing Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Adlumia fungosa Fumitory plant Concern Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff Aneura maxima A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive MP; in spray zones of waterfalls Brachyelytrum Northern Vascular Forest Serpentine Forest, Northern aristosum Shorthusk plant Concern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, Montane Oak- Calamagrostis porteri Porter's Reedgrass plant Concern Hickory Forest Boulderfield Forest, Northern Mountain Vascular Cardamine clematitis Sensitive Hardwood Cove Forest, Spruce-Fir Bittercress plant Forest, High Elevation Seep Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Carex hitchcockiana Hitchcock's Sedge plant Concern Hickory Forest, mafic rock High Elevation Seep, Southern Vascular Forest Carex projecta Necklace Sedge Appalachian Bog, Marsh, Wet plant Concern Meadow, Montane Alluvial Forest Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge plant Concern Forest Vascular Forest Chelone obliqua Red Turtlehead swamp forests, bogs plant Concern Small Spreading Vascular Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak Cleistesiopsis bifaria Sensitive Pogonia plant Woodland, Shortleaf Pine Vascular Forest Corallorhiza wisteriana Spring Coral-root Rich Cove forest plant Concern Cypripedium Small Yellow Vascular Forest parviflorum var. High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Lady's-slipper plant Concern parviflorum Dendrolycopodium Vascular Forest Grassy Balds, Spruce-Fir, Northern Tree Ground-pine dendroideum plant Concern Hardwood Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- Diarrhena americana Eastern Beakgrass plant Concern Hickory, mafic rock Vascular Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane Mafic Dicentra eximia Bleeding Heart plant Concern Cliff Acidic Cove, Montane Oak-Hickory, Drepanolejeunea A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine appalachiana Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Vascular Forest Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower Glade, Roadside, mafic rock plant Concern Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Sullivant's Forest Entodon sullivantii Moss Cove Forest in Gorge, rock outcrop Entodon Concern by stream in rich cove forest Harbringer-of- Vascular Forest Erigenia bulbosa Rich Woods spring plant Concern
187 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Euphorbia purpurea Glade Spurge Sensitive plant Cove Forest, Mesic oak-hickory Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Frasera caroliniensis Columbo plant Concern Hickory Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Smoky Mountain Vascular Glyceria nubigena Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, High Elevation Mannagrass plant Seep, Spruce-Fir Forest High Elevation Rocky Summit, Moist Rock Gnome Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove in Gymnoderma lineare Lichen Endangered Lichen Gorge, High Elevation Granitic Dome, Spruce-Fir Forest Rich Cove Forest, Northern Helianthus Whiteleaf Vascular Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Sensitive glaucophyllus Sunflower plant Red Oak Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal plant Concern Hickory, mafic rock Hypericum Mitchell's St. Vascular High Elevation Seep, Wet Meadow, Sensitive mitchellianum John's-wort plant Grassy Bald Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Juglans cinerea Butternut Sensitive plant Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest Lejeunea blomquistii A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff Earle's Blazing Vascular Forest Liatris squarrulosa Roadside, Pine-Oak Woodland Star plant Concern Lilium canadense ssp. Vascular Forest Wet Meadow, Southern Appalachian Red Canada Lily editorum plant Concern Bog Lophocolea A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff appalachiana Megaceros A Hornwort Hornwort Sensitive Stream aenigmaticus Metzgeria temperata A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive High Elevation Forest Metzgeria uncigera A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Acidic Cove Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Montane Vascular Micranthes caroliniana Carolina Saxifrage Sensitive Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Rocky plant Summit Peltigera venosa An Aquatic Lichen Lichen Sensitive Stream Small's Vascular Penstemon smallii Sensitive Montane Acidic Cliff Beardtongue plant Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Plagiochila caduciloba A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge High Elevation Rocky Summit, Rock Plagiochila retrorsa A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Plagiochila sciophila A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Plagiochila sullivantii Sullivant's Leafy Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest var. sullivantii Liverwort
188 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Plagiochila virginica Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive var. caroliniana Cove Forestin Gorge Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest Plagiomnium Carolina Star-moss Moss Sensitive in Gorge, Streambank, Montane carolinianum Alluvial Forest Marsh Magnificent Forest Plagiomnium ellipticum Moss rocks in moist areas Moss Concern Platanthera flava var. Northern Green Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp herbiola Orchid plant Concern Forest-Bog Complex Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Purple Fringeless Vascular Forest Platanthera peramoena Marsh, rocky bar and shore, Montane Orchid plant Concern Alluvial Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest Porella wataugensis A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive in Gorge Northern Hardwood Forest, Grassy Roan Vascular Prenanthes roanensis Sensitive Bald, Meadow, Roadside, High Rattlesnakeroot plant Elevation Red Oak Forest Dark Mountain Forest wet acidic rock in shaded areas, Racomitrium aciculare Moss Fringe Moss Concern Acidic Cove Forest Rhododendron Cumberland Vascular Forest Grassy Bald, Heath Bald, High cumberlandense Azalea plant Concern Elevation Red Oak Forest Rotten Logs in Acidic Cove Forest in Riccardia jugata A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Gorge Northern Hardwood Forest, Acidic Robinia hispida var Vascular Forest Fruitful Locust Cove Forest, High Elevation Granitic fertilis plant Concern Dome, Dry-Mesic Oak Rudbeckia triloba var. Pinnate-lobed Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Montane Mafic Sensitive pinnatiloba Black-eyed Susan plant Cliff, mafic rock Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Schlotheimia lancifolia Highlands Moss Moss Sensitive Forest, Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Highlands Plateau, Gorge Forest Scopelophila ligulata Copper Moss Moss Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides Concern Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap Sensitive plant Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly Sensitive plant Hickory, Roadside, mafic rock Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Huger's Carrion- Vascular Forest Smilax hugeri Hickory, mafic rock, Dry-Mesic Oak flower plant Concern Forest Granite Dome Vascular Solidago simulans Sensitive High Elevation Granitic Dome Goldenrod plant Vascular Riverside scour zone, Montane Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea Threatened plant Alluvial Forest Clingman's Hedge- Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Stachys clingmanii Sensitive nettle plant Boulderfield Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Mountain Vascular Forest Stewartia ovata Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Camellia plant Concern Forest Trichomanes Appalachian Vascular Forest Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge boschianum Filmy-fern plant Concern
189 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Vascular Forest Trichomanes petersii Dwarf Filmy-fern Montane Acidic Cliff, Grotto, Gorge plant Concern Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Northern Trientalis borealis Starflower plant Concern Hardwood Forest Sweet White Vascular Trillium simile Sensitive Rich Cove Forest Trillium plant Vaccinium Northern Lowbush Vascular Forest High Elevation Acidic Forests and angustifolium Blueberry plant Concern Woodlands, Cliffs
Attachment 3: Endangered, threatened, sensitive, and 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 & adjacent TN) Spruce-fir moss spider (Endangered) Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Mammal High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir and northern Carolina northern flying squirrel (Endangered) hardwood above 4,000’ 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 snags (warmer Northern long-eared bat (Proposed) months); in caves and mines (winter months) Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and snags (warmer Indiana bat (Endangered) 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 mountains Santeetlah dusky salamander Eurycea junaluska Amphibian Forests near seeps and streams in the Cheoah River system Junaluska salamander 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 endemic to this Lost Nantahala cave spider area) Nesticus mimus Arachnid Rocky areas; known from Grandfather Mountain and Table a cave spider Rock; also in VA Nesticus sheari Arachnid On ground in moist or rich forests (apparently endemic to a cave spider Graham Co); Known from Joyce Kilmer Wilderness & Wright Creek Nesticus silvanus Arachnid Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to southern a cave spider 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’ Falco peregrinus Bird Cliffs (for nesting); coastal ponds and mudflats (for foraging in Peregrine falcon winter) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Mature forests near large bodies of water (for nesting); lakes Bald eagle and sounds Thryomanes bewickii altus Bird Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy fields at Appalachian Bewick’s wren high elevations [breeding season only]
190 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Trechus carolinae Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from the summit of a ground beetle Mt. Mitchell Trechus luculentus unicoi Beetle Apparently the mountains of Graham Co; known from a ground beetle 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 Celo a ground beetle 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 to NC); a ground beetle 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 (endemic a ground beetle to NC) Callophrys irus Butterfly Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; host plants: Frosted elfin lupines (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia) Speyeria diana Butterfly Montane and foothill forest edges and openings; host plant: Diana fritillary 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 (Graham) Milne’s euchlaena 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 months), Eastern small-footed bat in caves and mines (winter) Sorex palustris punctulatus Mammal Stream banks in montane forest with rhododendron cover Southern water shrew 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 deciduous Green salamander forests (southern mountains) Desmognathus aeneus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme southwestern Seepage salamander 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; west of the Southern pigmy salamander French Broad River Eurycea longicauda Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Longtail salamander Plethodon chattahoochee Amphibian Moist forests in the southwestern counties; close to the GA Chattahoochee slimy salamander border (Clay) Plethodon cheoah Amphibian Mesic forests on Cheoah Bald (endemic to this area)
191 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Cheoah Bald salamander Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for breeding Mountain chorus frog 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 (for Northern saw-whet owl – nesting) [breeding season only] southern Appalachian population Catharus guttatus Bird Spruce-fir forests (for nesting) [breeding season only] Hermit thrush Coccyzus erythropthalmus Bird Deciduous forests, mainly at higher elevations [breeding season Black-billed cuckoo and habitat only’ Contopus cooperi Bird Montane conifer forests (mainly spruce-fir) with openings or Olive-side flycatcher dead trees [breeding season only] Empidonax alnorum Bird High elevation shrub/sapling thickets [breeding season only] Alder flycatcher Loxia curvirostra pop. 1 Bird Coniferous forests, preferably spruce-fir [breeding season only] Southern Appalachian red crossbill Poecile atricapillus practica Bird High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir [breeding season Southern Appalachian black- only] capped chickadee Setophaga cerulea Bird Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in mountains Cerulean warbler [breeding season only] Setophaga coronata Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands [breeding Yellow-rumped warbler season only] Setophaga magnolia Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands [breeding Magnolia warbler season only] Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Old fields and successional hardwoods [breeding season only] Golden-winged warbler Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Low elevation brushy fields and thickets [breeding season Blue-winged warbler only] Vireo gilvus Bird Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams [breeding Warbling vireo 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 beard Dusky azure (Aruncus dioicus) Chlosyne gorgone Butterfly Woodland openings and borders; host plants: sunflowers, Gorgone checkerspot rosinweeds, and other tall composites Erynnis martialis Butterfly Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Jersey tea Mottled duskywing (Ceanothus americanus) Euchloe olympia Butterfly High elevation openings and glades; host plants: cresses Olympia marble (Arabis) Euphydryas phaeton Butterfly Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland woods; host Baltimore checkerspot plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove (Aureolaria) Papilio cresphontes Butterfly Primarily coastal in maritime forests or thickets; also in Giant swallowtail foothills and mountains near hoptree; host plants: prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum) and hoptree (Ptelea) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Butterfly Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at higher Tawny crescent elevations; host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with hardwoods;
192 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Smyth’s green comma host plants: mainly birches Polygonia progne Butterfly Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly gooseberries Gray comma (Ribes) Satyrium caryaevorus Butterfly Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host plants: primarily Hickory hairstreak hickories (Carya) Satyrium edwardsii Butterfly Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly oaks Edward’s hairstreak (Quercus) Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja Butterfly Forest openings and edges west of the Little Tennessee River; Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary host plants: violets (Viola) Melanoplus decoratus Grasshopper Dry woodlands Decorated melanoplus Melanapamea mixta Moth Savannas, wet meadows a noctuid moth Apameine new genus 2 sp. 4 Moth Woodland canebrakes (Swain) a canebrake moth Eilema bicolor Moth Spruce-fir forests (Swain) a bicolored moth Merolonche dolli Moth Dry oak woodlands (Macon) a noctuid moth Papaipema astuta Moth Open oak woodland and barrens; host plant: stoneroot Yellow stoneroot borer moth (Collinsonia canadensis) Corynorhinus rafinesquii Mammal Roosts in caves, mines, and hollow trees, usually near water rafinesquii 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 Gap area Big-tooth covert Gastropod of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Fumonelix orestes Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Plott Balsam Engraved covert Gastropod mountains (endemic to this area) Fumonelix wheatley Terrestrial Clingman’s Dome region of Great Smoky Mountains National clingmanicus Gastropod 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’; southwestern Blue-footed lancetooth Gastropod mountains Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) Spiral coil Gastropod Helicodiscus fimbriatus Terrestrial Rocky soils; extreme southwestern corner of the state Fringed coil Gastropod Helicodiscus saludensis Terrestrial No habitat or locality data Corncob snail Gastropod Inflectarius ferrissi Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Great Smoky Smoky Mountain covert Gastropod Mountains and Plott Balsams (endemic to these ranges) Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Forests (Swain) a snail Gastropod Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Wooded river bluffs and ravines
193 Environmental Assessment Fontana Project
Club supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea clappi Terrestrial High elevations in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Mirey Ridge supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea lacteodens Terrestrial Leaf litter on mountainsides in Graham County (endemic to Ramp Cove supercoil Gastropod this area) Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme southwestern Open supercoil Gastropod 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 endemic to Great Smoky slitmouth Gastropod this area) Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist forests Ribbed striate Gastropod Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern mountains Appalachian gloss Gastropod 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
194