United States Draft Environmental Department of Agriculture Assessment Forest Service Long Buck Project April 2017

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

For Information Contact: Steverson Moffat 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy NC 28906 (828) 837-5152 ext 108 www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

i

Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

Table of Contents

Summary ...... 1 Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Document Structure ...... 2 1.2 Description of the Project Area ...... 3 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 6 1.3.1 NFsNC Ecological Restoration Focus Areas & Forest Plan ...... 6 1.3.2 Southern Pine Beetle ...... 7 1.3.3 Shortleaf Pine Decline and Reestablishment ...... 8 1.3.4 Mixed Hardwood Management ...... 11 1.3.5 Purpose and Need ...... 11 1.4 Proposed Alternatives ...... 11 1.4.1 Alternative A ...... 11 1.4.2 Alternative B ...... 11 1.5 Decision to be Made ...... 14 1.6 Scoping ...... 14 1.7 Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis ...... 15 2. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 15 2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 15 2.1.1 Alternative A ...... 15 2.1.2 Alternative B ...... 16 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 16 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 16 2.4 Design Criteria ...... 16 3 Environmental Consequences ...... 18 3.1 Introduction ...... 18 3.2 Communities, Special Habitats, and Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 18 3.2.1 Aquatic Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 21 3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 26 3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities, Special Habitats and MIS ...... 30 3.2.4 Summary of Effects to All MIS, Communities, and Special Habitats ...... 38 3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 39 3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species ...... 39 3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species ...... 39 3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ...... 39 3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species ...... 39

ii

Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species ...... 40 3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species ...... 40 3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive Species ...... 40 3.5. Forest Concern Species ...... 41 3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species ...... 41 3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species ...... 41 3.5.3 Wildlife Forest Concern Species ...... 42 3.6. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues ...... 43 3.6.1 Invasive Species ...... 43 3.6.2 North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas ...... 47 3.7. Soil and Water Resources ...... 47 3.8 Air Resources ...... 50 3.9 Timber and Vegetation Management ...... 50 3.10 Heritage Resources ...... 52 3.11 Recreation Resources ...... 53 3.12 Scenery ...... 54 3.13 Social and Economic Considerations ...... 55 3.14 Road Management ...... 56 3.15 Climate Change ...... 57 4 Agencies and Persons Consulted...... 60 4.1. List of Preparers ...... 60 4.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 60 4.3 Literature Cited ...... 60 5 Appendix ...... 64 5.1 Biological Evaluation ...... 64

iii

Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

SUMMARY Proposed Actions:

Conduct management activities in Tusquitee Ranger District compartments 8, 9, 11, 12, and 18 including: (1) implementing silvicultural treatments through commercial timber harvest to improve the resiliency of vegetation communities through the shelterwood with reserves silvicultural regeneration technique and create approximately 239 acres of early successional habitat in seven stands; (2) implementing site- and species-specific stand improvement prescriptions to encourage the regeneration of natural vegetation within the historic range of variation in all treated stands through herbicide application, hand tool treatments, prescribed burning, planting shortleaf pine seedlings, and/or releasing potential natural vegetation with herbicide treatments; (3) daylighting select sections of National Forest System roads by cutting and removing trees within a zone approximately 15 to 30 feet on each side of road edges; (4) implementing treatments to improve watersheds by treating an impaired stream crossing on Buckberry Branch; (5) improve habitat complexity within Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake by cutting and cabling trees within specified treatment areas; (6) constructing approximately 0.49 miles miles of temporary road for silvicultural activities; (7) planting herbaceous annual, biennial, and perennial native pollinator species in log landings, as practical, to provide foraging habitat for insects, birds, and other wildlife; (8) creating linear wildlife openings on sections of decommissioned temporary roads; (9) rehabilitating existing wildlife openings that are in poor condition; and (10) controlling invasive species by spraying approved herbicide solutions along all system roadsides and selected areas within treatment units.

Location of Action:

Compartments 8, 9, 11, 12, and 18. Tusquitee Ranger District, Cherokee County, NC

Type of Statement: Responsible Official:

Environmental Assessment Angela M. Gee, District Ranger

Lead Agency: Contact Person:

USDA Forest Service Steverson Moffat, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy, NC 28906. (828) 837-5152

1

Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 Document Structure

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

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

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

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

2 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

1.2 Description of the Project Area

The analysis area (AA) for the project is located in western Cherokee County, North Carolina, and encompasses approximately 3,768 acres of National Forest System lands (Figure 1.2.1) in Compartments 8, 9, 11, 12, and 18 near the Violet Community north of Apalachia Lake.

National Forest System acres in the compartments are in management area (MA) 1B, 3B, 4C, and 4D. Embedded within the compartments is management area 18 (riparian areas around perennial water bodies). MAs 1B, 3B, 4D are suitable for vegetation management through silvicultural treatments. MA 4C is not suitable for vegetation management. No treatments are proposed in the unsuitable management areas. These areas are included in the AA to better project wildlife effects of proposed treatments.

Elevations in the AA range from approximately 1,400 feet to 1,900 feet. The AA includes North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas and sites near the shorelines of Apalachia Lake and Hiwassee Lake. There are no developed Forest Service recreation facilities in the AA, and the majority of use is by hunters and anglers who use open and closed National Forest System roads to access the sites for hunting and fishing.

There is a long history of land use in the AA. A section of the Unicoi Turnpike, formerly the Wachesa Trail that connected Cowee (a Cherokee town located near present-day Franklin, North Carolina) with Tellico Plains, Tennessee, and is now the current location of much of Joe Brown Highway (North Carolina Highway 1326) was the major east-west road across the Unicoi mountains from the 1700s through the late 1800s. Individual families and small family groups lived in the creek bottoms along the Turnpike, although never in dense settlements. Much of the AA was logged in the early 20th Century prior to being acquired by the U.S. Government for inclusion in the Nantahala National Forest.

Past management by the Forest Service in the mid-to-late 20th century was typical for the time period. Fire was suppressed and excluded after government acquisition. Upland areas that had regenerated naturally to shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood forest types after having been high-graded or clearcut in the early 1900s were often converted to white pine and/or white pine - mixed hardwood stands in an effort to increase productivity and to meet management objectives in the 1960s and 1970s.

According to the Forest Service’s FSVeg Database, there are 0 acres of early successional habitat (ESH – stands aged 0-10 years) on National Forest System lands in the compartments, with the majority of vegetation in the AA in age classes over 70 years old (Figure 1.2.2). Some stands in the AA may have forest in the 0 – 10 year age class due to natural disturbance, however, that is not reflected by the FSVeg data. Table 1.2.1 (page 5) displays the current amount of early successional stands by compartment and also describes the amount of ESH that would result from this project as proposed, as well as the allowable amount of ESH per the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) by Compartment, MA, and for the AA.

3 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

Figure 1.2.1 Long Buck Project Vicinity Map

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

4 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

Figure 1.2.2 – Number of acres by age class in the Long Buck Project Area. 900

800

700

600

500

Acres 400

300

200

100

0

Age Classes

Chart developed from the Forest Service’s FSVeg Database, accessed December 2016.

Table 1.2.1 – Amount of ESH Proposed and Allowed by Compartment (C) and Management Area (MA) for the Long Buck Project Acres of 0-10 Main Proposed Allowable C Number C Acres Present by C MA per C 0-10 Acres 0-10 Acres per C per C 8 1,089 0 3B 48 163 9 849 0 3B 117 127 11 545 0 3B 34 82 12 719 0 3B 40 108 18 566 0 1B 0 85 Acres of ESH calculated from the Forest Service’s FSVeg Database, accessed December 2016.

As demonstrated in Table 1.2.1, the amount of proposed ESH for each MA and Compartment is consistent with the LRMP. A total of 239 acres of ESH is proposed for MA 3B in the AA; the LRMP allows a maximum of 566 acres. The range of ESH allowed by the LRMP for the entire AA is 189 – 566 acres.

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 LRMP (page III- 29). As a result, relying on natural disturbance regimes to establish ESH instead of scheduled management activities would not ensure a regular and sustained flow of habitats. The LRMP also provides direction to provide ESH in conjunction with managing suitable timber land (page III-78) and also to use timber management practices as the primary tool to create desirable habitat (page III-74).

5 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 NFsNC Ecological Restoration Focus Areas & Forest Plan

In broad terms, the project is designed to improve, or maintain, wildlife habitat, species diversity of stands, soil and water resources, and forest health through vegetation management and other treatments. The project would implement direction set forth in the LRMP 1986-2000 for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (USDA, March 1987) as amended in 1994, in a manner which moves existing forest resources toward desired future conditions.

More specifically, the project is designed to reestablish mixed hardwood and shortleaf pine - mixed hardwood stands and associated natural vegetation communities that have declined in the AA due to past settlement patterns, timber extraction in the early 20th century, fire exclusion, conversion to other species, and insect damage. The silvicultural treatments would also 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 ESH.

In addition to implementing direction in the LRMP, these proposed actions also address the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Ecological Restoration Focus Areas. Ecological focus areas were developed as a collaborative effort between the Forest, partner organizations, and research scientists in August of 2008. This effort provides 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 Rare Native Communities; Threatened and Endangered Species. • Restore Fire-Dependent Ecosystems. • Restore Diversity in Low-Diversity Forest Stands. • Restore Stream Systems and Watersheds to a Healthy Condition. • Restore Viable Native Plant Communities by Controlling Invasive Species. • Restore Wildlife Habitat.

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

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

6 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

forest. Silvicultural treatments would contribute to a mixture of stand age classes throughout the project area.

According to the LRMP, for botanical, wildlife, and fish resource management, “Use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives” (LRMP pg. III-24). The proposal includes treatments such as shelterwood with reserves harvests to establish conditions conducive to the establishment and growth of mixed hardwood and shortleaf pine - mixed hardwood vegetation communities.

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

The proposal includes silvicultural treatments to prepare and regenerate harvested areas for the development of future stands, and release treatments to improve tree growth and promote development of young trees. Post- and pre-harvest regeneration and release treatments would improve stand stocking and species composition. The proposed treatments also include tree harvesting using conventional ground-based systems, site preparation, planting of shortleaf pine seedlings from local sources to conserve genetic resources, combined with natural regeneration of hardwood species, stand improvement after the first growing season, roadside thinning, establishment and rehabilitation of linear wildlife openings, and rehabilitation of existing wildlife openings. Silvicultural treatments would restore approximately 239 acres of ESH 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 LRMP direction to “…use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives…” (LRMP, p. III-24).

Complete descriptions of desired conditions for each management area are contained in the LRMP. A brief summary of desired conditions for 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).

1.3.2 Southern Pine Beetle

Many pine and mixed pine-hardwood stands in the mid to low elevation areas of Cherokee County, North Carolina are at risk for reinfestation by the southern pine beetle. The southern pine beetle is one of the most destructive forest insects in the southern United States. Although southern pine beetle outbreaks have recently declined, significant outbreaks are expected in the near future as climate cycles and other environmental stresses continue to

7 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

weaken host species across the South (McNulty, et al. 1992). Preferred hosts within the Southern Appalachian region include shortleaf, loblolly, Virginia, and pitch pines (Price, 1994). During severe outbreaks, the southern pine beetle may infest all pine species, and even marginal hosts such as spruce and hemlock may be killed (Clarke and Nowak 2009). In early spring of 2016, several active spots were identified in Graham County and in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

According to Moorhead, Bargeron, and Douce, the conditions for which pine stands are susceptible to southern pine beetle (SPB) infestations are usually dense, older, slower- growing stands of trees on poorly drained sites or those growing on severely eroded sites of poor quality. However, younger stands also may be at risk. Generally SPB susceptible stands have one or more of these characteristics:

• high stand densities; • high percentage of shortleaf, pitch • a large proportion of pine sawtimber; and/or loblolly pine in the stand; and • declining radial growth; • presence of annosus root rot, fusiform • slopes exceeding 10 percent; rust, or littleleaf disease

One or more of these characteristics are found in many areas of the county, but in particular stands in most need of management to address SPB risk have high pine densities. Stand density is a measure of the number of live trees per acre or the amount of basal area of live trees per acre. The high pine densities currently present in these stands are a result of past site conversions to white pine and fire suppression. Stands selected for regeneration have been identified by stand examinations, review of records and databases such as past reforestation treatments and the FSVeg database, and through personal knowledge of the area by employees with extensive experience in vegetation management.

According to the Southern Research Station, outbreaks of SPB occur at regular intervals of 7- 10 years. The last SPB outbreak on the District occurred in 1999 - 2002. This outbreak severely impacted pine-hardwood ecosystems in the Southern Appalachians (Elliott et al. 2012).

1.3.3 Shortleaf Pine Decline and Reestablishment

Four stands (8-12, 9-3, 11-2, and 12-15) totaling 136 acres currently support, or are known to have recently supported, a shortleaf pine component. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) was one of the most prevalent tree species in upland areas in the middle- and low-elevations of the Southern Appalachians prior to the Industrial Revolution. According to recent Forest Inventory and Analysis estimates, shortleaf pine has declined 53% throughout its range since the 1980s, with the most significant decline occurring east of the Mississippi River (Oswalt 2013). Several factors are known to contribute to the past and ongoing loss of shortleaf, including land use change and urbanization, species preference, fire exclusion, and forest health issues (Oswalt 2013).

Reestablishing shortleaf pine on sites where it was once a major component of the natural vegetation community has become a priority for a variety of land management agencies,

8 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

interest groups, and academic institutions. Partners in this effort include the Forest Service Southern Research Station, Joint Fire Science Program, Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists, The Nature Conservancy, and collaborators in the Shortleaf Pine Initiative (SPI).

A robust body of research, including work conducted by Vose, Clinton, and Swank (1993), Vose et al. (1997), Waldrop (1997), Clinton and Vose (2000), Elliott and Vose (2005), Tauer et al. (2012), Elliott et al. (2012), and Stewart et al. (2014) demonstrate the importance of silvicultural treatments that increase sunlight, reduce the abundance of off-site native species such as white pine and overly abundant native species such as red maple, and return fire to the landscape as important for the successful reestablishment of shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood stands. According to James Barnett, Emeritus Scientist, Southern Research Station, artificial regeneration of shortleaf pine is most successful when basal area in stands is reduced to 20-60 square feet per acre. Shortleaf pine seedlings are shade intolerant. For this reason, site preparation techniques that clear woody and herbaceous understory vegetation, thin/ harvest overstory vegetation, and reduce poor soil conditions prior to planting are necessary to ensure seedling establishment. Site preparation techniques with proven success include prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, and chemical control through the application of herbicides (SPI 2015). Additional information based on personal communication with scientists at the Forest Service Southern Research Station who shared findings of recent research that is moving towards publication, the best examples of shortleaf pine reestablishment have occurred on sites that were also subjected to hot site preparation burns (Elliott 2016; Mohr 2016).

Additionally, Elliot (2016) indicates that forest scientists in the Eastern United States have reached a general consensus that managers are unable to restore Eastern and Southern forests to some imagined past condition due to the lack of good historic data on plant communities and natural and aboriginal fire regimes, and have largely given up on the idea of restoring vegetation communities to some reference stand. Accordingly, the agency has proposed the silvicultural strategies for this project similar to a process described by Xi et al. (2008) for areas where biotic disturbances (e.g., outbreaks of native and pests and diseases) and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., harvesting, planting, and fire exclusion) have altered forest landscapes. That approach relies on modeling for evaluating outcomes of various management scenarios and restoration strategies.

Based on recent best available science regarding challenges with using reference stands as a basis for silvicultural prescriptions to reestablish native vegetation communities, the Long Buck Project IDT compared silvicultural treatments proposed for mixed shortleaf pine – hardwood stands to the National Forests in North Carolina’s (NFsNC) Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) model. Figure 1.3.3.1, page 10, shows the PNV layer applied to the stands proposed for treatment. Prescriptions to maintain and/or reestablish shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood vegetation communities in stands 8-12, 9-3, and 11-2 are consistent with the vegetation communities projected by the PNV model.

9 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

Figure 1.3.3.1 Potential Natural Vegetation Long Buck Project.

10 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

1.3.4 Mixed Hardwood Management

Three stands (8-13, 9-8, and 9-16) totaling 103 acres, currently support mixed hardwood forest types with no, or only a limited pine component, and appear to have been occupied by mixed hardwoods for more than one stand regeneration cycle. The silvicultural prescription for those stands favors the natural regeneration of native hardwood species. The PNV analysis shows that they could support a shortleaf pine component in upland areas. To promote natural regeneration, shortleaf pine seedlings would not be planted in upland areas of these stands following silvicultural treatments. Any shortleaf pine seedlings that establish themselves during post-harvest succesion processes would be allowed to remain, but are not an objective of management activities in these three stands.

1.3.5 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is established by (1) the requirements of the Forest Plan; (2) the objectives set forth by the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Ecological Restoration Focus Areas; (3) the past history of southern pine beetle; and (4) the decline of shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood forest communities in the AA. Shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood vegetation communities need to be reestablished at appropriate sites in the AA, and Sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 demonstrates the need for the silvicultural prescriptions proposed by this project to achieve shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood and mixed hardwood management goals.

A key related purpose of this project is to increase the resiliency of vegetation communities and the wildlife species that rely on them for habitat. The desired future condition for the Long Buck AA - - and other areas in Cherokee County that once were dominated by the shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood forest type - - is a landscape that supports a diverse, productive, and healthy forest composed of vegetation within the historic range of variation. The literature cited in this chapter demonstrates the need for resilient ecosystems and the services that resilient ecosystems provide.

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 reestablish shortleaf pine - mixed hardwood and mixed hardwood vegetation communities to the AA and would not contribute to the desired future conditions set forth by the LRMP. Furthermore, Alternative A would not maintain and enhance biological diversity by reproducing declining forest species, would not rehabilitate grass/forb openings for wildlife habitat, and forest management activities to reestablish shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood stands would not be conducted. Disturbance regimes and successional processes would continue under Alternative A, resulting in forest communities continuing to depart from the historic range of natural variation.

1.4.2 Alternative B

Shelterwood with Reverses (SHwR): Seven stands totaling 239 acres are being proposed for regeneration using a two-aged shelterwood with reserves treatment. This be implemented

11 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project

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

Table 1.4.2.1: Long Buck Project – Proposed Vegetation Treatments Site Site Shortleaf Pine Silvicultural Site Prep Prep Plant Release Stand Acres Prep Focus Treatment* Herbicide Hand Trees Herbicide Burn Tools 8-12 22 Y SHwR x x x x 8-13 26 SHwR x x x 9-3 40 Y SHwR x x x x 9-8 39 SHwR x x x 9-16 38 SHwR x x x 11-2 34 Y SHwR x x x x 12-15 40 Y SHwR x x x x Totals 239 *SHwR = Shelterwood with Reserves; shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted in shortleaf pine focus stands.

Stand Improvement and Site Preparation Activities: Activities following harvest would be necessary to promote the desired future condition of the stands. The following activities are proposed and would be implemented on a site- and species-specific basis to achieve desired potential natural vegetation:

• Site Preparation with hand tools – cutting residual stems; • Site Preparation burning – using prescribed fire to prepare the site for regeneration; • Planting – Planting desirable tree species on the site; and • Release with herbicide – releasing desirable stems to grow using herbicide.

A 0.26 mile section of temporary road construction would be necessary to access stand 9-3 and a 0.23 mile section of temporary road would be necessary to access stand 11-2, for a total of 0.49 miles of temporary road construction.

Hemlock Conservation: Many of the stands proposed for regeneration under Alternative B contain live hemlocks (Tsuga candensis). These trees would be retained and would not be subject to silvicultural treatments.

Other Proposed Project Activities:

Watershed Improvements: An existing stream crossing which accesses a wildlife opening upstream of Buckberry Branch contains a six inch diameter PVC pipe. This pipe is undersized for the stream and the culvert fill is eroding into the stream. The eroded material is being carried downstream to a wetland, impairing the wetland characteristics. This stream

12 Environmental Assessment Long Buck Project Figure 1.4.2.1 Proposed Treatments Map for the Long Buck Project

13

crossing would be reconstructed by removing the existing pipe and replacing it with a ford. New approaches would be constructed at the ford to divert storm runoff away from the stream channel.

Reservoir Fish Habitat Improvement: Improve habitat complexity within Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake by cutting and cabling trees within specified treatment areas. This work would involve cutting individual trees approximately every 100 linear feet along the lake shoreline. These areas may also receive deepwater habitat improvements consisting of woody debris and/or artificial structures to provide cover during winter drawdown.

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

Create Linear Wildlife Openings – Sections of decommissioned temporary roads will be disked and seeded to create linear wildlife openings.

Rehabilitate Existing Wildlife Openings: Disc, burn, establish feathered edges, and apply herbicide to all existing wildlife openings in the areas that are in poor condition. Follow this treatment with the seeding and establishment of new grasses and forbs in an appropriate wildlife seed mixture.

Invasive Species Treatments: Control nonnative invasive species by spraying a triclopyr or glyphosate herbicide solution as needed throughout the AA. This treatment would be applied as many times as necessary.

Thin Along FS System Roads: Conduct roadside thinning to establish a feathered edge along all existing FS system roads for approximately 15-30 feet on each side, as practical, to increase sunlight to the roads, reducing the drying time of water on the road surfaces. This treatment also encourages soft mast-producing species along road edges, increasing foraging habitat for some wildlife species.

1.5 Decision to be Made

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

1.6 Scoping

The project was scoped with the public in October and November of 2016 through a letter that was mailed to the Tusquitee Ranger District’s mailing list on October 17, 2016. A Scoping Record with maps and a proposed activity list was posted on the National Forests in North

14

Carolina web site for interested parties to comment on the project proposal. Individuals and groups known to be interested in the Long Buck Project were invited to a field trip to look at potential treatment units and to discuss management options on November 16, 2016. A total of three formal comments were received from The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Issues raised in scoping are addressed in Section 1.7.

1.7 Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis

Concerns/issues raised during public scoping include:

• Concern for species of conservation need in the AA, specifically Tellico salamander (Pethodon aureoles) mountain chorus frog (Pseudacris brachyphona), four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), Eastern hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus). o Addressed in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5; • Request that the Forest Service establish a feathered edge, or a brushy interface, between roads and other wildlife openings and the surrounding forest to benefit a variety of wildlife. o Addressed in Section 1.4.2; • Request that if a temporary road is constructed to access stand 9-13, that the road be maintained as a linear wildlife opening after silvicultural work is completed, and that a small area at the end of the temporary road segment be maintained as a small wildlife opening. o The Forest Service is supportive of treatments to improve wildlife habitat and will evaluate this request during the notice and comment period; • Observation that a known Indiana bat roost tree is just outside of the perimeter of compartment 8-13, and that all project activities must follow the Biological Opinion (BO) of April 7, 2000 (as amended) concerning the Indiana bat on the Nantahala National Forest. The BO states that “Any activities that involve modification of habitat or potential adverse disturbance between April 15 and October 15 within a 1.5-mi radius of known maternity sites shall be subject to further consultation.” o The Forest Service will comply with all aspects of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the BO of April 7, 2000 (as amended). Please also refer to Section 3.3 and Appendix 5.1.

2. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Based on the issues identified during scoping, two alternatives are identified for analysis. There is a no-action alternative and one action alternative that were subjected to detailed analysis.

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 11 of this document. 15

2.1.2 Alternative B

Alternative B is the proposed action as described in section 1.4.2 on pages 11 through 14 of this document.

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

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

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 2.3.1: Summary of Management Activities for the Long Buck Project Alternative A Alternative B Treatment (No Action) (Proposed Action) Shelterwood with Reserves None 239 acres on 7 sites Stand Improvement & Preparation None Site & Species Specific Temporary Road Construction None 0.49 miles Watershed Improvements None Yes Botany Plantings in Log Landings None Yes (as practical) Create and Treat Linear WL Openings None Yes Wildlife Openings Rehabilitation None Yes NNIS Treatments None Yes Road Daylighting None As needed

2.4 Design Criteria

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

Visual Resource Management: Proposed actions would meet the Modification Visual Quality Objective (VQO) (LRMP Amendment 5, I-5) for MAs 1B and 3B. Direction for the

16

Modification VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within three to five growing seasons after treatment. Proposed actions would meet the Retention VQO (LRMP Amendment 5, I-5) for MA 4C. Direction for the Retention VQO is for management activities to not be evident to the casual forest visitor. Proposed actions would meet the Partial Retention VQO (LRMP Amendment 5, I-5) for MA 4D. Direction for the Partial Retention VQO states that management activities may be evident but remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

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

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

• Small spreading pogonia (Cleistesiopsis bifaria) occurs in stand 8-12 and would need a 50 foot no-activity buffer around this plant location; • A hornwort (Nothoceros aenigmaticus - formerly Megaceros aenigmaticus) occurs in stands 8-12, 8-13, and 9-16 and would need to be buffered by at least a 50 foot no- equipment entry zone. This hornwort occurs in streams so buffering streams would be sufficient to protect this species; • Southern nodding trillium (Trillium rugelii) occurs in seven locations in stands 9-8 and each site would need to be buffered with a 200 foot no-activity buffer; and • Purple sedge (Carex purpurifera) occurs in units 9-8 (2 sites) and 9-16 (3 sites). Each plant site would need to be protected with a 100 foot no-activity buffer.

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

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).

17

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

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

3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for comparison of alternatives. The environmental effects described here include both beneficial and detrimental effects as well as the appropriate ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, economic, social, and human health- related effects, which directly, indirectly, or cumulatively result from the proposed action. The environmental effects discussion is includes some of the issues identified for this project (refer to “Issues to be Addressed in the Analysis”, Section 1.7). Environmental effects are analyzed using references from scientific literature and reports, which are incorporated as an integral part of this environmental assessment. This section of the EA is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations.

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

The four tables (3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4) on pages 19 and 20 support the analysis that follows for biological communities, special habitats, and management indicator species. Discussion for all environmental consequences to biological resources will be presented by discipline: aquatic communities, special habitats, and MIS, botanical communities, special habitats, and MIS, and terrestrial wildlife communities, special habitats, and MIS.

18

Table 3.2.1. MIS species, trend estimates, and community or special habitat by MIS. Trend MIS Associated Biological Community or Special Habitat Component Estimate Black Bear Increase Old Forest Communities Hard mast-producing Contiguous areas species with low disturbance White Tailed Deer Stable Early-successional (0-10) Hard mast- producing species Pileated Increase Old Forest Communities Snags and dens (>22 Downed woody Woodpecker dbh) debris – all sizes Ovenbird Decrease Large Contiguous Forest Areas Rufous-Sided Decrease Early-successional (0-10) Early successional (Eastern) Towhee (11-20) Pine Warbler Stable Yellow pine mid- successional forests Ruffed Grouse Stable Early successional (0-10) Early successional Downed woody (11-20) 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 elevation Fraser fir No/1 forests Northern hardwood forests Ramps No/1 Carolina hemlock bluff Carolina hemlock No/1 forests Rich cove forests Ginseng Yes/1 Xeric yellow pine forests Pine warbler Yes 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 Yes/1 Warmwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1 19

Table 3.2.3. Special Habitats and associated MIS (using LRMP EIS, Table III-9). Analyzed Further/ Special Habitat Components Associated MIS Evaluation Criteria* Old forest communities (100+ years old) Black bear Yes Early successional (0-10 years old) Rufous-sided (Eastern) Yes towhee Early successional (11-20) Ruffed grouse Yes Soft mast-producing species (<40 yrs) Ruffed grouse Yes Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs) Black bear Yes Large contiguous areas with low levels Black bear Yes of human disturbance Large contiguous areas of mature Ovenbird Yes deciduous forest Permanent grass/forb openings White-tailed deer No/2 Downed woody debris Ruffed Grouse No/2 Snags Pileated woodpecker No/2

*1 Biological community does not occur in the activity areas and would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community. *2 Biological Communities and their represented species would be protected in accordance with LRMP standards and guidelines; therefore, these communities would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the communities, this project would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with these communities.

Table 3.2.4. Effects of alternatives on biological communities for the Long Buck Project. Biological Community Alternative A Alternative B Fraser fir forests None affected. None affected. Northern hardwood forests None affected. None affected. Carolina hemlock bluff None affected. None affected. forests Rich cove forests None affected. 36 acres affected by timber harvest Yellow pine forests None affected. None affected Reservoirs None affected. Improve 15 acres of habitat in one reservoir Riparian forests None affected. None affected. Cold water streams None affected. None affected. Coolwater streams None affected. 0.1 mile affected by turbidity and sediment (0.01% of coolwater streams). Warm water streams None affected. None affected.

20

3.2.1 Aquatic Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

Boundaries of Aquatic Communities and MIS

This analysis addresses project area waters and AA waters associated with the Long Buck Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts (direct and indirect effects) on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not necessarily overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters, the AA encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities when considered within the watershed context (cumulative effects). The aquatic AAs for the Long Buck Project consist of the following watersheds: Shuler Creek, Moccasin Creek, North Shoal Creek, and portions of Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake.

Existing Conditions for Aquatic Communities and MIS

Buckberry Branch and Moccasin Creek are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C; Tr waters. Shuler Creek and North Shoal Creek are classified as C waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. High Quality Waters (HQW) are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies, native and special native trout waters, critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture. The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications).

The aquatic AA is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater and coolwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Long Buck Project aquatic AA 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 2010).

Communities and MIS Evaluated

The aquatic AA contains three aquatic communities, coldwater streams, coolwater streams, and reservoirs. Special habitat components are not associated with any aquatic resources, and therefore will not be analyzed further (see also Appendix D).

Seven aquatic MIS potentially affected by the proposed project are fully evaluated. The following stream provides habitat for wild Rainbow Trout: Shuler Creek. The following streams provide habitat for wild Brown Trout: Shuler Creek and North Shoal Creek. Mottled Sculpin occur within Shuler Creek and North Shoal Creek. The Sicklefin Redhorse is located within Hiwassee Lake. Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake also provide habitat for Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, and Bluegill Sunfish. No records exist for the presence of Blacknose

21

Dace or wild Brook Trout within any of the AA waters; therefore, these species were not analyzed further.

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

Effects of Alternatives on Communities

Coldwater Streams and Coolwater Streams

MIS associated with the coldwater streams community includes the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), and Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Approximately 44 miles of coldwater streams and/or coolwater streams occur within the AA.

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 thinning, prescribed burning, log landings, skid trail and skid road construction, routine road maintenance, herbicide spraying of harvest unit skid trails, rehabilitation of wildlife openings, and invasive species removal would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas. In addition, any disturbed ground would be seeded to prevent erosion. Skid trails would not require construction of a cut and fill slope; therefore, there would be very little ground disturbance that could produce sediment. Skid roads would manage runoff with water bars. Following timber harvest, skid trails and skid roads would be seeded and closed to prevent visible sediment from entering any streams. The routine road maintenance would involve minor road surface repair, placement of gravel, and reseeding. These actions are unlikely to increase measurable sedimentation because the work would be done during dry periods and the disturbed soil would be either hardened with gravel or seeded to control erosion. The proposed reservoir fish habitat improvements would have no negative impacts to any aquatic resources. The fish habitat improvements on Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake may improve juvenile habitat for the Sicklefin Redhorse by increasing habitat complexity.

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.

22

Most of the proposed activities would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas and adverse effects of timber management would be avoided by implementation of the project design features and BMP’s. BMP effectiveness monitoring in 2013 found that the overall effectiveness of BMPs 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).

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 aquatic forest concern species because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

Riparian vegetation: Stream temperatures in AA 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 Long Buck Project is currently planned for the Shuler Creek watershed. Potential effects of this project include minor sedimentation during log fish barrier removal and stream bank stabilization. These activities would also restore fish passage for the native fish community. There are no other past, ongoing, or planned activities on public lands within the project area that would cause adverse effects to the aquatic resources. Private lands within the AA are characterized as low density residential. There may be sedimentation from some of these private 23

lands but these effects are widely dispersed and would not be cumulative with the Long Buck Project. There would be no long-term cumulative effects to stream turbidity resulting from these actions.

The cumulative impacts resulting from this project and any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to the aquatic communities would be a temporary increase in turbidity on upper Shuler Creek (due to replacement of one crossing near Buckberry Branch) and affecting approximately 0.1 mile of streams (approximately 0.01% of streams within the AA).

Cumulative Effects: Alternative B: The cumulative effects of Alternative B would include the effects of the stream restoration and the Shuler Creek barrier removal from the Brushy Flats Project. The project may negatively impact approximately 0.01% (0.1 mile) of the streams until the next bankfull flow event but this impact would not affect the forest-wide trends for the coldwater streams community or the coolwater streams community because the effects of the in- stream construction 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 or the coolwater streams community (Table 3.2.1.1).

Reservoirs

No stream crossings are proposed in streams that would affect water quality within Hiwassee Lake or Apalachia Lake. The effects of the proposed timber harvest activities have been described above for the Coldwater and Coolwater Streams Communities. These effects would be similar for the Reservoir Communities. The proposed reservoir fish habitat improvements on Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake would improve approximately 15 acres of Reservoir Community habitats by increasing the diversity of habitats within these lakes.

Table 3.2.1.1. Trend analysis for each alternative on the evaluated communities Effect Community Alternative A Alternative B Coldwater Streams and No change in forest – Temp increase in turbidity in 0.1 mile. No Coolwater Streams wide trend change in forest –wide trend. Reservoirs No change in forest – Increase habitat complexity within 15 wide trend acres.

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

Wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, Mottled Sculpin, Redhorse spp., and Smallmouth Bass

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.

24

Alternative B: 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 and coolwater streams. There would be no other direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS from the Long Buck Project because the proposed timber harvest activities (including skid trail, temporary road 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, Mottled Sculpin, Redhorse spp, or Smallmouth Bass. The current forest wide trends for wild Rainbow Trout, wild Brown Trout, Mottled Sculpin, and Smallmouth Bass are stable and implementation of Alternative B would not affect these population trends because the project design features would prevent visible sediment from entering any stream with fish populations.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative B: The cumulative effects of this project would be temporary sedimentation and increased turbidity within 1 coldwater stream (approximately 0.4 mile for Shuler Creek barrier removal from the Brushy Flats Project) which may stress individuals during in-stream construction but would provide long-term improvements in fish habitat. Implementation of this alternative would not change the forest-wide trends for any of the aquatic MIS (Table 3.2.1.2).

Largemouth Bass and Bluegill Sunfish

The effects of the proposed timber harvest activities have been described above for the Coldwater, Coolwater Streams, and Reservoir Communities. These effects would be similar for the Reservoir MIS. The proposed reservoir fish habitat improvements on Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake would improve approximately 15 acres of Reservoir Community habitats by increasing the diversity of habitats within these lakes. These improvements may increase the number or size of Largemouth Bass and/or Bluegill Sunfish but would not change the forest- wide trends for these species.

Table 3.2.1.2. Results of trend analysis of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species Effect Species Alternative A Alternative B Wild Rainbow Trout No change No change Wild Brown Trout No change No change Mottled Sculpin No change No change Redhorse spp. No change No change Smallmouth Bass No change No change Largemouth Bass No change No change Bluegill Sunfish No change No change

25

3.2.2 Botanical Communities, Special Habitats and MIS

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

Biological communities, special habitats, and associated MIS present in the proposed Long Buck AA include Rich Cove 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 Long Buck botanical AA, with the Brushy Flats Project, and also with stands that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 to fully consider cumulate effects based on known and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This analysis was completed by the incorporation of modeled ecological zones (Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV)) and the forest silvicultural database (Forest Service Vegetation (FSVEG)). As a result, the total amount of acres for special habitats and biological communities is an approximation.

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

Effects to Biological Communities by Alternative

Analyses for direct and indirect effects are confined to proposed activity areas because the impacts to plants within biological communities would unlikely extend beyond activities directly related to the implementation of silvicultural and non-silvicultural treatments. Proposed activities are not expected to significantly alter Rich Cove Forest community composition and structure and were not considered in this analysis. Proposed management activities considered in this analysis include two aged shelterwood with reserves. To accurately estimate potential effects to desired future conditions, results were calculated based on potential natural vegetation modeling rather than existing stand conditions due to their departure from historic variation.

Rich Cove Forests

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

Under Alternative B, approximately 36 acres of Rich Cove Forest would be affected by two-aged shelterwood timber harvest. The proposed two-aged shelterwood units would directly affect the Rich Cove Forest community by reducing the amount of canopy cover and basal area due to the removal of canopy trees. In addition, the proposed two-aged regeneration cuts would increase 26

light at the forest floor thereby reducing the rich herbaceous understory due to an increase in transpiration rates and vegetative competition. Also, shade intolerant species, particularly tulip poplar (Liriodenderon tulipifera) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) would likely increase post timber-harvest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Potential indirect effects include an increase in the shrub layer and reduction in herbaceous species, which could shift the Rich Cove Forest community type to Acidic Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Also, indirect effects could include an invasion by non-native invasive plants.

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

Past effects to Rich Cove Forests can be summarized by the existing condition of the Rich Cove Forests in the AA. Past effects are most evident in forests ≤50 years old since it takes approximately 50-60 years for the effects of past management to dissipate (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). According to the Potential Natural Vegetation Model, there are approximately 223 acres of Rich Cove Forest in the Long Buck botanical AA. Out of 223 acres, 123 acres of Rich Cove Forest are <50 years old in the Long Buck botanical AA. As a result, approximately 55% of the Rich Cove Forests within the Long Buck botanical AA have been impacted by past regeneration harvests.

Under Alternative B, the 36 acres of proposed regeneration harvests in the Long Buck project plus the 123 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the past, equals approximately 159 acres of Rich Cove Forest affected in the botanical AA, which is a total of 2% of the Long Buck botanical AA. There are no other ongoing or foreseeable future actions that would impact Rich Cove Forests in the project 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 (Draft Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, 2013). However, Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests appear stable (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Approximately 18% of Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah occur in existing designated areas. The proposed Long Buck project should not substantially alter the current trend for Rich Cove Forests across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest.

Table 3.2.2.1: The effects of alternatives on forest community types. Biological Community Alternative A Alternative B Fraser fir forests None affected. None affected. Northern hardwood forests None affected. None affected. Carolina hemlock bluff forests None affected. None affected. Rich cove forests None affected. 36 acres Yellow pine forests None affected None affected Forest Communities ≥ 100 years old None affected None affected

27

Effects of Alternatives on Special Habitat Components

Forest Communities ≥ 100 years old

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

Direct and Indirect Effects: Removal of canopy trees reduces canopy cover and basal area, allowing new growth to occupy a plurality of acres in treated stands and changes the age class structure from communities ≥100 years old into the zero to ten year category. Regeneration harvests in the Long Buck Project AA include two aged shelterwood treatments. Regeneration harvests affect forested communities ≥ 100 years old by reducing the number and size of forest herbs; decreasing structural diversity; and secondarily increasing shade as the canopy closes as the new stand develops. These effects persist for 100 years following harvest.

Alternative A proposes no management activities and this alternative would produce no direct or indirect effects to forested communities ≥ 100 years old in the Long Buck AA. Alternative B proposes regeneration harvests across approximately 166 acres of forest communities ≥ 100 years old.

Cumulative Effects: Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. Past effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in the area considered for cumulative effects. There are approximately 740 acres (10% of the total AA) in the forest communities ≥ 100 years old habitat type in the broader AA. Treatments proposed under Alternative B, combined with reasonably foreseeable future actions, would reduce forest communities ≥ 100 years old by 266 acres for a total loss of approximately 4% in the area considered for cumulative effects. Worth noting is that past disturbances, extractive logging in the early 20th Century, fire exclusion, and southern pine beetle outbreaks have changed the species composition in many of the acres in the forest communities ≥ 100 years old category, reducing the ecological resilience of the community type. Efforts to reestablish shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood stands and reintroduce fire, while impacting 266 acres for the next 100 years, would improve the ecological integrity of the broader AA over time.

Forest-Wide Trend: Overall, the trend for forest communities ≥100 years old on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is increasing. The amount of forested communities ≥100 years old went from 47,591 acres in 1980 to 166,078 acres in 2000 (USFS, 2001, pg. 23). The loss of 266 acres of forested communities ≥ 100 years old would not appreciably change the forest wide trend across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

28

Effects of Alternatives on Management Indicator Species

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

Harvest pressure has increased due to the increase in the monetary value of ginseng roots across the region in general and the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests in particular. As a result, the age structure and reproductive potential of ginseng populations may be decreasing. In some states, the annual average number of dried wild roots per pound has increased. These results suggest that the size of roots have decreased, which in turn, suggests that the age structure and reproductive potential of ginseng has declined (Van der Voort et al. 2003, Robbins 2001). Across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests population sizes appear smaller than normal with fewer than 50 individuals per population (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Ginseng was located in some locations which currently support a Rich Cove Forest community during the botanical survey of the Long Buck treatment sites.

In the Long Buck project area, ginseng was located in four proposed two-aged shelterwood units in Rich Cove Forests. The majority of occurrences only contained one to three individuals. A total of eleven individuals were found across the proposed activity areas with five of the plants in fruit.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would not directly or indirectly affect any ginseng populations in the proposed Long Buck project area. Under Alternative B, individuals may be directly impacted by mechanical crushing from skidding logs or felled trees and by the construction of skid roads. Indirectly, ginseng may be impacted by the increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. In addition, individuals may be impacted by an increase in vegetative competition from early successional plants and NNIP. Also, ginseng may be negatively affected due to the reduction in gene flow among and between neighboring plants, which may lead to decreased seed set and inbreeding.

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

Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effect to American ginseng populations growing in Rich Cove Forests, there would be no cumulative effects from this alternative. The

29

cumulative effect of Alternative B would decrease the population size of American ginseng in proposed activity areas containing Rich Cove Forest for approximately 20-40 years. Outside of illegal harvesting of ginseng roots, there are no ongoing or foreseeable future actions that would impact this species in the Long Buck botanical AA.

Forest Wide Trend: The estimated population trend for American ginseng is gradually decreasing across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests primarily due to the commercial harvest of roots, both legal and illegal (USFS, 2001, pg. 818). Ginseng is most commonly associated with cove forests, totaling approximately 110,000 acres across the Pisgah-Nantahala National Forests (determined by modeling Rich Cove Forest). The 36 acres of Rich Cove Forest proposed for forest management activities would not substantially alter the current trend for American ginseng across the forest.

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. All stands in the Long Buck AA were considered in this analysis, and, to fully consider cumulate effects based on reasonably foreseeable future actions, the analysis includes the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022.

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

Although silvicultural treatments are proposed in Old Forest Communities, these treatments are designed to reestablish native forest communities to the landscape that have been negatively 30

impacted over the past 400 - 500 years. No treatments are proposed in Riparian Forests. There are no proposals for new permanent grass/forb openings, but maintenance of current openings would continue under Alternative B. There would not be any impact on snag abundance, because project design criteria for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) safeguards this special habitat. Habitats and their associated MIS not affected by this proposal are not discussed further in this report.

Effects of Alternatives on Evaluated Special Habitats

Project activities are proposed in management area 3B. In MA 3B, forest-wide direction is to provide habitat conditions for species such as black bear and eastern wild turkey. Regeneration activities in Alternative B would result in 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 some Neotropical migratory bird species of management concern. 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 ESH in the project area. Alternative B would result in the creation of 239 acres of ESH between 2018 and 2022. Other proposed non-silvicultural activities would not measurably affect 0-10 year ESH.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A, the no action alternative, would contribute to a cumulative decrease in ESH through lack of management across the landscape. Past management activities that created ESH occurred more than 21 years ago, and all ESH habitat created by active management have reached older age classes. There are currently zero acres of ESH in the 0 – 10 year age class within the Long Buck AA. Because there are zero acres of ESH currently, Alternative B, the proposed action would result in a cumulative increase of 239 acres of ESH between 2017 and 2022. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 These treatments, combined with those proposed under Alternative B, would result in at total of 1,337 acres entering the 11 – 20 year age class between 2018 and 2023 in the broader AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for 0-10 year ESH is decreasing due to the reduction in timber harvesting levels. Alternative A would contribute to this downward trend while Alternative B would slightly offset this decreasing trend by creating new ESH in 2018.

Early Successional Habitat (11-20 years)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would result in a lack of ESH in the 11-20 year age class in the AA because there are 29 acres of 11-20 year ESH special habitat type in the Long Buck AA, and with zero acres currently in the 0 – 10 age class, no acres are projected to move into the 11 – 20 year age class in 2018. Alternative B would result in an eventual increase in this habitat as the harvested units mature past ten years, resulting in approximately 239 acres by 31

2028. Other proposed non-silvicultural activities would not measurably affect ESH in the 11-20 year age class.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would contribute to a lack this habitat within the AA. Alternative B would increase the amount of 11-20 year ESH within the AA up to 239 acres in the decade following implementation of the silvicultural activities proposed by this project. There are no ongoing or reasonably future projects within the AA that would affect ESH in the 11-20 year age class in the Long Buck AA. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in adjacent areas include the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. These treatments, combined with those proposed under Alternative B, would result in at total of 1,337 acres entering the 11 – 20 year age class between 2028 and 2033 in the broader AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend across the forest for 11-20 year ESH is decreasing due to the reduction in timber harvesting levels. Alternative A would contribute to this downward trend, while Alternative B would slightly offset this decreasing trend by creating new ESH that will age into the 11-20 year age class in 2028.

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 would result in 1,900 acres (50.9%) of the AA in age classes younger than 81 years and may decrease some areas with contiguous canopy cover. The LRMP, however, sets aside old growth patches to ensure the long-term maintenance of this habitat. Activities are not proposed in designated old growth. Alternative B would not appreciably impact large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest within the project area. Other proposed non-silvicultural activities would not measurably affect large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest.

Cumulative Effects: The lack of management under Alternative A, along with the decrease in active management across much of the forest in general would cumulatively contribute to an increase in this special habitat type. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. If proposed for regeneration, treatments in these stands would impact the large areas of contiguous mature deciduous forest special habitat type. Silvicultural treatments proposed under Alternative B, combined with reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in 8,432 acres (48.7%) of the broader AA in age classes younger than 81 years.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend for this special habitat is increasing. Due to reduction of active vegetation management across the forest, areas classified as large contiguous mature forest have expanded and increased. Alternative A would contribute to this increasing trend. The amount of harvest in Alternative B would not have an appreciable impact on this special habitat across the forest, or impact the forest-wide trend, because the reduction would be less than 0.1% of current contiguous mature forest across the forest.

32

Soft Mast-producing Species

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would result in the continued absence of soft mast- producing species habitat in the AA. Soft mast production is primarily associated with forest communities less than 20 years old. The proposed activities would add approximately 239 acres in age classes younger than 20 years in Alternative B, for a total of 268 acres in the Long Buck AA. Other proposed non-silvicultural 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 across the forest as these species are associated with age classes under 20 years old. In Alternative B there would be 239 acres of potential soft mast production beginning in 2018 and lasting until 2037. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. Silvicultural treatments proposed under Alternative B, combined with reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in 1,311 acres of soft mast-producing habitat in the broader AA.

Forest-wide Trend: The recent trend for soft mast-producing species is increasing due to the implementation of silvicultural activities to achieve goals of the LRMP. Alternative A would reduce this trend due to the lack of active management associated with the alternative. Alternative B would contribute to the recent upward trend in soft mast-producing habitat by creating new 0-10 year habitat and future 11-20 year habitat beginning in 2028.

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 would be an increase in mature forest communities which could lead to increased levels of hard mast production. Because the proposed silvicultural treatments are in old pine plantations or mixed pine – hardwood stands that are greater than 40 years, Alternative B would decrease the amount of area available for hard mast production by a maximum of 239 acres. Other proposed non-silvicultural activities would not measurably affect hard mast-producing species.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would continue the cumulative, long term increase in hard mast-producing species by allowing the forest within the AA to continue maturating. In Alternative B the cumulative decrease in hard mast-producing species would be offset to some degree as other forest communities transition into age classes greater than 40 years. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. Treatments in these stands would impact the hard mast- producing species special habitat type.

Forest-wide Trend: The trend for hard mast-producing species is increasing due to the aging of young stands. Alternative A would contribute to this increasing trend. Due to the relatively small amount of ideal hard mast production habitat impacted by proposed harvest Alternative B would not appreciably affect this trend.

33

Table 3.2.3.2: Summary of effects on special habitats tied to terrestrial wildlife within the Long Buck Project by alternative Special Habitat Alternative A Alternative B Forest Communities ≥ 100 years old None Affected None Affected Early Successional Habitat (0-10 years) Indirect Decrease Direct Increase (239 acres) Early Successional Habitat (11-20 years) Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Large Areas of Contiguous Deciduous Indirect Increase Direct Decrease (81 acres) Forest Soft Mast-Production Species Indirect Decrease Indirect Increase Hard Mast-Producing Species Indirect Increase Direct Decrease (81 acres)

Effects of Alternatives on Associated Management Indicator Species

Pine Warbler (Setophaga pinus)

Direct and Indirect Effects: The pine warbler is associated with pine and pine/hardwood forest types. This species is a tree-nesting insectivore-omnivore inhabiting open pine stands and dense pine plantations. Populations of this species on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests appear to be stable according to population data collected since 1997. Statewide, the Breeding Bird Survey Data also suggest an increase in population trends. Although population trends in the AA are unknown, the pine warbler has probably suffered from a loss of habitat due to fire exclusion, conversion of shortleaf pine –mixed hardwood stands to white pine, fire exclusion, and mortality of yellow pines from southern pine beetle outbreaks. Alternative A would continue the trend of decreasing habitat for pine warblers in the AA. Alternative B would result, over time, in an increase in the xeric yellow pine habitat types preferred by the pine warbler. Other proposed non- silvicultural activities would not have a measurable impact on the pine warbler.

Cumulative Effects: Because this species utilizes habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the AA, the spatial bounds for cumulative effects encompasses all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. These effects, being associated with xeric yellow pine communities, would be similar to the cumulative effects described previously for that forest type. Alternative A would result in a cumulative adverse effect as this habitat is compromised in the AA due to the historic decline of shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine associated vegetation communities. Alternative B would result in a beneficial cumulative increase of new xeric yellow pine habitat, albeit in the future as stands mature. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. If proposed for regeneration, treatments in these stands would impact the pine warbler. As the goal of the future projects is to reestablish xeric yellow pine habitat, positive cumulative impacts to the pine warbler are anticipated. There are no ongoing or future projects that would affect the pine warbler within the project area.

Forest-wide Trend: Pine warble populations appear to be stable across the forest. Special habitat is a limiting factor in lower elevation areas, and past practices and the southern pine beetle outbreaks have reduced the amount of habitat for this species on the Tusquitee Ranger District. 34

Alternative A would continue this trend. Alternative B would reduce this trend by creating new xeric yellow pine habitat.

Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Eastern towhees are associated with ESHs. Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of regeneration activities. Although some brushy areas were 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 ESH would be indirectly related to the effects described above for that special habitat. Alternative A would not directly affect this habitat in the near future because there are zero acres of ESH in the AA, although longer term, Alternative A may indirectly increase habitat should natural disturbance events occur. Alternatives B would result in an increase in ESH. Other proposed non-silvicultural 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 ESH, would be similar to the cumulative effects described above for ESH. Alternative A would result in a cumulative adverse effect as this habitat is non-existent in the AA due to lack of recent management activities. Alternative B would result in a beneficial cumulative increase of new ESH. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. If proposed for regeneration, treatments in these stands would impact the eastern towhee. As a related goal of the future projects is to create ESH, positive cumulative impacts to the eastern towhee are anticipated. There are no ongoing or future projects that would affect the eastern towhee within the project area.

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 continue this downward trend. Alternative B would reduce this trend by creating new ESH.

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 ESH to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. The availability of grass/forb habitat on seeded roads improves the quality of the existing habitat by providing bugging areas for broods. 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 similar to the effects described for 0-10 year and 11-20

35

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 ESH 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 would cumulatively increase associated ESH. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. If proposed for regeneration, treatments in these stands would impact the ruffed grouse. As a related goal of the future projects is to create ESH, positive cumulative impacts to the ruffed grouse are anticipated. 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 reduced in the near future. There are a few young stands available to replace existing habitat. Alternative A would contribute to the trend of the associated special habitat but Alternative B would slightly offset the 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 vehicles, 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. The black bear 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 ESH to replace the stands that have matured into older age classes. Although some brushy areas were 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, which creates new ESH and increases areas available for soft mast production, would be overall beneficial even though this alternative would also slightly reduce the areas available for hard mast production and large areas of contiguous forest. 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 non-silvicultural activities would not have a measurable effect on black bears.

36

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 described above for those special habitats. However, through ESH 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. Stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022. If proposed for regeneration, treatments in these stands would impact the black bear by reducing the amount of hard mast-producing species but also increasing habitat diversity as well as the amount of soft mast-producing species. Alternative A would result in a cumulative decrease in diversity across the landscape. There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable 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 closed-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 AA, 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 AA. In addition under Alternative B, there would be no impact to designated old growth patches in the AA which satisfies the LRMP requirements to protect species that require large areas of contiguous canopied forest. The other proposed non-silvicultural 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 AA, while Alternative B, 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 would be unlikely to have a measurable impact on the current trend.

37

Table 3.2.2.3: Summary of effects on terrestrial wildlife MIS within the Long Buck Project by alternative Species Alternative A Alternative B Eastern Towhee Adverse Beneficial Ruffed Grouse Adverse Beneficial Black Bear Negligible Negligible Ovenbird Beneficial Negligible Pine warbler Adverse Beneficial over time

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 Rich cove forests None affected. 36 acres affected. Yellow pine forests None affected. None affected Reservoirs None affected. Improve habitat 15 acres Cold water streams None affected None affected Cool water streams None affected. 0.1 miles affected Warm water streams None affected. None affected Forest communities ≥ 100+ None affected None affected yr Early successional 104 acres exist currently 239 acres created communities (0-10 yr) Early successional 239 acres created 11 years post- Absent communities (11-20 yr) harvest Soft mast-producing species Decline due to aging of existing Direct increase 239 acres (< 20 yr) communities Hard mast-producing species Increase due to aging of existing 81 acre decrease (> 40 yr) communities Permanent grass/forb No change No change. openings Down woody material None affected Increase on 1,311 acres

38

3.3. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

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

3.3.1 Aquatic Proposed Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species

Alternative A would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, threatened, or endangered species because no changes in existing conditions would occur under this alternative. Alternative B would not adversely affect any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because no aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

3.3.2 Botanical Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species

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

3.4. Region 8 Sensitive Species

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

39

3.4.1 Aquatic Sensitive Species

Alternative A or Alternative B of the Long Buck Project would have no effects to any sensitive aquatic species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering AA streams and because no sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas.

3.4.2 Botanical Sensitive Species

One sensitive species Sceptridium jenmanii (Alabama Grape-fern) occurs in the Long Buck botanical AA. Two sensitive plant species; Cleistesiopsis bifaria (small spreading pogonia) and Nothoceros aenigmaticus (a hornwort) occur in the Long Buck treatment area. Another sensitive plant species; Trillium rugelii (southern nodding trillium) may also occur in the Long Buck treatment area. Further surveys in April 2017 are needed to confirm whether T. rugelii or another Trillium species occurs in the treatment area. For the purpose of this analysis T. rugelii is assumed to be present.

Table 3.4.2.1: Determination of effect for Region 8 sensitive botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Cleistesiopsis bifaria (small spreading pogonia) No Impact No Impact Nothoceros aenigmaticus (hornwort) No Impact No Impact Sceptridium jenmanii No Impact No Impact Trillium rugelii (southern nodding trillium) No Impact No Impact

3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Sensitive Species

Alternative B of the Long Buck Project may impact individuals of four terrestrial wildlife sensitive species but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after the stream restoration activities are completed.

Table 3.4.3.1: Determination of effect for Region 8 sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. Species Alternative A Alternative B May indirectly impact individuals, but Eurycea junaluska No Impacts would not impact the viability of this Junaluska salamander species across the forest. May indirectly impact individuals, but Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Impacts would not impact the viability of this Bald eagle species across the forest. May indirectly impact individuals, but Speyeria diana No Impacts would not impact the viability of this Diana fritillary species across the forest. Glyptemys muhlenbergii No Impacts No Impacts Bog Turtle

40

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. See the Biological Evaluation in Appendix 5.1 for a detailed analysis of effects to Forest Concern Species.

3.5.1 Aquatic Forest Concern Species

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

Table 3.5.1: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No Impacts May impact individuals Luxilis chrysocephalus No Impacts May impact individuals Moxostoma sp. 2 No Impacts May impact individuals Elimia christyi No Impacts May impact individuals

3.5.2 Botanical Forest Concern Species

Surveys located five Forest Concern botanical species in the Long Buck botanical AA. Analysis determined that Alternatives A and B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the forest concern botanical species in the AA.

Table 3.5.2: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Carex purpurifera No Impact No Impact Lophocolea appalachiana No Impact No Impact Platanthera flava var. herbiola No Impact No Impact Stewartia ovata No Impact No Impact Symphyotrichum shortii No Impact No Impact

41

3.5.3 Wildlife Forest Concern Species

Alternative B of the Long Buck Project may impact individuals of the following forest concern terrestrial wildlife species but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Table 3.5.3: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Plethodon Chattahoochee No Impacts May impact individuals Chattahoochee slimy salamander Hemidactylium scutatum No Impacts May impact individuals four-toed salamander Ambystoma talpoideum No Impacts May impact individuals mole salamander Pseudacris brachyphona No Impacts May impact individuals mountain chorus frog Plethodon shermani No Impacts May impact individuals red-legged salamander Plethodon aureoles No Impacts May impact individuals Tellico salamander Vermivora cyanoptera No Impacts May impact individuals blue-winged warbler Elimia christyi No Impacts May impact individuals Christy’s elmia Glyphyalinia junaluskana No Impacts May impact individuals dark glyph Autochton cellus No Impacts May impact individuals golden banded skipper Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii No Impacts May impact individuals Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Myotis austroriparius No Impacts May impact individuals Southern myotis Graptemys geographica No Impacts May impact individuals common map turtle Sternotherus minor No Impacts May impact individuals loggerhead musk turtle Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus No Impacts May impact individuals Northern pinesnake

42

3.6. Additional Habitats and Biological Issues

3.6.1 Invasive Species

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

Existing Condition Surveys for nonnative invasive plants (NNIP) were conducted within meander survey paths and along roads adjacent to and within proposed management units. Pathways of proposed roadway construction and wildlife openings adjacent to proposed management stands were inventoried as well. For assessment purposes, the area of coverage and the percent cover of NNIP were noted upon locating infestations in the proposed management area. All NNIP surveys were conducted by Helia Environmental consulting by Raleigh et al. (2016).

Twenty-four NNIP species were located in the Long Buck AA (Table 3.6.1.1). Five of the NNIP found in the Long Buck project area are considered highly invasive are prioritized and tracked by the Forest Service, these include (mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica). The remaining nineteen species are non-native, but are not tracked by the Forest Service. Of all the species detected, Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora) were the most abundant species, occurring mostly along roadways. NNIP were detected over 56 point locations, 22 linear infestations, and three polygon feature all of which were primarily along state and forest roads, with some along old logging roads and occasionally in sensitive habitats such as seeps or within rich cove forests.

Japanese stiltgrass was the most frequently encountered NNIP with seventeen point occurrences and eleven linear occurrences. The line occurrences follow the entire lengths of units, along and with road beds in units 8-6, 8-12, 8-13, and 9-8. This totals over five miles of infested roads, but also includes infestation in natural communities such as in unit 8-6 where the plant has invaded seeps and rich cove forest.

Japanese honeysuckle was the second most frequently found NNIP in the Long Buck project with 16 point and eight line occurrences. Most of the infestations are small point locations, but a half acre infestation occurs on the south side of unit 9-16 and linear infestations of the plant occur along the Joe Brown Highway (State Road 1324) near unit 8-6.

Multiflora rose was found at 16 locations including 12 point and four line occurrences in the Long Buck project area. Most of the occurrences are relatively small, while a larger patch was found in unit 9-8.

43

Smaller infestations of tracked species include, Mimosa which occurs along the northern boundary of unit 11-17 just east of Hiwassee Lake on approximately 300 square feet of ground with twelve stems at four locations. Japanese meadowsweet occurs at four points in the project area with two smaller infestation in unit 9-16.

Other notable infestations of NNIP in the project area include Shrubby bushclover (Lespedeza bicolor) which was most likely established as a wildlife planting and currently persists along one roadway in the project. Korean clover (Lespedeza cuneata) was heavily planted and used for soil stabilization and was noted along most roads in the project area. One location of Marsh Dewflower (Murdannia keisak) was found on Shuler Creek (unit 8-12) along with Asiatic Water Pepper (Polygonum cespitosum var. longisetum). Beef-steak plant (Perilla frutescens) occurs on roadsides in units 8-12 and 8-6, but this plant has the potential to invade richer cove sites.

Table 3.6.1.1 NNIP in the Long Buck Analysis Area Species Common Name Species Common Name Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal Grass Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Artemisis vulgaris Common Wormwood Medicago lupulina Black Medic Commelina communis Asiatic Dayflower Microstegium vimineum Japanese Stiltgrass Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed Murdannia keisak Marsh Dewflower Daucus carota Wild Carrot Perilla frutescens Beef-steak Plant Eragrostis curvula Weeping Lovegrass Plantago lanceolata English Plantain Festuca rubra Red Fescue Plantago major Nipple-seed Plantain

Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem Artichoke Polygonum cespitosum var. Asiatic Water Pepper longisetum Holcus lanatus Common Velvet Grass Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose Lespedeza cuneata Korean Bushclover Spiraea japonica Japanese Meadowsweet Lespedeza bicolor Shrubby Bushclover Trifolium repens White Clover

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

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

44

NNIP Effects in the proposed Long Buck activity area

Direct and Indirect Effects

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

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

Cumulative Effects

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

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

Suitable habitat for most NNIP species can be defined as areas with ground disturbing activities such as road construction, recent timber regeneration (0-10 years) areas, and wildlife field construction. Therefore, this proposal would generate approximately 336 acres of NNIP suitable habitat in addition to existing permanent openings and new temporary road construction. There are no ongoing projects within the AA that would appreciably affect NNIP, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Brushy Flats Project and proposed treatments for selected stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2023.

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

Woody species, such as mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) and Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica), are obvious targets as they occur in discreet populations and the infestations are relatively easily treatable at this stage. The woody shrub, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is more widespread than the above woody species, but may still be treatable within the project area. More widespread species, such as Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum)

45

and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are pervasive within the project area and would be much more difficult to control at this point.

Several nonnative plant species have been specifically planted in the project area for wildlife foraging and cover and for erosion control. Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) and bicolor lespedeza (L. bicolor), in particular, have dispersed along roads and openings, and the latter is beginning to encroach into forested edges. Control of these species may be achievable through herbicide treatment and ending their use in plantings along roads and wildlife openings is another means to reduce their spread.

Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) is an invasive insect that has had a fairly severe impact on Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) in the project area and the region as a whole. Efforts by the USFS to treat infected trees in the Shuler Creek area are ongoing and appear to be maintaining the health of some remaining canopy trees where viable hemlock patches persist. Continued efforts to treat with chemicals as well as biological controls are recommended as a way to safeguard surviving hemlocks.

Perhaps the most pernicious invaders in the project area are the wild boar (Sus scrofa) that root and wallow in stream corridors, seepage areas, and springheads. Feral hog activity appears to increase sedimentation and embeddedness of course sediments in stream channels. Hog activity also has the effect of “mucking out” seeps, turning over rocks, and converting cobble- dominated seeps to mud holes. In addition to the potential impacts to water quality, this rooting and wallowing has deleterious impacts on wildlife and herbaceous plant diversity in these sensitive habitats (Peine and Farmer 1990). In light of the negative impacts they cause, control of hog populations through increased hunting and other measures could be encouraged beyond efforts already pursued by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.

Non-native invasive plant control and prevention efforts in the Long Buck project area should focus on the following areas: • All off-road logging equipment should be clean and free of soil and vegetation prior to entering stands. Off-road equipment should be re-cleaned if moved away from the stand and then brought back to the stand. • Areas of the stand with known NNIP occurrences should be harvested last to avoid moving these known infestations around the stand. • All areas of soil disturbance (log landing and temporary road construction) will be seeded with a native, weed-free seed mix. Local native seed genotypes are preferred. • All tracked and some of the non-tracked NNIP should be treated prior to timber harvest activities to avoid further spread in order of priority (based on time and funding available): o The few smaller populations of Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) and Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica). o The larger more scattered populations of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)

46

o The small, local populations of Shrubby bushclover (Lespedeza bicolor), Marsh Dewflower (Murdannia keisak), Asiatic Water Pepper (Polygonum cespitosum var. longisetum), and Beef-steak plant (Perilla frutescens). The few, but still restricted populations of Korean clover (Lespedeza cuneata). o The more widespread tracked NNIP species populations of Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). • Stands should be treated for at least two years post timber harvest to control any NNIP that was introduced to the site or expanded due to the additional soil disturbance and light availability.

3.6.2 North Carolina Natural Heritage Natural Areas

There are no known research natural areas or botanical special interest areas recognized by the current LRMP within the Long Buck botanical AA. The Slate Creek Forests and Powerline, Apalachia Lake Old-Growth Site, North Shoal Creek Falls, Long Ridge/Unicoi Mountains, Beavers Branch Wetland and Slopes, and Buck Knob Natural Heritage Natural Areas (NHNAs) are located in the Long Buck botanical AA. Activities proposed for the Long Buck treatment units would have no negative effects to these NHNAs. These NHNAs are not identified as Special Interest Area by the LRMP.

A portion of the Schuler Creek Wetland Complex NHNA (183 acres) is located adjacent to units 8-6 and 8-13 and a portion of the NHNA is located within unit 8-22. These stands are proposed for two-aged shelterwood in the Long Buck project. Activities proposed for the Long Buck treatment units 8-6 and 8-13 would have no negative effects to the Schuler Creek NHNA. Activities proposed for the Long Buck treatment unit 8-22 would affect approximately an 8-10 acre portion (4.4% - 5.5%) of the Shuler Creek Wetland Complex NHNA, but would not negatively affect the core values of the NHNA.

3.7. Soil and Water Resources

Existing Condition

The project activities would occur in Cherokee County North Carolina. Treatments are proposed within the Ocoee Supergroup, Great Smokey Group, Copperhill and Boyd Gap geologic formations. The Boyd Gap Geologic Formation is composed primarily of dark gray, highly- sulfidic slate and metasiltstone. Ground disturbing tretments, including skid roads, log landings, and temporary road construction would be subject to BMPs to prevent acid bearing water from entering streamcourses.

A Soil Survey of the AA was produced using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey tool to determine the soil types and their abundance in the proposed project activity areas. The common soil series and distributions are presented in Table 3.7.1. The most abundant soil series in the AA are the Junaluska-Brasstown complexes followed by the Soco- Stecoah complex. The Junaluska-Brasstown complex consists of fine-loamy, mixed, subactive, mesic Typic Hapludult soil orders and the Soco-Stecoah complex consists of coarse-loamy, 47

mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudept soil orders. All of the soil series in the AA are best suited for woodland. There are few floodplain and no prime farmland soils in the project area. The existing access roads are well maintained and those used as linear wildlife openings have good grass cover on them at present.

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 (i.e., increased sunlight to the roadbed, and thus more road drying during inclement weather and increased abundance of soft mast-producing species). Watershed improvement treatments to Schuler Creek and Buckberry Branch would not occur.

Alternative B: Construction and reconstruction of temporary roads and log landings would result in some soil exposure and compaction; temporary roads and log 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 temporary road segments would be managed through the use of BMPs both passive (using slash filter strips) and, if needed, active control features such as silt fences and coir matting. Temporary road segments would be treated with a grass seed mixture and allowed to be reclaimed by the forest at the conclusion of the project.

All silvicultural activities would be conducted according to LRMP standards and guidelines, and to the North Carolina 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 AA.

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. Tusquitee Ranger District staff and timber sale administrators would continue to monitor the effects of activities in an ongoing basis and as part of timber sale implementation and progress. Sales progress on a unit-by-unit basis and purchasers are not allowed to proceed to each new unit until all the required practices are completed and accepted by Forest Service administrators.

48

Table 3.7.1 Commonly Occurring Soils in the Long Buck Project Analysis Area by Soil Series and Relative Abundance. Map Unit Percent Map Unit Name Symbol of AA DtF Ditney-Unicoi-Rock outcrop complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, 1.0 very stony JbC Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 6.7 JbD Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 16.7 JbE Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 20.8 JkE Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, rocky 6.4 JtD Junaluska-Tsali complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 3.1 JtE Junaluska-Tsali complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 3.9 JtF Junaluska-Tsali complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes 1.1 LkC Lonon-Northcove complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, bouldery 3.0 LkD Lonon-Northcove complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, bouldery 4.1 NtE Northcove-Lonon complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, very boulder 1.7 SbE Snowbird loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony 1.1 ScE Soco-Stecoah complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, rocky 1.1 ScF Soco-Stecoah complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, rocky 7.3 SyE Sylco-Cataska complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, very rocky 2.4 SyF Sylco-Cataska complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, very rocky 1.9 ThB Thurmont-Dillard complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.6 ThC Thurmont-Dillard complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1.9

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

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 Alternative B, included some surface exposure, soil compaction on parts of previous harvest units, and minor sedimentation on the days culverts were 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 ongoing projects within the AA that would appreciably affect soils, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Brushy Flats Project and the proposed treatments for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022.

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 49

cumulative effects of this project are the expected direct and indirect effects of the actions proposed in Alternative B as described above.

3.8 Air Resources

Existing Condition

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

Direct and Indirect Effects

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

Cumulative Effects

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

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

3.9 Timber and Vegetation Management

Existing Condition

All proposed harvesting activities would occur in the suitable timber base lands. The timber harvest activities proposed for the Long Buck Project occur on all slope aspects. Species composition in the project area compartments consists primarily of white pine dominated stands with upland pine-hardwood and upland hardwood stands. Total federally managed land within the Long Buck Project area consists of 3,768 acres. Of that land base the majority of the land is inventoried to be aged over 60 years (2,518 acres or 67%).

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

50

1930s. These two disturbances account for the majority of the stands being in the >61 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 southern pine beetle salvage harvests. The most recent entry into the project area occurred in the 1990s. All regenerated stands have been certified as successfully reforested. Currently there are zero acres inventoried to be in the ESH age class of 0-10 years. There are some natural openings and managed wildlife openings that are not represented in the project inventory. These areas are currently providing a very small amount of open and early seral habitat.

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

Environmental Consequences

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

Alternative B: Regeneration of the proposed stands would initiate approximately 239 acres of stands aged 0-10 in Compartments 8, 9, 11, 12. Regeneration would originate from a combination of advanced reproduction, stump sprouts and planted shortleaf pine seedlings. In current white pine stands, management activities would be completed to promote the establishment of shortleaf and hardwood species. In already existing pine-hardwood and hardwood stands the 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 ensure the continued presence of these species in the two- aged hardwood stands. Targeting white pine removal will support the shortleaf pine reestablishment objectives of this project.

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

51

The 239 acres of ESH produced by the silvicultural treatments are located on National Forest System lands in the 3,768 acre AA. Alternative B would create ESH on 6.3% of the Federal lands in the AA. The LRMP states (page III-31) that the minimum amount of ESH required for MA 3 is 5% and the maximum is 15%. Since there are currently zero acres in the AA in the 0-10 age class ESH habitat, and zero acres of 0-10 moving into the 11-20 age class, the proposed action would result in there being a maximum of 6.3% of this type of habitat over the next 10 years following the regeneration harvests. Given that the project proposes this small percentage of ESH to be achieved by timber stand regeneration, there would be a substantial amount of older forest remaining for black bears and other species that prefer older forests. Many wildlife species rely on the soft mast and structure provided by younger habitat. Per the LRMP general standards and guides (page III-23), all snags that are not hazardous would be retained, as well as retaining all existing and potential den trees. Open road density would not change as a result of implementing the proposed actions. In addition, periodic regeneration insures there would be a flow of mast production in the future resulting from a mix of age classes.

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 ongoing projects within the Long Buck AA that would appreciably alter timber resources. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and stands in nearby Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 would affect the timber/vegetation resources in the project compartments. The Brushy Flats Project area is located northwest of the Long Buck Project AA in Compartments 1 and 2. The Brushy Flats Project includes approximately 250 acres of harvesting activities and is planned to begin implementation in 2017. The effects of Alternative B, combined with previous harvest events, 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 239 acres of stands 21 years and older into the age 0-10 class. In addition, the combination of Alternative B stand regeneration activities and past harvests would help to provide for a continuous and sustainable flow of forest products and habitats over time. Activities on private lands are not anticipated to affect the National Forest System lands.

3.10 Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

A heritage resource inventory was completed for the proposed project (BRAC 2016). Fourteen previous cultural resource surveys (Forest Service 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b,

52

1991c, 1992 and 1993; Riggs 1996 and 2006; TRC 2015; Webb 1990) also have been conducted in proximity to and included within portions of the Long Buck treatment units.

A total of 62 archeological sites have been recorded within the Long Buck AA. Of these sites, two were assessed as Eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) when first located, and four have not been evaluated. All six of these sites would be protected and avoided by all project activities. The finished reports for the current project have been sent to the NC State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for comment in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and 36CFR800, as amended 1991.

Environmental Consequences

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

Alternative B: 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.

3.11 Recreation Resources

Existing Condition

The Long Buck Project AA is located in the western end of Cherokee County, North Carolina. Hanging Dog Campground is the only developed recreation site near the Long Buck AA. A section of the Benton MacKaye trail is located along the Tennessee – North Carolina state line outside the AA to the west. The preponderance of recreational use in the Long Buck AA is by hunters and anglers who use open and closed Forest Service roads to access dispersed sites in the forest and, by boat, on Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake. All proposed treatment sites were subjected to analysis to ensure that visual quality objectives (VQOs) would be met.

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 53

hunting and wildlife viewing) in the project area since there would be no new ESH or restored riparian areas provided by management activities.

Alternative B: There would be no negative effects to day use visitors and no negative effects to persons using the Benton MacKaye Trail. For effects of proposed project activities on scenery resources, refer to the Scenery Analysis in Section 3.13.

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

Indirect effects to recreation resources would result from differences in recreational opportunities associated with habitat change. Hunters would probably find the regenerated 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 ESH following regeneration. Blackberries would increase in the regenerated stands while they remain in ESH, 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: Effects of Alternative B would be the creation of recreational opportunities associated with approximately 239 new acres of ESH, such as better hunting and increased wildlife viewing. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include proposed treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022, however, would have the potential to affect recreation, but effects would be similar to the direct and indirect effects of the Long Buck Project.

3.12 Scenery

Existing Condition

The project area encompasses approximately 3,768 acres, with the majority of the treatments proposed in Management Area (MA) 3B with a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Modification (M) throughout the general area. Direction for the M VQO is for Direction for the M VQO is for management activities to be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape and to meet the VQO within three to five growing seasons after treatment.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenery resources. 54

Alternative B: All proposed harvest units would meet their assigned VQOs for MA 3b.

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 B would meet their assigned VQOs, there would be minor effects to the visual resource from these proposed actions. There are no ongoing projects within the AA that would appreciably affect scenery, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022, however, would have the potential to affect scenery. There are no actions on private lands that are affecting the scenery resource on the national forest lands in the project area.

3.13 Social and Economic Considerations

Existing Condition

The directly affected social and economic environment for this project is the local vicinity, which includes Cherokee 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 restore shortleaf pine - mixed hardwood vegetation on treat sites and the 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 work between 2018 and 2022 for local logging companies and one or more site preparation/stand improvement contractors. There would be indirect benefits to industries involved in the primary and secondary manufacture of forest products, including the supply of raw materials and employment opportunities. There would be indirect economic benefits to local service industries which support forest workers, and to the local, state, and federal governments through silvicultural treatment generated income taxes.

An estimated 5,500 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of sawtimber would result from silvicultural activities and would be offered for sale in the local markets. The stumpage price of the timber would generate $155,637.00 which would be reinvested into resource improvement projects in the AA. 55

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

• The steps to identify stands suitable for silvicultural treatments; • Surveys to determine environmental and heritage effects; • Research and analysis to inform and develop the EA in general and Chapter 3 in particular; • Timber sale layout, marking, and administration; • Site preparation layout, implementation, and administration; • Planting shortleaf pine seedlings; and • Associated activities such as long term monitoring and implementing future prescribed burns.

Nonmonetary benefits include the short- and long-term ecological impacts that would result from reestablishing mixed hardwood and shortleaf pine – mixed hardwood vegetation communities to areas where it has been degraded. A second set of non-monetary benefits include contributions to the growing body of knowledge related to shortleaf pine reestablishment in the Southern Appalachians that would result from the successes, as well as any failures, from implementing the Long Buck Project.

3.14 Road Management

Existing Condition

Current access to the area is via several state and Forest Service (FS) roads. Several of the Forest Service roads are open to public vehicular use, with the majority closed to public vehicular use year-round. Some of these closed roads and road segments 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.

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 Forest Service road system, a separate Transportation Analysis Plan (TAP) is not required for this project. Reasonably foreseeable future actions with the potential to affect road management include treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022.

56

3.15 Climate Change

Climate change is discussed here in two ways: (1) how climate change affects AA resources, and (2) how the project area alternatives affect climate change. 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

Existing conditions are typical of the southern Appalachians, with a range of elevations from approximately 1,400 feet to 1,900 feet. Climate change models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate-change conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the United States. However, the models differ considerably. One predicts little change in precipitation until 2030, followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years, followed by increased precipitation.

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

Long Buck Project Effects on Climate Change

Scope of Analysis

The scope of this analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on climate change includes the 3,768 acres of national forest lands in the compartments that comprise the AA. The timeframe used in this analysis is up to ten years after completion of the project activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects

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

Alternative B: It is not expected that Alternative B would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The regeneration in the areas to be harvested would provide

57

more structural diversity to the area and establish young, vigorous stands that may be more resilient to the changes in climate than those ages 61 and older. In addition, it is anticipated that the existing forest types in the stands to be regenerated would, under uninterrupted natural disturbance regimes, regenerate naturally to these same forest types; changes in climate will make little difference.

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

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 58

wood products of the United States currently sequester approximately 200 teragrams (200 teragrams, or Tg, equals 196,841,306 U.S. tons.) of carbon per year (Heath and Smith, 2004). This rate of carbon sequestration offsets approximately 10% of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels (Birdsey et al., 2006). U.S. Forests currently contain 66,600 teragrams of carbon.

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

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

Cumulative Effects to Climate Change

The contribution of the proposed project activities to the carbon cycle is extremely small under Alternative B. Conducting regeneration harvesting on approximately 239 acres would result in new ESH on 6.3% of the total 3,768 analysis area acres.

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

When combined, the carbon from this and past projects in the analysis area has a minimal cumulative effect not only at the local level, but at the larger level. When implemented, the rate of carbon release through timber regeneration would be minimal for the reasonably foreseeable future. There are no ongoing projects within the analysis area that would appreciably contribute to climate change, and reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Brushy Flats Project and the proposed treatments for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 which are currently being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022.

59

4 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 4.1. List of Preparers

This document was prepared by Steverson Moffat, Nantahala National Forest 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:

Sarah Bridges, Silviculturist, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger District Matt Bushman, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Angela Gee, District Ranger, Cheoah and Tusquitee Ranger Districts Steverson Moffat, NEPA Planning Team Leader, Nantahala National Forest Eric Pullium, GIS Specialist, Nantahala National Forest David Stiles, Technician, Beech Creek Seed Orchard Andrew Triplett, Archaeologist, Nantahala National Forest Johnny Wills, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest

Ed Schwartzman, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Botany and Wildlife Contractor Harry LeGrand, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Botany and Wildlife Contractor Stephen Hall, Independent Contractor, Botany and Wildlife Contractor TRC Environmental Corporation, Archaeological Contractor

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.

60

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elliott, Katherine J. and J.M. Vose. 2005. Effects of understory prescribed burning on shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.)/mixed-hardwood forests. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 132(2):236-251.

Elliott, Katherine J., J.M. Vose, J.D. Knoepp, and B.D. Clinton. 2012. Restoration of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata)-hardwood ecosystems severely impacted by the southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis). Forest Ecology and Management 274 (2012) 181–200.

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.

61

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

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

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

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

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

Oswalt, Christopher M. 2013. Broad Scale Inventory of Shortleaf Pine. Shortleaf Pine Initiative Internet site. Accessed January 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart, John F., R.E. Will, K.M. Robertson, and C.D. Nelson. 2014. Frequent fire protects shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) from introgression by loblolly pine (P. taeda). Conservation Genetics DOI 10.1007/s10592-014-0669-x.

Tauer, Charles G., J.F. Stewart, R.E. Will, C. J. Lilly, J.M. Guldin, and C.D. Nelson. 2012. Hybridization Leads to Loss of Genetic Integrity in Shortleaf Pine: Unexpected Consequences of Pine Management and Fire Suppression. Journal of Forestry.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Forest Health Protection Website: Herbicide Risk Assessments. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml 62

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

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

63

5 APPENDIX

5.1 Biological Evaluation

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposed Action

Conduct management activities in Tusquitee Ranger District compartments 8, 9, 11, 12, and 18 including: (1) implementing silvicultural treatments through commercial timber harvest to improve the resiliency of vegetation communities through the shelterwood with reserves silvicultural regeneration technique and create approximately 239 acres of early successional habitat in seven stands; (2) implementing site- and species-specific stand improvement prescriptions to encourage the regeneration of natural vegetation within the historic range of variation in all treated stands through herbicide application, hand tool treatments, prescribed burning, planting shortleaf pine seedlings, and/or releasing potential natural vegetation with herbicide treatments; (3) daylighting select sections of National Forest System roads by cutting and removing trees within a zone approximately 15 to 30 feet on each side of road edges; (4) implementing treatments to improve watersheds by treating an impaired stream crossing on Buckberry Branch; (5) improve habitat complexity within Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake by cutting and cabling trees within specified treatment areas; (6) constructing approximately 0.15 miles of temporary road for silvicultural activities; (7) planting herbaceous annual, biennial, and perennial native pollinator species in log landings, as practical, to provide foraging habitat for insects, birds, and other wildlife; (8) creating linear wildlife openings on sections of decommissioned temporary roads; (9) rehabilitating existing wildlife openings that are in poor condition; and (10) controlling invasive species by spraying approved herbicide solutions along all system roadsides and selected areas within treatment units.

1.2 Species Considered

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

2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES

2.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

This analysis addresses project area waters and AA waters associated with the Long Buck Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts (direct and indirect effects) on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not necessarily overlap 64

effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters, the AA encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities when considered within the watershed context (cumulative effects). The aquatic AAs for the Long Buck Project consist of the following watersheds: Shuler Creek, Moccasin Creek, North Shoal Creek, and portions of Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake.

Existing Conditions

Buckberry Branch and Moccasin Creek are classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C; Tr waters. Shuler Creek and North Shoal Creek are classified as C waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. High Quality Waters (HQW) are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies, native and special native trout waters, critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture. The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications).

The aquatic analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater and cool water fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Long Buck Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of boulders, cobble and large gravel. Analysis area streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2010).

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 Long Buck aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS.

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

Species Evaluated and Rationale: Four aquatic federally threatened or endangered species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment 1a). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of T and E species in Cherokee County. Two aquatic T and E species remained after this initial filter (Cumberland bean, Villosa trabalis, and little – wing pearlymussel, Pegias fabula). These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Both of the mussel species occur within the Hiwassee River but do not occur

65

within the tributaries. Streams within the Long Buck project area are typically small, high gradient streams which do not provide suitable habitat for any proposed, threatened or endangered aquatic species. No proposed activities would occur within the Hiwassee River and no suitable habitat exists within any of the proposed treatment areas.

Project design features would prevent off-site turbidity and sedimentation. Based upon the results of this filtering process no proposed, endangered, or threatened aquatic species were evaluated further for this analysis (Attachment 1b). Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis.

Table 2.1.1: Known and potential threatened and endangered aquatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Long Buck Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None Evaluated Further *Occurs downstream of project area but not within the project area itself.

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted

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

Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: No aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened aquatic species or their habitats from implementing Alternative A or Alternative B. There would be no cumulative effects resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any aquatic T and E species resulting from implementation of treatments to the Long Buck Project because there would be no direct effects of the Treatments to the Long Buck Project on any aquatic T and E species and because there are no aquatic T and E species within the aquatic analysis area.

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 66

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 aquatic forest concern species because the amount of herbicides in project area waters would be immeasurable.

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

Table 2.1.2: Determination of effect on the evaluated PET aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B None No Effects No Effects *May produce beneficial effects for these species as host fish populations are improved.

2.2 Botanical Resources

Botanical Analysis Area

The Long Buck analysis area includes the stands located within Compartments 8, 9, 11, and 12. These stands were visited in June through September 2016 in order to characterize natural communities and document the occurrence of rare plant species as well as non-native invasive plants species that might be present. The botanical surveys were conducted primarily by Helia Environmental LLC in collaboration with Mountains to Sea Ecological and Joe Pye Ecological Consulting.

The botanical analysis area (botanical AA) or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is defined as the total area within two kilometers of any proposed unit (treatment area). The botanical AA definition was selected because it is analogous to NatureServe’s (2004) habitat- 67

based population delimitation guidelines for plant occurrences. The assumption is for those rare plant populations that may occur within the proposed activity area, their spread, such as by pollen exchange and/or seed dispersal, would generally not extend beyond two kilometers. All potential effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to botanical resources in the Long Buck botanical AA were analyzed using this "boundary".

Existing Conditions

The Long Buck botanical analysis area is a low-elevation montane setting and contains Acidic Cover Forest, Chestnut-Oak Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak – Hickory Forest, Low Elevation Seep, Low Mountain Pine Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Rich Cover Forest, and White Pine-Dominated Forest.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

All 445 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 CTR units were determined by:

• Reviewing the list of TES and FC plants species that occur across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest and their habitat preferences. • Reviewing the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program element occurrence (EO) records for TES and FC plant species that occur in Cherokee County. • Consulting with individuals knowledgeable of the area and associated flora (Ed Schwartzman, Contract Botanist, and formerly of the NC Natural Heritage Program, and Gary Kauffman, Botanist/Ecologist, National Forests in North Carolina). • Reviewing TES and FC element occurrence (EO) records that occur in or immediately adjacent to the proposed units. • Performing botanical field surveys in the proposed activity areas.

Prior to initiating the field surveys, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Biotics database was consulted to identify known rare plant or animal occurrences within the evaluation area. The list of known rare species of plants and animals for Cherokee County as well as the list of Regional Sensitive and Forest Concern species for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were reviewed to assess which species could potentially occur within the project area. This list was further filtered based on the habitats expected within the project area and the likelihood of a given species being associated with that habitat.

Botanical Surveys Conducted: All stands in the project area were surveyed in order to identify new occurrences of rare plant species. No federally proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species was found in the proposed units.

68

Table 2.2.1: Known federally threatened and endangered plant species in the proposed Long Buck Project. Federally Threatened and Endangered Plants None Occur

Effects of Alternatives on Threatened and Endangered Botanical Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: No proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species occurs or is known to occur within the proposed treatment areas for the Long Buck Project. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species from the implementation of the proposed Long Buck Project.

Determination of Effect: The proposed Long Buck Project 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.

2.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area

The Long Buck analysis area includes the stands located within Compartments 8, 9, 11, and 12. The stands within these compartments were visited in August 2015 in order to characterize natural communities and document the occurrence of rare terrestrial wildlife species that might be present. The surveys were conducted primarily by Ed Schwartzman and Harry LeGrand, both experienced naturalists with the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). As terrestrial wildlife species are mobile and can range across large areas of the forest, the analysis area for this project incorporates all of Cherokee County, North Carolina.

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; and 4) conducting field surveys as necessary.

Species were filtered by those that may occur in Cherokee 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 or adjacent to the proposed activity areas were not discussed further.

69

After the filtering process, two PET terrestrial wildlife species remained that may occur within the proposed activity areas. The Biological Opinion (BO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Protection of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) outlines terms and conditions for activities within a five county area which includes Cherokee County. The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed as threatened in the Federal Register by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in April 2015. The northern long-eared bat is known to occur in Cherokee County. However, there are no known roost trees or hibernacula for Northern long-eared bats within the project area; therefore, this species was not analyzed further.

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

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects: This proposal would 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 (LRMP). While the proposed action includes tree felling (saplings), the BO does include standards and direction for the retention of existing snags, a few of which might occur in these units. These standards include retention of standing trees with more than 25% exfoliating bark, shellbark and shagbark hickories, snags greater than three inches dbh, and hollow, den, or cavity trees as practicable. Snags with no bark, crevices or cavities need not be retained. To provide partial shade, buffer one-third of all hardwood snags greater than 12 inches dbh or conifer snags greater than nine inches dbh with exfoliating bark, in the early stages of decay. Where these snags occur, select in clumps for buffering, meaning retain living residual trees where all or part of the tree is within 30 feet of the snag.

There is a known Indiana bat roost tree is just outside of the perimeter of compartment 8-13 that could affect management activities and would be subjected to site-specific analysis if Alternative B is selected. Elsewhere in the AA it would be unlikely that a bat roost tree would be impacted;

70

thus direct effects to roosting individuals are unlikely. Implementation of these activities would not decrease the amount of available suitable habitat.

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.

Cumulative Effects: A habitat suitability model (HSM) based on Indiana bat habitat characteristics described in the BO would normally be used to estimate cumulative habitat change from the baseline within project areas which propose timber regeneration harvesting. The resultant output would illustrate the worst-case scenario percent change from baseline habitat suitability within the analysis area based on the proposed regeneration amount in combination with past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Alternative B of the Long Buck Project would contribute to less than a 2.8% decrease in suitable habitat across a cumulative effects area which includes habitat suitable for Indiana bats in areas affected by the Brushy Flats Project and reasonably foreseeable future treatments proposed for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 (Figure 2.3.1, page 72). The Forest Plan (LRMP) limits cumulative effects to less than a 5% change from the baseline habitat amount (Amendment 25 of the LRMP). The amount of change in suitable habitat for the Indiana bat within the Long Buck Project area would be well below the 5% threshold prescribed by Amendment 25 of the LRMP.

Determination of Effect

This project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, because all standards and guides for the protection of this species, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for wildlife resources

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

Direct and Indirect Effects: The effects of the Long Buck 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 five Canadian provinces and suspect in four 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. 71

Figure 2.3.1 Habitat suitability model for the Indiana bat for the Long Buck Project

72

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. The proposed project work would not constitute a change in existing spring and summer habitat for this bat. In addition, the proposed project 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, project activities would be unlikely to have any direct impacts on the northern long-eared bat. The project design criteria listed 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. Additionally, there are no known northern long-eared bat roost trees or hibernacula within the Long Buck Project area.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of the Long Buck Project units upon this species would generally be the same as those described above for the Indiana bat.

Determination of Effect: This project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR §17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project.

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis)

On March 21, 2017, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the rusty patched bumble bee (RPBB) (Bombus affinis) as endangered in the Federal Register. The USDA Forest Service Southern Region is currently conferencing, at a regional scale, with the FWS on RPBB. At this time, the only county with a documented extant population on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is Swain County.

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

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

RPBB colonies experience an annual cycle. In spring, a solitary queen finds a suitable nest site, collects nectar and pollen from flowers and begins laying eggs, which are fertilized by sperm she has stored since mating the previous fall. Workers hatch from these first eggs and the colony

73

grows as workers collect food, defend the colony, and care for young. The queen remains within the nest and continues laying eggs. In late summer, new queens and males also hatch from eggs. Males disperse to mate with new queens from other colonies. At the end of the season the queen dies and only new queens go into diapause (a form of hibernation) over winter. The cycle begins again in spring.

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

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

Direct and Indirect Effects: If RPBB is present in the AA, direct and indirect effects to the RPBB from the Long Buck Project would be the treatments in grassy areas that are likely to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RPBB. Because these treatments may temporarily increase grassy habitat after green-up, they may benefit the RPBB.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of the Long Buck Project upon this species would be negligible due to the low likelihood of silvicultural treatments, which reflect the bulk of the project, affecting RPBB habitat. With negligible direct and indirect or possibly beneficial temporary indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative effects that would impact this species associated with the proposed project.

Determination of Effect: This project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the RPBB because the species may be present in the AA and because potential impacts from treatments are not well documented at the present time. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.

74

Table 2.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated proposed, endangered and threatened terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Myotis sodalis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect Indiana bat Myotis septentrionalis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect Northern long-eared bat Bombus affinis No Effects Not Likely to Adversely Affect rusty patched bumble bee

2.4 Summary Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Alternative A would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because no actions are proposed under this alternative. Alternative B would have no effects to any aquatic proposed, endangered, or threatened species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no aquatic T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for aquatic resources.

Alternative A and Alternative B would have no effects to any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species in the Long Buck treatment units because no botanical T and E species occur within the proposed treatment areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.

Alternative A of the Long Buck Project would have no effect to any proposed, endangered, or threatened terrestrial wildlife species in the Long Buck treatment units. Alternative B may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or the northern long-eared bat because (1) all standards and guides for the protection of the Indiana bat, as listed in Amendment 25 of the LRMP, would be followed and (2) because all standards of the final 4(d) rule for the conservation of the northern long-eared bat would be followed. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for terrestrial wildlife resources. Implementation of the Long Buck Project would not likely adversely affect the RPBB. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for terrestrial wildlife resources.

3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES

3.1 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic Analysis Area

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

Existing Conditions

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

75

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 Cherokee County. Four species remained after this filter. These species were then filtered by available habitat. The analysis area waters do not provide any suitable habitat for any sensitive aquatic species. Based upon the results of this filtering process no sensitive aquatic species were evaluated further for this analysis (Attachment 1b).

Previous Survey Information

Generally, the distribution and range of rare aquatic species, including regionally-sensitive aquatic species, is well known in North Carolina. Previous surveys for sensitive aquatic species have been conducted within the Long Buck aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS. Aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations within the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2010).

Table 3.1.1: Known and potential sensitive aquatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Long Buck Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence None

New Surveys or Inventories Conducted

The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for 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: No sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to any sensitive aquatic species or their habitats from implementing Alternative A or Alternative B. There would be no cumulative effects resulting from any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to any aquatic sensitive species resulting from implementation of the Long Buck Project because there would be no direct or indirect effects of the Long Buck Project on any sensitive aquatic species and because there are no sensitive aquatic species within the aquatic analysis area.

76

Determination of Effect: Alternative A or Alternative B of the Long Buck Project would have no effects to any sensitive aquatic species because the project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering analysis area streams and no sensitive aquatic species occur within the proposed treatment areas.

Table 3.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated sensitive aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B None *May impact individuals but would not affect the species viability across the forest or cause a trend to federal listing.

3.2 Botanical Resources

The botanical analysis area has been described in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section above (Section 2.2).

Species Evaluated and Rationale

The process for consideration and evaluation of TES and FC plant species was described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Section 2.2). One sensitive species Sceptridium jenmanii (Alabama Grape-fern) occurs in the Long Buck botanical analysis area. Two sensitive plant species; Cleistesiopsis bifaria (small spreading pogonia) and Nothoceros aenigmaticus (a hornwort) occur in the Long Buck treatment area. Another sensitive plant species; Trillium rugelii (southern nodding trillium) may also occur in the Long Buck treatment area. Further surveys in April 2017 are needed to confirm whether T. rugelii or another Trillium species occurs in the treatment area. For the purpose of this analysis T. rugelii is assumed to be present.

Table 3.2.1: Documented Region 8 sensitive plant species in Cherokee County. Species Common Name Natural Communities/Habitat Cleistesiopsis bifaria Small Spreading Pogonia Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak Woodland, Shortleaf Pine Lophocolea appalachiana A Liverwort Spray Cliff Megaceros aenigmaticus A Hornwort Stream Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Oak-Hickory,Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, Pine- Oak/Heath Forest Peltigera venosa An Aquatic Lichen Stream Plagiochila sullivantii var. Sullivant's Leafy Liverwort Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest sullivantii Platanthera integrilabia White Fringeless Orchid High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog Sabatia capitata Rose Gentian Glade, Pine-Oak Woodlands Sceptridium jenmanii Alabama Grape Fern Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Roadside, mafic rock

77

Thalictrum macrostylum Small-leaved Meadowrue Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, moist woods? Trillium rugelii Southern Nodding Trillium Rich Cove Forest, low elevation Trillium simile Sweet White Trillium Rich Cove Forest

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

SMALL SPREADING POGONIA (Cleistesiopsis bifaria) This orchid is known to occur in moist to fairly dry meadows and on dry ridgetops under pine where it is seasonally moist (Weakley 2015). The orchid is distributed in the central and Southern Appalachians from West Virginia south and west to Georgia and Alabama and is known from 11 counties in western North Carolina (Weakley 2015). Species of the Cleistes orchids seem to benefit from fire and have been known to reappear after absences and to re- flower following fire (Raleigh et al. 2016). The contractors noted small spreading orchid individuals in stand 8-12 were less robust and had a shorter stem length than individuals located in a nearby stand that had a recent prescribed burn.

Small spreading pogonia was observed by the botanical contractors in a dense white pine- dominated forest in stand 8-12 within the Long Buck project area (Raleigh et al. 2016). A few individuals in a vegetative condition were observed in stand 8-12 under a white pine overstory and ericaceous shrubs (Raleigh et al. 2016).

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

Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatment: The proposed silvicultural treatments include shelterwood with reserves for all stands in the project area. There is one stand proposed for shelterwood with reserves treatment that contains a small population of small spreading pogonia orchids in the project area (8-12). Individual small spreading pogonia plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects a 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around the small spreading pogonia population.

Prescribed Burns: Under alternative B, there is one prescribed burn unit (stand 8-12) that contains small spreading pogonia. Prescribed burns conducted during the dormant season would have no direct effects on small spreading pogonia individuals. This species may be indirectly impacted by an increase in vegetative competition post-prescribed burn. Indirect impacts would be minimal because the proposed burn would be a low-intensity burn in the dormant season. In addition, the indirect impacts may be beneficial to the plant.

Site Preparation with Hand Tools, Release Herbicide, and Tree Planting: Small spreading pogoina occurs in one stand (8-12) proposed for site preparation with hand tools, release herbicide treatment and tree planting. Individual small spreading pogonia plants may be directly impacted by these operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following these activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct

78

and indirect effects a 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around the small spreading pogonia population.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of small spreading pogonia. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments proposed for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact small spreading pognia. Alternative B would not directly or indirectly affect individuals because of the 50 foot no activity buffer and would result in a “No Impact” determination for small spreading pogoina.

A HORNWORT (Nothoceros aenigmaticus - formerly Megaceros aenigmaticus) This species occurs in shaded streams and cobble-dominated seeps in western North Carolina and adjacent Tennessee. The species is reproductively isolated in the southern Appalachians, with male and female gametophytes geographically separated from each other in distinct watersheds. This species is endemic to the Southern Appalachians and its closest known relative occurs in Mexico (Renzaglia and McFarland 1999). Threats to this species’ survival include habitat degradation and lack of sexual reproduction due to the geographic isolation of female and male gametophytes. An increase in sediment load and water flow from upstream disturbance can dislodge or smother individuals.

Nothoceros aenigmaticus was detected in three stands in the project area and were found in a linear fashion on rocks along streams and in seeps (Raleigh et al. 2016). Nothoceros was found to be present in acidic cove and rich cove forest in stands 9-16, 8-12, and on a moist outcrop and seep in stand 8-13 (Raleigh et al. 2016). Habitat where Nothoceros populations occur appeared to be affected by sedimentation and rooting and wallowing of wild boar (Sus scrofa), also known as feral hogs (Raleigh et al. 2016).

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: Silvicultural Treatment: The proposed silvicultural treatments include shelterwood with reserves for all stands in the project area. There are three stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves treatment that contain Nothoceros aenigmaticus in the project area (8- 12, 8-13, and 9-16). Since Nothoceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct effects to this species from commercial timber harvest. This species could be indirectly impacted from an increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. Streams in the three units, however, would be buffered by 50 feet consistent with the LRMP and BMPs which should reduce any negative indirect impacts.

79

Prescribed Burns: Under alternative B, there is one prescribed burn unit (stand 8-12) that contains Nothoceros aenigmaticus. The individuals occur within streams and seepage areas and would be protected from direct effects in the proposed prescribed fire because they occur in wet areas. This species may be indirectly impacted by an increase in vegetative competition post- prescribed burn. Indirect impacts would be minimal because the proposed burn would be a low- intensity burn in the dormant season.

Site Preparation with Hand Tools: Nothoceros aenigmaticus occurs in three stands (8-12, 8-13, and 9-16) proposed for site preparation with hand tools in the project area. Since Nothoceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct effects to this species from site preparation activities. This species could be indirectly impacted from an increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. Streams in the three units, however, would be buffered by 50 feet consistent with the LRMP and BMPs which should reduce any negative indirect impacts.

Site Preparation with Herbicide: Two stands proposed for site preparation with herbicide contain Nothoceros aenigmaticus (8-13 and 9-16). Site preparation with herbicide consists of using an approved herbicide to reduce competition to desired tree species within a stand after shelterwood with reserve treatments. Since Nothoceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct effects to this species from site preparation activities. This species could be indirectly impacted from an increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post- timber harvest. Streams in the three units, however, would be buffered by 50 feet consistent with the LRMP and BMPs which should reduce any negative indirect impacts.

Release Herbicide: Three stands proposed for release herbicide treatment contain Nothoceros aenigmaticus (8-12, 8-13, and 9-16). Release herbicide treatments consists of a basal bark herbicide application to non-desirable tree species. Since Nothoceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct effects to this species from site preparation activities. This species could be indirectly impacted from an increase in light and decrease in humidity at the forest floor post-timber harvest. Streams in the three units, however, would be buffered by 50 feet consistent with the LRMP and BMPs which should reduce any negative indirect impacts.

Tree Planting: One stand proposed for tree planting (8-12) contains Nothoceros aenigmaticus. Tree planting consists of using a hand tools to disturb the soil in order to place a tree seedling in the soil. Since Nothoceros aenigmaticus occurs on rocks in streams there would be no direct or indirect effects to this species from tree planting activities.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. Recurrent monitoring of this species at impacted sites outside of the Long Buck botanical analysis area have shown that it can still persist in high numbers post-disturbance. The Brushy Flats project determined that actions in that project would have a “May indirectly impact individuals, but would not impact the viability of this species across the forest” determination for Nothoceros aenigmaticus. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments proposed for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and

80

effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have a “No Impact” determination since there would be no direct or indirect impacts to Nothoceros aenigmaticus or its habitat. Alternative B would have a “No Impact” determination because actions proposed in the Long Buck project will not directly or indirectly impact individuals or habitat since no actions are proposed in Nothoceros aenigmaticus habitat and this habitat would be buffered by a 50 foot no active buffer.

ALABAMA GRAPE-FERN (Sceptridium jenmanii) Alabama Grape-fern occurs in a variety of habitats from mesic to dry-mesic forest and disturbed areas (Weakley 2015). It is known to be associated with other Botrychium species including B. biternatum in hardwoods and B. lunarioides in grasslands (FNA 2016). It is known from southwest Virginia and western Kentucky south to the Florida panhandle, southern Alabama, and eastern Louisiana (Weakley 2015). Alabama Grape-fern is known to occur in the Long Buck botanical analysis area approximately 0.6 kilometers from stand 8-12.

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

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for Alabama Grape-fern.

SOUTHERN NODDING TRILLIUM (Trillium rugelii) This trillium occurs in rich woodlands and forests over mafic or calcareous rocks, often near seepages (Weakley 2015). The plant has white to maroon petals, blooms in April through early- May and ranges from western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee south to central Georgia and central Alabama (Weakley 2015).

Southern nodding trillium was possibly observed by the botanical contractors in stand 9-8 (Raleigh 2016). Thirty plants with fruit, vegetative characteristics only, or nodding pedicels only were found and identified to the Erectum group, but could not accurately be distinguished to species without flowers (Raleigh 2016). The botanical contractors identified the plants as either Vasey’s trillium (Trillium vaseyi) or southern nodding trillium (Trillium rugelii) and recommended follow-up surveys to be conducted in April 2017 (Raleigh 2017). For the purpose of this Biological Evaluation we will assume presence of the southern nodding trillium in the project area. The natural community type (rich cove forest) and presence of forest concern species purple sedge (Carex purpurifera) suggest that the Erectum group plants found in the 2016 may be the Regionally sensitive southern nodding trillium (Gary Kauffman personal communication 12/30/16).

81

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

Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatment: The proposed silvicultural treatments include shelterwood with reserves for all stands in the project area. There is one stand proposed for shelterwood with reserves treatment that contains a small population of southern nodding trillium in the project area (9-8). Without protection, individual southern nodding trillium plants would be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects a 200 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of southern nodding trillium.

Site Preparation with Hand Tools and Site Preparation and Release with Herbicide: southern nodding trillium occurs in one stand (9-8) proposed for site preparation with hand tools and site preparation and release with herbicide treatments. Without protection, individual southern nodding trillium plants may be directly impacted by these operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following these activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects a 200 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around known populations of southern nodding trillium.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of southern nodding trillium. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments proposed for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for southern nodding trillium. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of southern nodding trillium will be buffered by a 200 foot no activity buffer.

Table 3.2.2: Impact determination for Region 8 sensitive botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Cleistesiopsis bifaria (Small Spreading Pogonia) No Impact No Impact Nothoceros aenigmaticus (hornwort) No Impact No Impact Sceptridium jenmanii No Impact No Impact Trillium rugelii (Southern Nodding Trillium) No Impact No Impact

82

3.3 Wildlife Resources

Wildlife Analysis Area and Existing Conditions

All sensitive terrestrial animal 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 project activity areas. Species with only incidental, migrant or historic occurrences in Cherokee County were not considered further. Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence records maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and field data on the project area.

Prior to initiating the field surveys, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Biotics database was consulted to identify known rare terrestrial wildlife occurrences within the evaluation area. The list of known rare species for Cherokee County as well as the list of Regional Sensitive and Forest Concern species for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were reviewed to assess which species could potentially occur within the Long Buck Project AA. These lists were further filtered based on the habitats expected within the project area and the likelihood of a given species being associated with that habitat.

Survey Information

The treatment units in the nearby Brushy Flats Units and adjacent areas were surveyed in August 2015 by Ed Schwartzman and Harry LeGrand with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program assisted by Stephen Hall, an independent contractor. Wildlife surveys were conducted using a meander-based approach, though unique habitats of interest also included power lines and openings that provide habitat for sun-loving species. In addition, wildlife surveys included a search for potential habitat and microhabitat for rare species, such as rock outcrops, downed logs, exfoliating tree bark, and other possible den sites. No new surveys were conducted for the Long Buck Project.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

An analysis was conducted to see what rare species were documented from the area and might potentially occur within the project area. All Region 8 Sensitive species known to occur in the Long Buck Project Area were analyzed for effects (Table 3.4.3.1). Though not known to occur within the project area, four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) is known from within 5 km of the surveyed units.

Of particular note, the N.C. Watch List red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), a conifer-loving species typical of high elevations, was observed near the project area. The Watch List southern unstriped scorpion (Vaejovis carolinianus) was also noted under cover objects in dry oak and pine forest near the project area.

83

Table 3.3.1: Sensitive terrestrial animal species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Long Buck Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Eurycea junaluska wildlife analysis Amphibian Forests near seeps and streams Junaluska salamander area Haliaeetus leucocephalus Mature forests near large bodies of occurs near cut Bird Bald eagle water (for nesting); lakes and sounds cable treatments Montane and foothill forest edges Speyeria diana wildlife analysis Butterfly and openings; host plant: violets Diana fritillary area (Viola) Paravitrea placentula Terrestrial Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and may occur Glossy supercoil Gastropod ravines Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bogs and wetlands may occur Bog Turtle

Effects of Alternatives on Wildlife Species

Eurycea junaluska (Junaluska salamander)

Non-breeding habitat information is not known for the Junaluska salamander. Adults have been found hiding under objects in or along streams where reproduction and larval development take place. They may be found on roads near creeks on rainy nights, suggesting movement between a terrestrial habitat (possibly forest) and breeding sites along streams. It does not tolerate alterations to stream habitats (NatureServe 2015).

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: Junaluska salamanders are found in forests near seeps and streams in the Hiwassee River system. There are records of this species along the Hiwassee River, which is downstream of the Long Buck Project analysis area, but no treatments are proposed near these known locations.

Silvicultural treatments and temporary road construction may cause direct mortality through crushing. There is a low probability of these effects because these activities usually are not implemented in wet areas like seepages and are buffered from streams. Further, salamanders usually forage nocturnally and retreat to seeps and streams during the day when management activities would be implemented. Also, erosion control measures during road construction would prevent measurable sediment from entering streams. Indirectly, these activities would increase solar and wind exposure to the treated sites, which could 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 primarily be within buffered zones, these activities would be unlikely to impact core habitat for the Junaluska salamander along streams

84

Other activities such as cut cable treatments for aquatic habitat 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: There are no ongoing within the wildlife analysis area that would appreciably alter habitat. The implementation of other management treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and also the stands that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are the only reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect the Junaluska salamander and its 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. Approximately 239 acres of the wildlife analysis area would be in ESH 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: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest for the Junaluska salamander.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)

Bald Eagles suffered a great decline in the southern and eastern part of their range because of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) use and nest habitat destruction. The use of DDT was banned in 1972. Numbers have grown since the bald eagle was listed as Endangered, and due to positive population growth the bald eagle was delisted from its Threatened status on June 28, 2007. Its primary legal protection was transferred from the Endangered Species Act to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Eagles often perch on exposed limbs of tall trees near water (James and Neal 1986; US FWS 2007). They feed on fish, water birds, small mammals and carrion. The breeding territory for most of the local population is in the northern United States and Canada.

85

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: Bald eagles may utilize shoreline habitat for foraging and/or nesting along Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake where cut cable treatments for fish habitat may be implemented. Shoreline would be evaluated for nests prior to implementing these treatments. If located, 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 known eagle nest locations. Thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects on bald eagles resulting from this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A and Alternative B: 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 and Alternative B: These alternatives would have no impact on the bald eagle.

Speyeria diana (Diana Fritillary)

Diana fritillary is primarily found in the mountains from central Virginia and West Virginia to north Georgia and Alabama. It is more abundant from southwestern Virginia to the Great Smoky Mountains region and rare and sporadic elsewhere. A major range wide decline in the past resulted in a substantial loss of its historic range. It may be increasing in areas where second growth forests are becoming mature and where gypsy moth spraying is not widespread (NatureServe 2015).

Breeding habitat in most of the range consists of moist, deciduous or mixed forests with abundant violets in the understory. The larvae hatch in the fall, over-winter as caterpillars, and begin feeding on violets in early spring. Adults feed on nectar from flowers in open areas and are also found on scat and moist soil. Because adults and larvae require different types of habitat in substantial amounts, the home ranges of these butterflies require large areas of land with diverse habitats (NatureServe 2015). Diana fritillary butterflies occur across the Nantahala National Forest.

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: There are records of the Diana fritillary within and adjacent to the wildlife analysis area. If timber harvest were implemented in occupied habitat during the June to

86

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 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: The implementation of other management treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and also the stands that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are the only reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect the Diana fritillary and its 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 ESH 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: May impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the Diana fritillary.

Paravitrea placentula (Glossy supercoil)

Glossy supercoil occurs under leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina (NatureServe 2015). The species is known from mixed mesophytic and dry to mesic oak forests beneath leaf litter, downed wood, and rocks. Specific forest types include acidic and rich cove, high elevation northern red oak, and montane oak hickory forests (Caldwell 2004).

Direct and Indirect Effect:

Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the glossy supercoil.

Alternative B: glossy supercoil may be directly impacted (relocated or crushed) during harvest (thinning and group selection), road construction, road reconstruction, and waterhole construction, particularly during tree felling and moving soil with heavy equipment. Any effects

87

would be short term, occurring only during the activities and limited to the activity area. Individuals in underground retreats, at the base of trees, and under large logs would be protected from direct impacts. Compliance with RLRMP standards, including the stream filter zones, would protect individuals in riparian areas from harm.

Fire line construction may crush some snails; others would be able to relocate. Snails are most abundant in the humus layer, leaf litter, rocks, and wood on the forest floor (Burch and Pearce 1990). Because these species occur within leaf litter, some mortality could occur as a result of the burning. However, during dry periods (suitable for burning) most would remain in the humus or the moist bottom layer of the leaf litter (Royal BC Museum 2006) or under logs and rocks. Low intensity fire generally burns in a mosaic pattern; leaving much of the cove forests untouched. Moist leaf litter generally does not burn and fire does not consume the majority of large woody debris, so refuge such as large logs and rocks would remain. These refuges are the most important habitat component and the main limiting factor for their success. If individuals are lost, remaining ones would be capable of repopulating as they are hermaphrodites and can fertilize themselves (Burch and Pearce 1990).

Negative and long-term indirect effects would occur in potential habitat. Harvest (thinning and group selection) would increase sunlight to the forest floor causing leaf litter to dry out, and increased surface temperatures. This may cause snails to relocate to more moist conditions in adjacent stands. However, snails are able to survive dry periods, sometimes for years (Burch and Pearce 1990). Habitat would remain in harvested areas in the form of underground retreats, slash piles, and logs. By protecting them from dry conditions and predators, refugia are the most important limiting factor for these animals (Burch and Pearce 1990). Over the years, canopy cover would increase to more suitable conditions, and the snails should return to the area.

Where complete burning of the leaf litter does take place, habitat conditions would temporarily become unfavorable. The loss of their protective cover would result in movements to unburned areas, exposing snails to predation. Snails are not able to move quickly or over much distance, and do not generally move around except to find food and for reproduction (NatureServe 2012). The unburned patches would continue to provide habitat within the affected areas. Another layer of leaf litter would return the next autumn. Burning does not greatly reduce snail diversity (Royal BC Museum 2006), and small snails have been found in previously burned areas on the Nantahala National Forest. These impacts would be short-term and populations would persist in the areas.

Only a small amount of habitat would be lost where road construction occurs. Road maintenance would have some beneficial indirect effects; the addition of limestone gravel on the roads would provide an additional source of calcium for shell production (Burch and Pearce 1990). After implementation, the snails would use the areas again. Wetland improvements would still allow shaded conditions and would not affect habitat to any degree. The addition of grouse drumming logs would improve habitat conditions in the future.

Waterhole construction may provide a small amount of habitat in drier areas. Nest box installation, tree planting, and road authorization would not cause any impacts.

Although snail habitat would be altered in the Long Buck Project area, the amount available across the analysis area would remain sufficient to support habitat requirements. Because the

88

activities would occur over an extended period of time (years), and are scattered across the watershed, the alternatives may have localized negative impacts, but would not cause long-term effects to the population trends in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the glossy supercoil resulting from this alternative.

Alternative B: Combined with past silvicultural activities, past and future burning, the alternatives would have a negative cumulative effect on these snails. Burning combined with the proposed harvest activities would decrease suitable habitat in the analysis area due to the loss of large woody debris (cover), shading, increased sunlight, and elevated temperatures on the forest floor. Habitat would remain widely available in adjacent stands and across the analysis area and populations would persist, so these negative cumulative effects would not contribute to the decline of these species or their habitats across the Nantahala National Forest. The implementation of other management treatments for the Brushy Flats Project and also the stands that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are the only reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect the glossy supercoil.

Determination of Effect:

Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the glossy supercoil.

Alternatives B: Treatments may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of glossy supercoil.

Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog Turtle)

Bog turtles inhabit slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens, marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub swamps; the habitat usually contains an abundance of sedges or mossy cover. The turtles depend on a mosaic of microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter (NatureServe 2015). "Unfragmented riparian systems that are sufficiently dynamic to allow the natural creation of open habitat are needed to compensate for ecological succession" (NatureServe 2015). Beaver, deer, and cattle may be instrumental in maintaining the essential open-canopy wetlands (NatureServe 2015).

The areas suggested for harvest or other work are not suitable habitat for this species. Accordingly, Glyptemys muhlenbergii was not subjected to analysis.

89

Table 3.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest sensitive terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B May indirectly impact individuals, but would Eurycea junaluska No Impacts not impact the viability of this species across Junaluska salamander the forest. May indirectly impact individuals, but would Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Impacts not impact the viability of this species across Bald eagle the forest. May indirectly impact individuals, but would Speyeria diana No Impacts not impact the viability of this species across Diana fritillary the forest. May indirectly impact individuals, but would Paravitrea placentula No Impacts not impact the viability of this species across Glossy supercoil the forest. Glyptemys muhlenbergii No Impacts No Impacts Bog Turtle

3.4 Effects Determinations for Sensitive Species

Determination of Effect: Alternative B implementing treatments to the Long Buck Project would have no impacts to any sensitive aquatic species because none occur within the proposed treatment areas and any effects of this project would dissipate prior to reaching suitable habitats for these species.

Implementation of the Long Buck Project may directly impact individuals of the Junaluska salamander, bald eagle, Diana fritillary, and the glossy supercoil, but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for this species across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Treatments to the Long Buck Project would have no impact to any other terrestrial wildlife species because none are known to occur within the proposed treatment areas.

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.

90

Species Evaluated and Rationale

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

Thirty 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 Cherokee County. Twenty-one forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These 21 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 4 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 forest concern aquatic species have been conducted within the Long Buck aquatic analysis areas. These surveys consist of mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Electrofishing surveys have also been conducted in analysis area waters by the NCWRC and the USFS. Aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations within the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2010).

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 or results of additional surveys would not alter project design. 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.

91

Table 4.1.1: Known and potential forest concern aquatic species in Cherokee County evaluated for the Long Buck Project. Species Type Habitat Occurrence Cryptobranchus Amphibian Little Tennessee River and Hiwassee May occur alleganiensis River basins Luxilis Fish Little Tennessee River and Hiwassee May occur chrysocephalus River basins Moxostoma sp. 2 Fish Little Tennessee River and Hiwassee May occur River basins Elimia christyi Gastropod Shuler Creek, Hiwassee River May occur downstream of Apalachia Lake

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: The proposed thinning, prescribed burning, log landings, skid trail and skid road construction, routine road maintenance, herbicide spraying of harvest unit skid trails, rehabilitation of wildlife openings, and invasive species removal would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas. In addition, any disturbed ground would be seeded to prevent erosion. Skid trails would not require construction of a cut and fill slope; therefore, there would be very little ground disturbance that could produce sediment. Skid roads would manage runoff with water bars. Following timber harvest, skid trails and skid roads would be seeded and closed to prevent visible sediment from entering any streams. The routine road maintenance would involve minor road surface repair, placement of gravel, and reseeding. These actions are unlikely to increase measurable sedimentation because the work would be done during dry periods and the disturbed soil would be either hardened with gravel or seeded to control erosion. The proposed reservoir fish habitat improvements would have no negative impacts to any aquatic forest concern species. The fish habitat improvements on Hiwassee Lake and Apalachia Lake may improve juvenile habitat for the Sicklefin Redhorse by increasing habitat complexity.

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 would have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas and adverse effects of timber management would be avoided by implementation of the project design features and BMP’s. BMP effectiveness monitoring in 2013 found that the overall effectiveness of BMPs in

92

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).

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 aquatic forest concern species 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 Brushy Flats Project is currently planned for the Shuler Creek watershed. Potential effects of this project include minor sedimentation during log fish barrier removal and stream bank stabilization. These activities would also restore fish passage for the native fish community. There are no other past, ongoing, or planned activities on public lands within the project area that would cause adverse effects to the aquatic resources. Private lands within the analysis area are characterized as low density residential. There may be sedimentation from some of these private lands but these effects are widely dispersed and would not be cumulative with the Long Buck Project. There would be no long-term cumulative effects to stream turbidity resulting from these actions.

93

The cumulative impacts resulting from this project and any past ongoing, or foreseeable future actions to the forest concern aquatic species would be incidental loss of individuals due to crushing at the stream restoration location on Shuler Creek. The cumulative effects of the Long Buck Project Alternative B would result in increased turbidity on lower Shuler Creek and would affect approximately 0.4 mile of streams (approximately 0.01% of streams within the analysis area). These effects would only result from the Brushy Flats Project.

Determination of Effect: Alternative B of the Long Buck Project may impact individuals of the aquatic forest concern species but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because the effects of the proposed treatments would dissipate rapidly after activities are completed.

Table 4.1.2: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern aquatic species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No Impacts May Impact Individuals Luxilis chrysocephalus No Impacts May Impact Individuals Moxostoma sp. 2 No Impacts May Impact Individuals Elimia christyi No Impacts May Impact Individuals

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).

Species Evaluated and Rationale

The process for consideration and evaluation of TES and FC plant species was described above in the Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Botanical Resources section (Section 2.2). Five forest concern species occur in the Long Buck botanical analysis area (Table 4.2.1). One forest concern botanical species was located in proposed activity areas during botanical surveys; purple sedge (Carex purpurifera). Prior to surveying, an analysis was conducted to see what rare species were documented from the area and might potentially occur within the treatment area. Three rare plant species were noted from within 2 km of the treatment areas within the botanical analysis area: A liverwort (Lophocolea appalachiana) known from deeply shaded, wet, noncalcareous rocks near streams and seeps; Northern green orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) occurs in southern Appalachian bogs and swamp forest-bog complexs; mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata) occurs in acidic cove forests; and Short’s aster (Symphotrichum shortii) is characteristic of Rich Cove Forest and rich Montane Oak-Hickory Forest with a high pH and a diversity of cove wildflowers and at low-moderate elevations (above 2000’). These three plants were not found in the treatment area during botanical surveys (Raleigh et al. 2016).

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). 94

No other forest concern plant species were located within proposed treatment areas during surveys (Raleigh et al. 2016).

Table 4.2.1: Documented forest concern plant species in the Long Buck Project. Species Common Name Natural Communities/Habitat Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest Lophocolea A Liverwort Streams and seeps appalachiana Platanthera flava var. Northern Green Orchid Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp herbiola Forest-Bog Complex Stewartia ovata Mountain Camellia Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Symphyotrichum shortii Short's Aster Roadside, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Rich Cove Forest

Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species

PURPLE SEDGE (Carex purpurifera) Purple sedge occurs in moist, deciduous and sometimes mixed deciduous-evergreen forests, on calcareous or nutrient-rich soils in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina (five westernmost counties), Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia (FNA 2016 and Weakley 2016). The botanical contractors located purple sedge at five locations in 25-30 clumps in and around stands 9-16 and 9-8 in rich cover forest and montane oak-hickory forest (Raleigh et al. 2016).

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

Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatment: The proposed silvicultural treatments include shelterwood with reserves for all stands in the project area. There are two stands proposed for shelterwood with reserves treatment that contain scattered populations of purple sedge in the project area (9-8 and 9-16). Individual purple sedge plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects a 100 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of purple sedge.

Site Preparation with Hand Tools and Site Preparation and Release with Herbicide: purple sedge occurs in two stands (9-8 and 9-16) proposed for site preparation with hand tools and site preparation and release with herbicide treatments. Individual purple sedge plants may be directly impacted by these operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following these activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects a 100 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around known populations of purple sedge.

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest 95

management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of purple sedge. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include treatments proposed for stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for purple sedge. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of purple sedge will be buffered by a 100 foot no activity buffer.

A LIVERWORT (Lophocolea appalachiana) Lophocolea appalachiana usually occurs near waterfalls on dripping rocks in habitat with deep shade and noncalcareous rocks in montane habitat (NatureServe 2016). The liverwort is known to occur in the Long Buck botanical analysis area along a stream approximately 0.15 kilometers from stand 11-17.

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

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for Lophocolea appalachiana.

NORTHERN GREEN ORCHID (Platanthera flava var. herbiola) Northern green orchid flowers from May through August and can be found in alluvial forests, riparian thickets, wet meadows, wet prairies, and seeps (FNA 2016). The plant ranges from Minnesota and Ontario in the northwest to Labrador and Newfoundland in the east, south to North Carolina and west to Missouri (FNA 2016). The plant is known to occur in the Long Buck botanical analysis area along a stream corridor approximately 1.4 kilometers from stand 11-17.

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

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for Northern green orchid.

96

MOUNTAIN CAMELLIA (Stewartia ovata) Mountain camellia is a plant of the mountains and foothills of the southeast and occurs in shaded, moist ravines and gorges in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee (FNA 2016). In North Carolina the plant is found in the mountains of the far west where it is mostly found in acidic woods, alluvial forest, and coves (Raleigh et al. 2016). Threats to this species include land-use conversion and habitat fragmentation (FNA 2016). The botanical contractors found non-flowering individuals in one location in the botanical analysis area (Raleigh et al. 2016). The contractors reported that one plant was found in alluvial forest along a creek in stand 8-23 (Raleigh et al. 2016).

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

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for mountain camellia.

SHORT’S ASTER (Symphyotrichum shortii)

Short’s aster flowers from August through October and can be found in open, often thin, rocky, well-drained soils, in oak-hickory woods, edges of woods, thickets, calcareous hammocks, wooded stream banks or cliffs, and roadsides (FNA 2016). The plant ranges across eastern North America from Ontario to Florida (FNA 2016). The plant is known to occur in the Long Buck botanical analysis area along a stream corridor approximately 1.3 kilometers from stand 8- 6.

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

Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A and Alternative B would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A and Alternative B: These alternatives would have a “No Impact” determination for Short’s aster.

Table 4.2.2: The impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Carex purpurifera No Impact No Impact Lophocolea No Impact No Impact appalachiana Platanthera flava var. No Impact No Impact herbiola Stewartia ovata No Impact No Impact Symphyotrichum shortii No Impact No Impact 97

4.3 Wildlife Resources

The wildlife analysis area has been described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

The process for consideration and evaluation of rare wildlife species was described above in Section 2.3 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Wildlife Resources. The NCNHP Database was queried for occurrences of terrestrial wildlife forest concern species in Cherokee County. Thirty-eight forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These species were then filtered based upon habitat information and the availability of those habitats adjacent to the terrestrial wildlife AA. After this filtering step, three forest concern species remained and all others were dropped from further analysis. Please refer to Table 4.3.1.

Table 4.3.1: Forest Concern wildlife species that are known to occur or may occur within the Long Buck Project wildlife analysis area. Species Type Habitat Location Plethodon Chattahoochee Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests wildlife Chattahoochee slimy in extreme southwestern counties analysis salamander area Hemidactylium scutatum Amphibian Sphagnum bogs, grassy areas wildlife four-toed salamander surrounding beaver ponds and analysis deciduous or mixed forests rich with area mosses Ambystoma talpoideum Amphibian Forested habitats, pine forests, wildlife mole salamander occasionally under logs and leaf litter analysis area Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Hillsides, grassy pools, and ditches, activity mountain chorus frog typically distant from water areas Plethodon shermani Amphibian Mesic forest, often under leaf-litter, may occur red-legged salamander logs, or mossy rocks Plethodon aureoles Amphibian Montane oak forests may occur Tellico salamander Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Shrubland and old fields, forest may occur blue-winged warbler openings and edges Elimia christyi Gastropod Hiwassee River, Shuler Creek, and wildlife Christy’s elmia Valley River, Cherokee County, analysis North Carolina area Glyphyalinia junaluskana Gastropod Rocky places among forest debris of may occur dark glyph mixed hardwood communities Autochton cellus Insect Moist, steep woodlands may occur golden banded skipper Corynorhinus rafinesquii Mammal Mature forests near permanent may occur rafinesquii waterbodies

98

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Myotis austroriparius Mammal Mature forests near permanent may occur Southern myotis waterbodies Graptemys geographica Reptile Ponds, rivers, and lakes may occur common map turtle Sternotherus minor Reptile Wetlands; clear waters with sand may occur loggerhead musk turtle bottoms and submerged fallen trees and snags such as spring heads and runs Pituophis melanoleucus Reptile Dry mountain ridges may occur melanoleucus Northern pinesnake

Effects of Alternatives on Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Concern Species

Mountain chorus frog (Pseudacris brachyphona)

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

Alternative B: The mountain chorus frog occurs in a variety of small wetlands in the east- central United States, ranging eastward only into the extreme southwestern tip of North Carolina (Cherokee and Clay counties). In this region, it is found mainly in ditches, but also can be found in marshes, wet meadows, and pools – usually not inside forests but typically along forest margins or near forests. Two-to-three individuals were heard calling by Ed Schwartzman and by Lori Williams (N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission) on March 10, 2010, along the west side of Shuler Creek Road less than 0.5-mile from the junction with Joe Brown Highway. There is a small wetland at the base of steep slopes in stand 1-22.

Silvicultural treatments and temporary road construction could cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with activity areas. While direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. Silvicultural treatments would not occur in wetland and riparian areas because such sites would be buffered from activities that would impact habitat. Consequently harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of chorus frog habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact the chorus frog because it would be unlikely that an individual 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.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the chorus frog resulting from the no action alternative. Alternative B: Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Brushy Flats Project and stands in Compartments 3, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 that are being considered for regeneration between 2018 and 2022 would not have a measurable cumulative impact to the chorus frog.

99

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the chorus frog. Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the chorus frog.

Plethodon chattahoochee (Chattahoochee slimy salamander); Hemidactylium scutatum (four- toed salamander)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on these salamander species because no action would be taken.

Alternative B: Silvicultural treatments and temporary road construction could cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with activity areas. While direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. Silvicultural treatments would not occur in wetland and riparian areas because such sites would be buffered from activities that would impact habitat. Consequently harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of preferred habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact these salamanders because it would be unlikely that an individual 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.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the Chattahoochee slimy salamander or the four-toed salamander resulting from the no action alternative. Alternative B: Past actions and the reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting from other treatments in the AA would not have a measurable cumulative impact to the Chattahoochee slimy salamander or the four-toed salamander.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the chorus frog. Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the Chattahoochee slimy salamander or the four-toed salamander.

Autochton cellus (golden banded skipper)

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

Alternative B: The golden banded skipper has been documented in Cherokee, Graham, Macon, and Swain Counties. This species has a high potential to occur in moist woods near streams or ponds. Adults feed on nectar from blackberry, trailing arbutus, hollyhock, and abelia. Hog peanut is the primary host plant for caterpillars (Opler et al. 2006). General habitat exists within the analysis area; this habitat includes moist woods and streams. Adult nectar plants and host plants (blackberry and hog-peanut) are also present within the analysis area.

Direct impacts to individuals may result from the proposed silvicultural treatments, as any individuals present within the analysis area could be crushed or directly displaced during land clearing activities. Nectar and host plants would be impacted as a result of the proposed action.

100

Due to the tendency of blackberry to colonize disturbed areas, it may reestablish itself along portions of roadside within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects: The impacts of past actions such as timber sales could have crushed plants with eggs or caterpillars. These impacts may also result from the proposed action. Blackberry and hog-peanut may recolonize after road construction activities, although blackberry is more likely. Due to the relatively small size of the proposed treatment areas and the widespread availability of habitat and host/nectar plants across the forest, cumulative effects, if any, are expected to be imperceptible across the Long Buck AA.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the golden banded skipper. Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the golden banded skipper.

Ambystoma talpoideum (mole salamander); Plethodon shermani (red-legged salamander); Plethodon aureoles (Tellico salamander); Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus (Northern pinesnake)

These species are grouped together because they utilize similar habitats and would be subject to similar effects. The geographic range of these species covers much of the southwestern tip of North Carolina, including the analysis area. Based on the presence of the forest types associated with these species, one or more may occur within the analysis area.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A would have no direct or indirect impacts to these species. Under Alternative B, direct impacts to the mole salamander, red-legged salamander, Tellico salamander, and Northern pinesnake may result during the implementation of silvicultural treatments and temporary road construction. Individuals within the activity areas could be subject to crushing or displacement during construction. Due to the limited extent of disturbance in the Long Buck project, indirect impacts in the form of habitat loss are expected to be minimal.

Cumulative Effects: Past actions that may have affected the mole salamander, red-legged salamander, Tellico salamander, and Northern pinesnake in the analysis area include road building and timber extraction. As wildlife surveys were not conducted prior to those past events, the Forest Service cannot determine past effects to the mole salamander, red-legged salamander, Tellico salamander, and Northern pinesnake. Due to the absence of direct effects to individuals, as well as the lack of indirect negative effects associated with the proposed action, there are no cumulative effects to these species from this project. Due to the limited extent of direct and indirect impacts, versus the distribution of this species and availability of optimal habitat across the forest, any cumulative effects to these species are expected to be imperceptible.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A would have no effects on the mole salamander, red- legged salamander, Tellico salamander, and Northern pinesnake. Potential direct impacts to individuals under Alternative B could occur during construction; indirect impacts to habitat are expected to be imperceptible. This project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of these species.

101

Vermivora cyanoptera (blue-winged warbler)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct effect on the blue-winged warbler because no action would be taken. Indirect effects include a loss of habitat as brushy areas in younger stands are replaced by mature forest conditions over time.

Alternative B: Silvicultural treatments are projected to improve habitat conditions favored by the blue-winged warbler (BWWA). The BWWA 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. BWWA is reliant on ESH in forested landscapes and would benefit from the creation of suitable young forest habitat.

Timber harvest would create more brushy areas which might enhance BWWA habitat. Logging operations would not adversely affect the BWWA or its current habitat as it would fly away from potentially hazardous situations and habitat would be enhanced by the creation of new ESH. Directed herbicide use for NNIP and stump sprouts of undesirable tree species in harvest units would not impact the BWWA because individuals would not ingest enough insects exposed to herbicide to experience an adverse effect.

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

Alternative B: Past harvest would have had similar effects to the proposed silvicultural treatments. These actions may cumulatively enhance BWWA that exists within burn units or harvest units.

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

Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the BWWA.

Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii (Rafinesque’s big-eared bat); Myotis austroriparius (Southern myotis)

Information on the habitat and life history of these bats is not extensive. In the southern portions of its range, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat has a high potential to utilize abandoned buildings or caves for summer roosting and maternity colonies. Southern myotis has a higher potential to utilize hollow trees. Both species appear to favor areas near permanent water bodies.

Due to the lack of caves or buildings, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is not likely to utilize the analysis area for roosting or maternity colonies. Soutehern myotis, however, may roost and breed in forests in the AA. Both species may use the analysis area for foraging.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on either species because no action would be taken. Alternative B: No direct impacts are

102

anticipated; possible indirect impacts may be the creation of potential foraging areas associated with ESH.

Cumulative Effects: Due to the absence of direct impacts, negative indirect impacts, and the small amount of potential foraging habitat created under the proposed action, no cumulative effects to the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and Southern myotis are anticipated.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on either bat species. Alternative B: 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 and Southern myotis.

Graptemys geographica (common map turtle); Sternotherus minor (loggerhead musk turtle)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effect on the common map turtle and the loggerhead musk turtle because no action would be taken.

Alternative B: Silvicultural treatments and temporary road construction could cause direct mortality through crushing if individuals occur with activity areas. While direct effects may occur if individuals are present, these activities are unlikely to cause detrimental indirect effects. Silvicultural treatments would not occur in wetland, spring, stream, and riparian areas because such sites would be buffered from activities that would impact habitat. Consequently harvest activities would be unlikely to reduce the availability of preferred habitat. Herbicide treatments would not impact these turtles because it would be unlikely that an individual would be directly sprayed nor would the proposed herbicide treatments reduce availability of potential habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects: Alternative A: In the absence of direct and indirect effects, there would be no effects on the common map turtle or the loggerhead musk turtle resulting from the no action alternative. Alternative B: Past actions and the reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting from other treatments in the Long Buck AA would not have a measurable cumulative impact to the common map turtle and the loggerhead musk turtle.

Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would have no impact on the common map turtle and the loggerhead musk turtle. Alternative B: This alternative may impact individuals but would not lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest for the common map turtle and the loggerhead musk turtle.

Glyphyalinia junaluskana (dark glyph); Elimia christyi (Christy’s elmia)

Seven species of Forest Concern land snails have been recorded on Forest Service lands in Cherokee and adjacent counties. These species include: Glyphyalinia junaluskana and Elimia christyi. Preferred habitat for these species varies, but typically includes leaf litter in deciduous forests.

Existing Condition: Due to the lack of specific habitat preference information for these two species, it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility that both occur within the analysis

103

area. However, it is considered unlikely that any of these species are present. Snail surveys have been conducted for other Forest Service projects in similar habitats in Cherokee County and Clay County. No rare gastropods were documented during those surveys.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Due to the low likelihood that this species occurs within or near the proposed treatment areas, no direct or indirect impacts as a result of this project are anticipated.

Cumulative Effects: Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, there would be no cumulative effects as a result of this project.

Determination of Effect: The Long Buck project may impact individuals but is not likely to lead toward federal listing or a decrease in viability across the forest.

Table 4.3.2: Determination of effect of each alternative of the Long Buck Project on the evaluated forest concern terrestrial animal species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Plethodon Chattahoochee No Impacts May impact individuals Chattahoochee slimy salamander Hemidactylium scutatum May impact individuals No Impacts four-toed salamander Ambystoma talpoideum May impact individuals No Impacts mole salamander Pseudacris brachyphona May impact individuals No Impacts mountain chorus frog Plethodon shermani May impact individuals No Impacts red-legged salamander Plethodon aureoles May impact individuals No Impacts Tellico salamander Vermivora cyanoptera May impact individuals No Impacts blue-winged warbler Elimia christyi May impact individuals No Impacts Christy’s elmia Glyphyalinia junaluskana May impact individuals No Impacts dark glyph Autochton cellus May impact individuals No Impacts golden banded skipper Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii May impact individuals No Impacts Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Myotis austroriparius May impact individuals No Impacts Southern myotis Graptemys geographica May impact individuals No Impacts common map turtle Sternotherus minor May impact individuals No Impacts loggerhead musk turtle Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus May impact individuals No Impacts Northern pinesnake

104

5.0 PREPARERS

Jason Farmer, Fisheries Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Matt Bushman, Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Johnny Wills, Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest

April 2, 2017

Matt Bushman Botanist Nantahala National Forest Nantahala Ranger District 90 Sloan Road Franklin, NC 28734

105

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.

Cooper, J.E. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22: 87 – 132.

Dillon, R.T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interrupta (Hald.) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission contract No. 92-Snai-01. 20 pages.

Dodd, B.N. and D. Jones. 2013. 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.

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.

106

Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional structure. Aquatic Insects 9:229-251.

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages.

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97-CCS-230.

NatureServe. 2015. Online database: http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?post_processes=PostReset&loadTemplate=n ameSearchSpecies.wmt&Type=Reset . Accessed September 3, 2015.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2015. 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.

107

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

Flora of North America (FNA). 2016. Available at www.eFloras.org.

NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Raleigh, L., K. Caldwell, and E. Schwartzman. 2016. Long Buck Botanical Survey - Nantahala National Forest, Cherokee County, North Carolina.

Renzaglia K.S. and K.D. McFarland. 1999. Antheridial plants of Megaceros aenigmaticus in the Southern Appalachians: Anatomy, ultrastructure and population distribution. Haussknechtia 9(Beiheft): 307-316.

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.

Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic State. University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Wildlife

Barr, T.C. 1962. The Genus Trechus (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechini) in the Southern Appalachians. The Coleopterists Society, 16(3):65-92

Beamer, D.A., & T. Lamb. 2010. Population status, distribution, and phylogeography of the seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) in North Carolina. Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Bess, J. 2005. Conservation Assessment for Stoneroot borer moth (Papaipema astuta Bird). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region non-publication, 30pp.

Best, T.L, & J.B. Jennings. 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian, 547:1-6

108

Bond, B.T et al. 2002. Short-term response of eastern cottontails to prescribed fire in east-central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife agencies, 56:187- 197

Buehler, D.A. et al. 2013. Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/511doi:10.2173/bna.511 Confer, J.L. et al. 2011. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/020doi:10.2173/bna.20

Connell, P.M. Species Profile – Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/anurans/psebra.htm

Partymiller, L. Species Profile – Loggerhead Musk Turtle (Sternotherus minor). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/turtles/stemin.htm

COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Barren Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 36pp. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/CW69-14-586-2010-eng.pdf

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/lizards/Eumant/Eum_ant.html

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_NC/anurans/Psebra/Pse_bra.html

Dorcas, M. Species Profile – Pygmy Salamander (Desmognathus wrighti). Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://www.herpsofnc.org/herps_of_nc/salamanders/Deswri/Des_wri.html

Dourson, D. & J. Dourson. 2006. Land Snails of the Great Smoky Mountains (Eastern Region). Developed for Appalachian Highlands Science Learning Center, Purchase Knob, Great Smoky Mountains National Park in cooperation with ATBI/Discover Life in America project. 60pp.

Ford, W.M. et al. 2010. Woodland salamander response to two prescribed fires in the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management, 260:1003-1009.

Ford, W.M. et al. 1999. Effects of a community restoration fire on small mammals and herpetofauna in the southern Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management, 114:233-243.

109

Forrest, T.G. & T.K. Goodman. 2008. A survey of Scudderia septentrionalis in western North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science, 124(4):148-153.

Francl, K.E. & C.J. Small. 2013. Temporal changes and prescribed-fire effects on vegetation and small-mammal communities in central Appalachian forest, creek, and field habitats. Southeastern Naturalist, 12(1):11-26.

Gill, F.B. et al. 2001. Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/584doi:10.2173/bna.584

Greenberg, C.H. & T.A. Waldrop. 2008. Short-term response of reptiles and amphibians to prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction in a southern Appalachian upland hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 255:2883-2893

Hedin, M.C. 1997. Speciational history in a diverse clade of habitat-specialized spiders (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus): Inferences from geographic based sampling. Evolution, 51(6):1929-1945

Jordan, S.F. & Black, S.H. 2012. Effects of forest land management on terrestrial mollusks: a literature review. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation under an agreement with the Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management,87pp

LeGrand, H.E. 2013. Butterflies of North Carolina, Twentieth Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program non-publication.

LeGrand, H.E. et al. 2013. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina 2012, Revised February 27, 2013. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 160pp.

Morrison, B. Species Profile – Long-tailed Salamander (Eurycea longicauda). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/salamanders/eurlon.htm

Morrison, B. Species Profile – Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus). Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Accessed on November 6, 2013 at http://srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/pitmel.htm

Morse, A.P. 1904. New Acridiidae from the southeastern states. Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 11(1):7-13.

Otte, D. 2002. Studies of Melanoplus. 1. Review of the Viridipes Group (Acrididae: Melanoplinae). Journal of Orthoptera Research, 11(2):91-118.

Roth, A.M., et al. 2012. Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 175pp

110

Russell, K.R. et al. 1999. Appalachian cottontails, Sylvilagus obscurus (Lagomorpha: Leporidae), from the South Carolina mountains with observations on habitat use. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 115(3): 140-144

Schweitzer, D.F. & J.C. Whittaker. 2000. Cicindela patruela. NatureServe Explorer Version 7.1. Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Schweitzer, D.F., et al. 2011. Rare, Declining, and Poorly Known Butterflies and Moths (Lepidoptera) of Forests and Woodlands in the Eastern United States. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 526pp.

Sharpe, T. 1996. Wildlife Profiles –Appalachian Cottontail Rabbit. Division of Conservation Education, NC Wildlife Resources Commission

Taylor, D.A.R. 2006. Forest Management & Bats. Bat Conservation International.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; Listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024;4500030113], 78(191):61046-61080.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 1, 2010. 2pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated February 5, 2009. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Amendment to the Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 5, 2005. 3pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Biological Opinion on the effects of implementing the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, on the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Dated April 7, 2000. 93pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Amendment #25 to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Direction and Standards for the Protection of the Indiana Bat. Dated November 9, 2010. 16pp.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2013. Northern map turtle (Graptemys geographica). Accessed November 6, 2013 at http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030065

111

7.0 ATTACHMENTS

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. Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Cherokee, Swain Co.; New River; Macon, Swain

112

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution 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 Crustacean Cambarus carolinus Little Tennessee River & Hiwassee River drainages. Burrowing species; bogs, and edges of small spring-fed streams; within 10 feet of standing water. Crustacean Cambarus sp. A Streams in Hiwassee & New River drainages. Riffles of large streams and rivers. Crustacean Cambarus tuckasegee Streams in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson and Macon Counties Crustacean Skistodiaptomus Lake Ravenel, Macon Co. carolinensis Dragonfly Ladona julia Bogs and marshes in Tuckasegee River watershed; Jackson County Fish Clinostomus funduloides Little TN River drainage and Hiwassee sp. 1 River watershed; Cherokee, Clay,Graham, Jackson, Macon, and Swain Co. Fish Cyprinella spiloptera Moderate to large streams in Cherokee & Macon Counties. Fish Erimystax insignis Hiwassee River, Cherokee and Clay Co. eristigma

Fish Etheostoma inscriptum Large streams in Savannah River system; Jackson and Macon Counties Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Reported in Little TN River system and Hiwassee River watershed; Cherokee, Clay, Macon, Swain, Jackson Co.; Cane River system Fish Moxostoma breviceps Cherokee, Jackson, Macon and Swain Counties

113

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 Little TN and Hiwassee River drainages – Cherokee, Clay, Jackson, Macon, Swain Fish Moxostoma carinatum Hiwassee River & Little Tennessee River, Cherokee, Graham, & Macon Counties Fish Notropis micropteryx Cherokee, 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 Gastropod Elimia christyi Hiwassee River and tributaries (Cherokee County) 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 Zapada chila Small streams, Beech Flat Prong, Tuckasegee River watershed - Swain Co.; Ashe Co.

114

Attachment 1b: Endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive aquatic species evaluated for the Long Buck Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring rare aquatic species from Cherokee County, NC. Potential occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat.

Type Name Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area Threatened and Endangered Species Mollusk Pegias fabula Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Villosa iris Not likely to occur3 Sensitive Species Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Not likely to occur1 Fish Percina squamata Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Lasmigona holstonia Not likely to occur1 Mollusk Fusconaia barnesiana Not likely to occur1 Forest Concern Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis May occur Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Fusconaia subrotunda Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis Not likely to occur1 Bivalve Villosa iris Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Cambarus carolinus Not likely to occur1 Crustacean Cambarus sp. A Not likely to occur1 Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 Not likely to occur1 Fish Cyprinella spiloptera Not likely to occur1 Fish Erimystax insignis eristigma Not likely to occur1 Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus May occur Fish Moxostoma breviceps Not likely to occur1 Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 May occur Fish Moxostoma carinatum Not likely to occur1 Fish Notropis micropteryx Not likely to occur1 Gastropod Elimia christyi May occur Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Not likely to occur1 Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae Not likely to occur1 Stonefly Zapada chila Not likely to occur1

Notes:

1 = No suitable habitat present or vicinity records in the analysis area, but the species may be present in the county. 2 = Suitable habitat present, but no vicinity records. 3 = Vicinity records, in or downstream of the analysis area, but not necessarily in project area.

115

Attachment 1c: Aquatic resources in the Hiwassee River watershed contained in the Long Buck Project area. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class B waters are suitable for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the “C” classification. High Quality Waters (HQW) are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies, native and special native trout waters, critical habitat areas designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission or the Department of Agriculture. The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout (NCDENR classifications).

Miles in Project Miles in Analysis Classification Stream Name Area Area Shuler Creek 2.39 8.46 C UT1 Shuler Creek 0.50 0.50 UT2 Shuler Creek - 0.54 UT3 Shuler Creek 0.18 0.92 UT4 Shuler Creek 0.70 2.46 UT5 Shuler Creek 0.28 0.52 UT6 Shuler Creek 0.33 0.86 Buckberry Branch 0.59 0.85 C; Tr North Shoal Creek 0.41 7.00 C UT North Shoal Creek 0.25 1.09 Moccasin Creek 0.18 2.20 C; Tr UT1 Hiwassee River 0.19 0.57 UT2 Hiwassee River - 0.77 UT3 Hiwassee River 0.09 0.70

116

Attachment 2: Threatened, Endangered, Region 8 Sensitive, and Forest Concern plant species in Cherokee County, North Carolina.

COMMON FOREST NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND SPECIES NAME FORM STATUS HABITAT Nothoceros aenigmaticus A Hornwort Hornwort Sensitive Stream An Aquatic Peltigera venosa Lichen Lichen Sensitive Stream Lophocolea appalachiana A Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff Plagiochila Forest Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in ludoviciana A Liverwort Liverwort concern Gorge Plagiochila sullivantii var. Sullivant's Leafy sullivantii Liverwort Liverwort Sensitive Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest American Vascular Forest Glade, Serpentine Woodland, Mafic Buchnera americana Bluehearts plant concern Woodland Vascular Forest Serpentine Woodland, Montane Oak- Calamagrostis porteri Porter's Reedgrass plant concern Hickory Forest Campanula Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet aparinoides Marsh Bellflower plant concern Meadow Vascular Forest Montane Alluvial Forest, Roadside, Carex cherokeensis Cherokee Sedge plant concern Rich Cove Forest High Elevation Seep, Southern Vascular Forest Appalachian Bog, Marsh, Wet Meadow, Carex projecta Necklace Sedge plant concern Montane Alluvial Forest Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Carex purpurifera Purple Sedge plant concern Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Vascular Forest Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- Carex woodii Wood's Sedge plant concern Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest American Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- Celastrus scandens Bittersweet plant concern Hickory, mafic rock Small Spreading Vascular Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak Cleistesiopsis bifaria Pogonia plant Sensitive Woodland, Shortleaf Pine Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Frasera caroliniensis Columbo plant concern Forest White Pine Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Small Whorled Vascular Acidic Cove Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Isotria medeoloides Pogonia plant Threatened Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Earle's Blazing Vascular Forest Liatris squarrulosa Star plant concern Roadside, Pine-Oak Woodland Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Vascular Dry Oak-Hickory,Dry-Mesic Oak Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap plant Sensitive Forest, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest

117

Orbexilum pedunculatum var. Sampson's Vascular Forest pedunculatum Snakeroot plant concern open woodlands Serpentine Woodland, Southern Pedicularis Swamp Vascular Forest Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, Wet lanceolata Lousewort plant concern Meadow Platanthera flava var. Northern Green Vascular Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp herbiola Orchid plant concern Forest-Bog Complex Platanthera White Fringeless Vascular High Elevation Seep, Southern integrilabia Orchid plant Threatened Appalachian Bog Vascular Sabatia capitata Rose Gentian plant Sensitive Glade, Pine-Oak Woodlands Alabama Grape Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Sceptridium jenmanii Fern plant Sensitive Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Vascular Northern Hardwood Forest, Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap plant Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest Mountain Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Silene ovata Catchfly plant Sensitive Roadside, mafic rock Vascular Forest Montane Oak Woodland, Mesic Oak- Spigelia marilandica Pink root plant concern Hickory, White Pine Forest Mountain Vascular Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Stewartia ovata Camellia plant concern Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Symphyotrichum Vascular Forest Roadside, Montane Oak-Hickory shortii Short's Aster plant concern Forest, Rich Cove Forest Thalictrum Small-leaved Vascular Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine macrostylum Meadowrue plant Sensitive Forest, moist woods? Vascular Forest Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Trientalis borealis Starflower plant concern Forest Bent White Vascular Forest Trillium flexipes Trillium plant concern Rich Cove Forest Southern Nodding Vascular Trillium rugelii Trillium plant Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, low elevation Sweet White Vascular Trillium simile Trillium plant Sensitive Rich Cove Forest

118

Attachment 3: Federally proposed, endangered, and threatened, Region 8 sensitive, and National Forests in North Carolina forest concern terrestrial animal species Species Type Habitat Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species Microhexura montivaga Arachnid In moss of spruce-fir forests (endemic to NC & Spruce-fir moss spider (Endangere adjacent TN) d) Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Mammal High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir and northern Carolina northern flying (Endangere hardwood above 4,000’ squirrel d) Myotis grisescens Mammal Roosts in caves; forages mainly over open water Gray bat (Endangere d) Myotis septentrionalis Mammal Roost in hollow trees and under loose bark and Northern long-eared bat (Proposed) snags (warmer months); in caves and mines (winter months) Myotis sodalis Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and under loose bark and Indiana bat (Endangere snags (warmer months); in caves (winter months) d) Patera clarki nantahala Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site in Swain Co) Noonday globe Gastropod (Threatene d) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Desmognathus santeetlah Amphibian Stream headwaters and seepage areas; southwestern Santeetlah dusky salamander mountains Eurycea junaluska Amphibian Forests near seeps and streams in the Cheoah River Junaluska salamander system

Plethodon aureolus Amphibian Forests in the Unicoi Mountains Tellico salamander Plethodon teyahalee Amphibian Moist forests at all elevations Southern Appalachian salamander Nesticus cooperi Arachnid Caves and along Nantahala River (apparently Lost Nantahala cave spider endemic to this area) Nesticus mimus Arachnid Rocky areas; known from Grandfather Mountain and a cave spider Table Rock; also in VA Nesticus sheari Arachnid On ground in moist or rich forests (apparently a cave spider endemic to Graham Co); Known from Joyce Kilmer Wilderness & Wright Creek Nesticus silvanus Arachnid Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to a cave spider southern mountains); Known from Water Rock Knob, Jackson County at 5,800’; Ellijay Creek, Macon County at 2,500’; Steestachee Bald, Haywood County at 4,799’

119

Species Type Habitat Falco peregrinus Bird Cliffs (for nesting); coastal ponds and mudflats (for Peregrine falcon foraging in winter) Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Mature forests near large bodies of water (for Bald eagle nesting); lakes and sounds Thryomanes bewickii altus Bird Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy Appalachian Bewick’s wren fields at high elevations [breeding season only] Trechus carolinae Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from the a ground beetle summit of Mt. Mitchell Trechus luculentus unicoi Beetle Apparently the mountains of Graham Co; known a ground beetle from Clingman’s Dome in Swain Co, Haw Knob and Laurel Top in Monroe Co, TN and Graham Co, NC above 5,200’ Trechus mitchellensis Beetle Black Mountains (endemic to NC); Known from a ground beetle Celo Mountain and Mt. Mitchell, Yancey Co, Balsam Gap, Buncombe Co, and Pinnacle Mountain, McDowell Co usually between 5,000-5,500’ Trechus rosenbergi Beetle Plott Balsam and Great Balsam mountains (endemic a ground beetle to NC); Known from Water Rock Knob, Haywood & Jackson Counties and Richland Balsam, Haywood Co above 6,000’ Trechus satanicus Beetle Vicinity of Devils Courthouse and Graveyard Fields a ground beetle (endemic to NC) Callophrys irus Butterfly Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; Frosted elfin host plants: lupines (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia) Speyeria diana Butterfly Montane and foothill forest edges and openings; host Diana fritillary plant: violets (Viola) Melanoplus divergens Grasshoppe Glades and balds, 1,800-4,717’ Divergent melanoplus r/ Katydid Melanoplus serrulatus Grasshoppe Valley and lower slopes in the Nantahala Mountains Serrulate melanoplus r/ Katydid Scudderia septentrionalis Grasshoppe Mature oak, hickory, and maple forests Northern bush katydid r/ Katydid Euchlaena milnei Moth Habitats uncertain but are probably riparian Milne’s euchlaena (Graham) Semiothisa fraserata Moth Spruce-fir forests with Fraser fir Fraser fir geometrid moth Microtus chrotorrhinus Mammal Rocky areas at high elevations, forests or fields carolinensis Southern rock vole Myotis leibii Mammal Roosts in hollow trees and in rock crevices (warmer Eastern small-footed bat months), in caves and mines (winter) Sorex palustris punctulatus Mammal Stream banks in montane forest with rhododendron Southern water shrew cover

120

Species Type Habitat Pallifera hemphilli Terrestrial High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir Black mantleslug Gastropod Paravitrea placentula Terrestrial Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines Glossy supercoil Gastropod Glyptemys muhlenbergii Reptile Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets Bog turtle [T(S/A)]* [*threatened by similarity of appearance] Forest Concern Species Aneides aeneus Amphibian Damp, shaded crevices of cliffs or rock outcrops in Green salamander deciduous forests (southern mountains) Desmognathus aeneus Amphibian Seeps, springs, or streams in forests in extreme Seepage salamander southwestern counties Desmognathus folkertsi Amphibian Small streams and seeps in forests (Clay) Dwarf blackbelly salamander Desmognathus wrighti Amphibian Mid- to high elevation forests, often in spruce-fir; Southern pigmy salamander west of the French Broad River Eurycea longicauda Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for Longtail salamander breeding Plethodon chattahoochee Amphibian Moist forests in the southwestern counties; close to Chattahoochee slimy the GA border (Clay) salamander Plethodon cheoah Amphibian Mesic forests on Cheoah Bald (endemic to this area) Cheoah Bald salamander Pseudacris brachyphona Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains; small ponds for Mountain chorus frog breeding Nesticus sp. 1 Arachnid Habitat not indicated (known only from Jackson and a nesticid spider Transylvania Counties, NC & Oconee Co, SC Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 Bird Spruce-fir forests or mixed hardwood/spruce forests Northern saw-whet owl – (for nesting) [breeding season only] southern Appalachian population Catharus guttatus Bird Spruce-fir forests (for nesting) [breeding season Hermit thrush only] Coccyzus erythropthalmus Bird Deciduous forests, mainly at higher elevations Black-billed cuckoo [breeding season and habitat only’ Contopus cooperi Bird Montane conifer forests (mainly spruce-fir) with Olive-side flycatcher openings or dead trees [breeding season only] Empidonax alnorum Bird High elevation shrub/sapling thickets [breeding Alder flycatcher season only] Loxia curvirostra pop. 1 Bird Coniferous forests, preferably spruce-fir [breeding Southern Appalachian red season only] crossbill Poecile atricapillus practica Bird High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir [breeding Southern Appalachian black- season only] capped chickadee

121

Species Type Habitat Setophaga cerulea Bird Mature hardwood forests; steep slopes and coves in Cerulean warbler mountains [breeding season only] Setophaga coronata Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands Yellow-rumped warbler [breeding season only] Setophaga magnolia Bird Spruce-fir forests, especially in immature stands Magnolia warbler [breeding season only] Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Old fields and successional hardwoods [breeding Golden-winged warbler season only] Vermivora cyanoptera Bird Low elevation brushy fields and thickets [breeding Blue-winged warbler season only] Vireo gilvus Bird Groves of hardwoods along rivers and streams Warbling vireo [breeding season only] Cicindela patruela Beetle Sandy soil in open pine or pine-oak woods Northern barrens tiger beetle Autochton cellus Butterfly Moist woods near streams; host plant: hog peanut Golden banded skipper (Amphicarpaea bracteata) Celastrina nigra Butterfly Rich, moist deciduous forests; host plant: goat’s Dusky azure beard (Aruncus dioicus) Chlosyne gorgone Butterfly Woodland openings and borders; host plants: Gorgone checkerspot sunflowers, rosinweeds, and other tall composites Erynnis martialis Butterfly Upland woods and wooded edges; host plant: New Mottled duskywing Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) Euchloe olympia Butterfly High elevation openings and glades; host plants: Olympia marble cresses (Arabis) Euphydryas phaeton Butterfly Bogs, marshes, wet meadows; rarely in upland Baltimore checkerspot woods; host plants: turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove (Aureolaria) Papilio cresphontes Butterfly Primarily coastal in maritime forests or thickets; also Giant swallowtail in foothills and mountains near hoptree; host plants: prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum) and hoptree (Ptelea) Phyciodes batesii maconensis Butterfly Woodland openings, glades, and road banks at Tawny crescent higher elevations; host plants: asters, mainly Symphyotrichum undulatum Polygonia faunus smythi Butterfly Spruce, fir, or hemlock forests, where mixed with Smyth’s green comma hardwoods; host plants: mainly birches Polygonia progne Butterfly Rich deciduous forests; host plants: mainly Gray comma gooseberries (Ribes) Satyrium caryaevorus Butterfly Mid- to high elevation deciduous forests; host Hickory hairstreak plants: primarily hickories (Carya) Satyrium edwardsii Butterfly Scrubby or xeric oak woods; host plants: mainly Edward’s hairstreak oaks (Quercus) Speyeria aphrodite cullasaja Butterfly Forest openings and edges west of the Little Cullasaja aphrodite fritillary Tennessee River; host plants: violets (Viola) Melanoplus decoratus Grasshoppe Dry woodlands Decorated melanoplus r

122

Species Type Habitat 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 astute Moth Open oak woodland and barrens; host plant: Yellow stoneroot borer moth stoneroot (Collinsonia canadensis) Corynorhinus rafinesquii Mammal Roosts in caves, mines, and hollow trees, usually rafinesquii near water Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Mustela nivalis Mammal Fields and forests, mostly at high elevations Least weasel Sylvilagus obscurus Mammal Dense cover of montane wood and thickets Appalachian cottontail Appalachina chilhoweensis Terrestrial Cove hardwoods Queen crater Gastropod Fumonelix jonesiana Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Newfound Big-tooth covert Gastropod Gap area of Great Smoky Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Fumonelix orestes Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Plott Engraved covert Gastropod Balsam mountains (endemic to this area) Fumonelix wheatley Terrestrial Clingman’s Dome region of Great Smoky clingmanicus Gastropod Mountains National Park (endemic to this area) Clingman’s covert Glyphyalinia junaluska Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Dark glyph Gastropod Glyphyalinia pentadelphia Terrestrial Cove hardwoods; southwestern mountains Pink glyph Gastropod Haplotrema kendeighi Terrestrial Mountainsides in leaf litter, usually above 2,000’; Blue-footed lancetooth Gastropod southwestern mountains Helicodiscus bonamicus Terrestrial Nantahala Gorge vicinity (endemic to this area) Spiral coil Gastropod Helicodiscus fimbriatus Terrestrial Rocky soils; extreme southwestern corner of the Fringed coil Gastropod state Helicodiscus saludensis Terrestrial No habitat or locality data Corncob snail Gastropod Inflectarius ferrissi Terrestrial Spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests; Great Smoky Mountain covert Gastropod Smoky Mountains and Plott Balsams (endemic to these ranges) Inflectarius verus Terrestrial Forests (Swain) a snail Gastropod

123

Species Type Habitat Paravitrea bellona Terrestrial Wooded river bluffs and ravines Club supercoil Gastropod Paravitrea clappi Terrestrial High elevations in the Great Smoky Mountains Mirey Ridge supercoil Gastropod National Park Paravitrea lacteodens Terrestrial Leaf litter on mountainsides in Graham County Ramp Cove supercoil Gastropod (endemic to this area) Paravitrea umbilicaris Terrestrial Cove forests with rocky slopes; extreme Open supercoil Gastropod southwestern mountains Patera clarki clarki Terrestrial Forested mountainsides Dwarf proud globe Gastropod Pilsbryna nodopalma Terrestrial Rock outcrops and rocky hillsides Oar tooth bud Gastropod Stenotrema depilatum Terrestrial Great Smoky Mountains National Park (essentially Great Smoky slitmouth Gastropod endemic to this area) Striatura exigua Terrestrial Swampy woods and moist forests Ribbed striate Gastropod Zonitoides patuloides Terrestrial Cove hardwoods in deep leaf litter; southwestern Appalachian gloss Gastropod mountains Eumeces anthracinus Reptile Rocky slopes, wooded hillsides, roadbanks Coal skink Graptemys geographica Reptile Rivers in the Hiwassee system Common map turtle Pituophis melanoleucus Reptile Dry and sandy woods, mainly in pine/oak sandhills melanoleucus Northern pine snake Sternotherus minor Reptile Streams and rivers in Mississippi drainage Loggerhead musk turtle

124