Environmental Assessment in Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Other Relevant Federal and State Laws and Regulations

Home , Black sculpin, Lespedeza cuneata, Lygodium palmatum, Pellia, Prosartes maculata, Symplocos tinctoria

United States Department of Environmental Agriculture

Forest Assessment Service

June 2007 Buck Bald

Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts, Cherokee National Forest Polk and Monroe Counties, Tennessee

For Information Contact: Janan Hay 250 Ranger Station Road Tellico Plains, TN 37385 423-253-8405 southernregion.fs.fed.us/cherokee

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 9 Decision Framework ...... 9 Public Involvement ...... 17 Issues ...... 17 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 18 Alternatives ...... 18 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...... 19 Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ...... 19 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 20 Environmental Consequences ...... 21 Biological Factors ...... 22 Social/Economic Factors ...... 64 Physical Factors ...... 79 Consultation and Coordination ...... 98 References ...... 100

i INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: • Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that 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 analysis-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tellico Ranger District Office in Tellico Plains, TN. Background ______The following information is derived from the Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) (USDA 2004a) and the Upper Hiwassee River Watershed Assessment (USDA Unpublished); key points pertinent to the Buck Bald Area are recapped here. For millennia the Southern Appalachian forest ecosystem, of which the Cherokee National Forest and this analysis area (Compartments 114, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 137 which are located, roughly, five miles south of Tellico Plains, TN - see Figure 1) are a

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

2 part, existed in a state of dynamic equilibrium. The permanent composition of most forest canopy types was determined spatially by the natural factors of slope, elevation, aspect, soil characteristics, and canopy shade. Forest canopy composition on dry ridge crests and slopes was influenced by these same factors but also by low-intensity fire. Euro-American land-use practices carried out during the late 19th and early 20th centuries significantly altered the forest ecosystem. These activities and their effects were not discrete but cumulative. Among the more destructive practices were unregulated logging; intensive, cyclical, fires instigated for grazing and wildlife habitat improvement; extirpation of native wildlife species (beaver, otter, and passenger pigeon); and introduction of non-native diseases (chestnut blight). Collectively, the massive adverse environmental effects these practices and land-use patterns produced compelled the acquisition of much of the Southern Appalachian Mountains by the Forest Service in order to halt the rampant environmental degradation. The most significant historic effects of Forest Service management have been: restoring and maintaining watersheds; managing wildlife habitats; abating soil erosion and restoring duff layers; suppressing fires; and managing a sustained-yield merchantable timber program. The present canopy composition and regime have been altered significantly as a consequence of these past land management practices. White pine, a fire-intolerant species, which grew best in moist coves and northern aspects of lower slopes, is now found reproducing generally throughout the forest. While, fire-tolerant or “fire-dependant” species such as shortleaf, pitch and table mountain pine, previously documented in the canopies of the dry ridge crests often as “pure” canopy types (>66%) have now been much reduced or virtually extirpated from their former sites. The presence today of prolifically-seeding, fast-growing, fire- and shade intolerant, short-lived Virginia pine in the canopy of much of the Southern Appalachians clearly illustrates the effects these past activities and historic management policies have had on the forest ecosystem. Virginia pine was documented as a minor component of the canopy types of the upper slopes and ridge crests. It was, typically, a minor, species in the forest canopy, serving, like locust and pin cherry, as a temporary type that occupied places of “intermission” in the regime of the canopy types resulting from disturbance events. Its emergence in the forest canopy subsequent to Euro- American-induced disturbances, serves as a benchmark for the overall alteration of the ecosystem. As a consequence of unregulated logging and fire suppression, literally tens of thousands of acres are covered with Virginia pine. As these trees succumb to southern pine beetles or die of old age they, increase the fire fuel load on sites where fire would normally not be a significant factor. Game habitat management has been both a mandate and an important function of national forest land management since the inception of the agency. Hunting was an integral use of the forest prior to acquisition into the National Forest system and remains, even today, among the most popular pastimes on these lands. The most sought after game species are turkey, deer, grouse, bear and boar. The CNF provides habitat for a high diversity of plant and animal communities linked to broad gradients of topography, elevation, and rainfall. The CNF provides key nesting, denning or feeding habitat for about 400 species of terrestrial vertebrates and 150 species of fish. The number of invertebrates is unknown, but could include as many as 20,000 species. The diversity and biomass of amphibians is exceptionally high within CNF and surrounding Blue Ridge

3 Mountains, including many endemic species. Habitats are managed therefore, to support a diverse mix of terrestrial plant and animal habitat conditions. Vegetative restoration and wildlife habitat management are not mutually exclusive. Timber harvests, including shelterwood and seedtree cuts, and prescribed burning result in diverse wildlife habitats. Purpose and Need for Action ______The RLRMP made broad decisions regarding allocation of land and measures necessary to manage national forest resources. The RLRMP establishes direction for the multiple use management and sustained yield of goods and services for all National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Cherokee National Forest (CNF) boundaries. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources could be provided from these lands now and in the future (desired future condition). The RLRMP further allocates land into Management Prescriptions (MPs). A MP is a selected grouping of NFS lands with similar land and resource characteristics and similar management goals. MPs provide a more specific set of goals and objectives, which help lead to the forests overall desired future condition (DFC). Table 1 display the MPs and Figure 2 shows their distribution in this analysis area.

Table 1. Acres of NFS lands are displayed by Management Prescription 4B 7B 8B 9H 11 Coker Hiwassee Early Ecological Riparian Management Creek River Successional Restoration Corridors Total Prescription Scenic Sensitive Habitat Area Viewshed Acres 40 363 219 4,982 1,048 6,652

% of Area 1% 5% 3% 75% 16% 100%

Figure 2. Management prescriptions in the Buck bald Analysis Area

The 4F MP emphasizes the protection and enhancement of the scenic qualities and natural beauty of the Coker Creek Scenic Area. Forest Service management practices focus on maintenance of the existing scenery, recreation, watershed, and aquatic resources and values of the area.

5 The 7B MP emphasizes providing, through maintenance or restoration and design, high-quality scenery in the sensitive Hiwassee River corridor. The 8B MP emphasizes optimal to suitable habitat for a variety of upland game species and plants and animals associated with the lush re-growth of vegetation that follows a disturbance. The 9H MP emphasizes restoring forest communities to those plant communities predicted as most likely to occur in each ecological unit based upon their ecological potential. This may be accomplished through silvicultural activities such as prescribed burning; mechanical and chemical vegetation control; uneven-aged, two-aged, and even-aged silvicultural methods. This prescription is aimed at managing and restoring landscape vegetative community patterns to their ecological potential while providing suitable to optimal habitats to support populations of the plant and animal species within these communities, resulting in a very high likelihood that all native species within these associations continue to persist on NFS lands. The 11 MP defines a corridor around perennial and intermittent bodies of water. These corridors are managed to retain, restore and/or enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions related to aquatic, riparian, and upland components within the corridor. Goals, objectives, and standards were developed for the CNF and each MP to permit management activities that would lead an area toward its desired future condition. The following are the goals and objectives that the Buck Bald proposal is designed to address: Goal 10 Maintain and restore natural communities in amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting viable populations of existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife species within the planning area. Goal 12 Provide breeding, wintering, and migration staging and stopover habitat for migratory birds in ways that contributes to their long-term conservation. Objective 12.02 during the first ten years of plan implementation cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to increase structural habitat diversity in up to 5 percent of closed- canopy, mid- and late-successional mesic deciduous forest, including old growth restoration areas, by retaining large trees and creating small gaps suitable for Cerulean warbler and associated species. Goal 14 Contribute to conservation and recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species and avoid actions that would lead to federal listing of other species under the Endangered Species Act. Objective 14.02 Provide upland water sources approximately every 0.5 miles, to provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Water sources are comprised of both permanent ponds and ephemeral pools and are often located in openings or near road corridors that allow access by bats. Goal 15 Minimize adverse effects of invasive non-native species. Control such species where feasible and necessary to protect national forest resources. Objective 15.02 Control non-native and unwanted native species, where they threatened TES [threatened, endangered and sensitive species] elements, ecological integrity of communities, or habitat created for demand species.

6 Goal 17 Restore and maintain forest communities to those plant communities predicted as most likely to occur based on the ecological potential of the site potential natural vegetation. Objective 17.02 Over the ten-year period restore oak or oak/pine forests on at least 9,000 acres of appropriate sites currently occupied by pine plantations or other sites with minimal diversity. Objective 17.03 Over the ten-year period restore at least 10,000 acres of shortleaf/pitch/table- mountain pine forests. Objective 17.05 Reduce the acreage of Virginia pine forest through restoration of fire adapted pine or oak communities Objective 17.06 Restore at least 5,700 acres in dry and xeric oak and pine-oak forests to open woodlands, savannas, and grasslands over a ten year period. Goal 18 Contribute to maintenance or restoration of native tree species whose role in forest ecosystems is threatened by insects and disease. Management activities will reduce the impacts from non-native invasive species. Objective 18.02 Promote the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining a site- specific basal area that promotes tree vigor. Encourage advanced regeneration of oak species. Goal 19 Where forest management activities are needed and appropriate to achieve the desired composition, structure, function, productivity, public health and safety, and sustainability of forest ecosystems; a result of such activities will also be to provide wood products for local needs. Objective 19.01 Provide 33,726 MCF of sawtimber per decade. Objective 19.02 Provide 6,242 MCF of pulpwood per decade. Goal 21 Use fire during dormant and growing seasons to achieve ecological sustainability, rehabilitation, and restoration of fire dependant and associated communities. Identify and establish appropriate “burning blocks” that facilitate the use of prescribed fire to maintain and restore fire dependant and associated communities. Objective 21.03 Prescribe burn an average of 2,600 acres per year of open woodlands, savannas, and grasslands in an effort to maintain a fire return cycle of 4-12 years in dry and xeric forest, woodlands, grasslands and savannas. Goal 30 Provide a spectrum of high quality nature-based recreation settings and opportunities that reflect the unique or exceptional resources of the CNF and the interests of the recreating public on an environmentally sound and financially sustainable basis. Adapt manage of recreation facilities and opportunities as needed to shift limited resources to those opportunities. Goal 31 Where financially and environmentally feasible, enhance the following opportunities: water based activities, sightseeing, camping, hunting, fishing, driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing/nature study, day-use and group facilities, non-motorized trail systems for hiking, biking and equestrian use, designated OHV routes, special interest areas, interpretation and conservation education. Goal 47 Construct, reconstruct and maintain roads to reduce sediment delivery to water bodies.

7 Goal 48 Provide a transportation system that supplies safe and efficient access for forest users while protecting forest resources. Emphasize acquisition of rights-of-way or fee simple titles as appropriate to facilitate maintenance and meet access needs. Goal 51 Construct new NFSR only where allowed by prescription and where existing roads are inadequate to meet the need. Objective MA 5-1.01 In the upper Hiwassee River watershed, priority Forest Service Roads to maintain and improve to reduce the movement of accelerated sediment from roads to tributary streams of the Hiwassee River include 311 and 23. Objective 9.H-1.01 Manage: forest successional stages to maintain a minimum of 50 percent of forested acres in mid-late successional forest, including old growth; a minimum of 20 percent of forested acres in late-successional forest, including old growth; and 4 to 10 percent in early successional forest. The RLRMP established broad goals and objectives for the entire CNF while the Upper Hiwassee River Watershed Assessment (USDA unpublished) further defined the existing and desired conditions for this specific area. The Buck Bald Environmental Assessment is the project implementation document that is tiered down from these documents. Comparison of the goals, objectives, and standards with the existing conditions within the analysis area identifies those areas where efforts should be focused and management activities could take place. Table 2 displays the differences between the DFC and the existing condition of the analysis area in relation to several quantifiable objectives. There are also opportunities not listed in the table for the accomplishment of other RLRMP objectives. The difference between DFC and existing conditions provide opportunities for management activities that can lead this area toward the DFC. Table 2. Comparison of Selected Objectives by Condition Total forested NFS acres = 6,594 Objectives/Standard Desired Existing Proposed Action Maintain a minimum of 50% 3,326+ acres 4,801 ac (73%) 4,305 ac (65%) of forested acres in mid to late successional forest including old growth Maintain a minimum of 20% 1,330+ acres 2,922 ac (44%) 2,583ac (39%) of forested acres in late successional forest including old growth Maintain 4 to 10% of forested 264-659 acres 196 ac (3%) 692 ac (10%)* acres in early successional These are previously Proposed action adds 496 forest planned SPB ac (7%) to the existing restoration acres. early succession (196 Ac, 3%) for the above figure.

Increase structural habitat 30 acres 0 39 acres diversity in up to 5 percent of closed-canopy, mid- and late- successional mesic deciduous forest Provide upland water sources 1 every .5 mile < 1 every .5 mile 1 every .5 mile approximately every 0.5 miles *The area of proposed regeneration (496 acres) plus planned restoration (196 acres) exceeds the 0-10 early successional objective by approximately 33 acres. Actual early successional habitat created would be less than the figure given due to riparian standards and other mitigations. 8 The following summarizes the purpose and need of the proposed action in this area. • It will restore oak and oak-pine communities on approximately 366 acres. • It improves structural habitat diversity on approximately 39 acres. • It will convert dry and mesic oak and pine stands to woodlands, savannas and grasslands on approximately 93 acres. • It will improve forest health and tree vigor by diversifying age classes. • It increases the amount of 0-10 age class in 2008 from approximately 3% of the forested acres to approximately 10%. • It will maintain approximately 21 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings. • It will improve and restore native species composition by promoting the establishment and development of oak, shortleaf pine, and other native species. • It will provide control of non-native invasive plant species. • It will increase the number of upland water sources, which provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Proposed Action ______The Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts are proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need. Maps of the proposed action are displayed in Figures 3-5 on pages 14-16.

Silvicultural Treatments – Proposed Activities 1) Restore natural oak and oak-pine communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 366 acres of existing forested stands that have been altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. Restore these stands to forested communities that would naturally occur on these sites. These are mostly upland sites that would support “dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests”. Regeneration sources would be existing seedlings, coppice or stump sprouts. Activities would occur on the following stands: Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation 131/9 37 Shelterwood with Site preparation burn; natural regeneration reserves 132/11 29 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 132/13 36 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 132/22 39 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 132/31 40 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 133/9 40 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 133/15 40 Shelterwood with Site preparation burn; natural regeneration reserves 133/20 40 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves

9 134/13 39 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 137/20 13 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves 137/21 13 Shelterwood with Natural regeneration reserves TOTAL 366

2) Restore shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 130 acres of existing forested stands that have been altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. These are mostly ridge sites that would support “xeric pine and pine-oak forests” within which fire has historically played an important role in shaping species composition. To ensure desired conditions are achieved, herbicide applications (triclopyr) would be applied in the second year after planting. Activities would occur on the following stands: Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation 131/20 39 Seedtree with Manual site preparation with prescribed reserves burning; plant shortleaf pine 12X12; 2nd year chemical release with triclopyr. 132/19 31 Seedtree with Manual site preparation with prescribed reserves burning; plant shortleaf pine 12X12; 2nd year chemical release with triclopyr. 133/13 30 Seedtree with Manual site preparation with prescribed reserves burning; plant shortleaf pine 12X12; 2nd year chemical release with triclopyr. 137/5 30 Seedtree with Manual site preparation with prescribed reserves burning; plant shortleaf pine 12X12; 2nd year chemical release with triclopyr. TOTAL 130

3) Improve forest health by diversifying age classes or promoting tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on up to 216 acres of existing forested stands that are heavily stocked or have been otherwise altered from desired conditions due to previous land use. Thinning or release in these stands would promote tree vigor, increase browse in the understory, and promote the development of advanced oak regeneration. Activities would occur on the following stands: Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation Chemical release (triclopyr) for planted 131/5 32 Sapling release pine and naturally occurring oak 133/4 103 Thinning None 134/7 27 Group Selection Natural regeneration in groups 134/14 54 Group Selection Natural regeneration in groups TOTAL 216

10 4) Increase structural diversity in closed canopied mid and late successional mesic deciduous forests on up to 39 acres of existing forested stands. Activities would occur on the following stands: Comp/Std Acres Treatment Reforestation 114/21 39 Group Selection Chemical (cut stump) site preparation/plant 30X30 red oak in groups and 2ed yr chemical release TOTAL 39

The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP objectives. Each action will not necessarily achieve every objective. Objective 12.02 During the first ten years of plan implementation, cooperate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to increase structural habitat diversity in up to 5 percent of closed-canopy, mid- and late-successional mesic deciduous forest, including old growth restoration areas, by retaining large trees and creating small gaps suitable for Cerulean warbler and associated species. Objective 17.02 Over the 10-year period, restore oak or oak-pine forests on at least 9,000 acres of appropriate sites currently occupied by pine plantations or other sites with minimal diversity. Objective 17.03 Over the 10-year period, restore at least 10,000 acres of shortleaf/pitch/Table- Mountain pine forests. Objective 17.05 Over the 10-year period, reduce the acreage of Virginia pine forest by at least 25,000 acres, through restoration of fire-adapted pine or oak communities. Objective 18.02 Promote the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining a site- specific basal area that promotes tree vigor. Encourage advanced regeneration of oak species. Objective 19.01 Provide 33,726 MCF of sawtimber per decade. Objective 19.02 Provide 6,242 MCF of pulpwood per decade. Objective 9.H-1.01 Manage forest successional stages to maintain a minimum of 50 percent of forested acres in mid-late successional forest, including old growth; a minimum of 20 percent of forested acres in late-successional forest, including old growth; and 4 to 10 percent in early successional forest.

Additional Wildlife Habitat Improvements – Proposed Activities 1) Create ephemeral pools for amphibians and bats in temporary roads and log landings. Approximately 10-30 pools (up to .25 acre each). 2) Control non-native invasive herbaceous species using the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate. Species can include, but are not limited to, kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, fescue and mimosa. The sites for possible treatment are: the area 100 feet on either side National Forest System Roads (NFSR) listed below; existing wildlife spot openings; and one known kudzu patch (133/14, 4 acres); totaling approximately 570 acres.

11 NFSR Miles NFSR Miles

311 5.5 40 1.7 2131-1 3.7 198 .75 2133 1.8 2114 1.7 311A 1.1 2131 1.35 311B .85 11317 .75 2137 1.2

3) Maintain approximately 21 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings. Maintenance activities typically include, but are not limited to, mowing, fertilizing, sowing, day- lighting, and rehabilitation. 4) Restore approximately 93 acres of open woodlands, savannas, or grasslands on sites that would naturally support these communities. Treatments associated with restoring woodland conditions may; include cutting of understory and midstory vegetation (thinning) with chainsaws or other hand tools to expose the forest floor to additional sunlight, prescribed burning on a rotation suitable to reduce woody vegetation in the understory and encourage establishment of desired herbaceous vegetation, and herbicide application to reduce sprouting of woody vegetation. Thinning activities would occur on the following stands: Compartment 134 stands 22 (43 acres) and 36 (50 acres). In order to use roads and natural barriers for firelines around these stands, burning would occur on approximately 450 acres. Approximately 800 feet of handline would need to be constructed. The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP objectives. Each action will not necessarily achieve every objective: Goal 10 Maintain and restore natural communities in amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting viable populations of existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife species within the planning area. Objective 14.02 Provide upland water sources approximately every 0.5 miles, to provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Water sources are comprised of both permanent ponds and ephemeral pools and are often located in openings or near road corridors that allow access by bats. Objective 15.02 Control non-native and unwanted native species, where they threatened TES [threatened, endangered and sensitive species] elements, ecological integrity of communities, or habitat created for demand species. Objective 17.06 Restore at least 5,700 acres in dry and xeric oak and pine-oak forests to open woodlands, savannas, and grasslands over a ten year period. Goal 21 Use fire during dormant and growing seasons to achieve ecological sustainability, rehabilitation, and restoration of fire dependant and associated communities. Identify and establish appropriate “burning blocks” that facilitate the use of prescribed fire to maintain and restore fire dependant and associated communities.

12 Objective 21.03 Prescribe burn an average of 2,600 acres per year of open woodlands, savannas, and grasslands in an effort to maintain a fire return cycle of 4-12 years in dry and xeric forest, woodlands, grasslands and savannas.

Transportation Improvements – Proposed Activities 1) Construct 5.5 miles of temporary roads to access various treatment units. Stabilize, close, and seed with wildlife preferred species after project activities are completed. 2) Reconstruct 23.2 miles of existing system roads to bring them up to haul standards. Work would consist of widening curves, spot placing gravel, brushing, minor re-shaping, improving overall drainage, upgrading culverts, and replacing gates. (See Transportation Analysis in project file for details by road). The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP goals: Goal 47 Construct, reconstruct and maintain roads to reduce sediment delivery to water bodies. Goal 48 Provide a transportation system that supplies safe and efficient access for forest users while protecting forest resources. Goal 51 Construct new NFSR only where allowed by prescription and where existing roads are inadequate to meet the need. Objective MA 5-1.01 In the upper Hiwassee River watershed, priority Forest Service Roads to maintain and improve to reduce the movement of accelerated sediment from roads to tributary streams of the Hiwassee River include 311 and 23.

Recreation – Proposed Activities 1) Maintain the grassy nature of Buck Bald by cutting woody stems and brush, treating with herbicides, and burning. Activities would occur on the following site: Compartment 134/Stand 41(6 acres). The activities described above would contribute to meeting the following RLRMP objectives: Goal 30 Provide a spectrum of high quality nature-based recreation settings and opportunities that reflect the unique or exceptional resources of the CNF and the interests of the recreating public on an environmentally sound and financially sustainable basis. Adapt manage of recreation facilities and opportunities as needed to shift limited resources to those opportunities. Goal 31 Where financially and environmentally feasible, enhance the following opportunities: water based activities, sightseeing, camping, hunting, fishing, driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing/nature study, day-use and group facilities, non-motorized trail systems for hiking, biking and equestrian use, designated OHV routes, special interest areas, interpretation and conservation education.

Decision Framework ______The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action, or another alternative in order to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposal. Public Involvement ______Scoping, to solicit the issues and concerns related to the Proposed Action started on September 7, 2006. Letters (see Project File) were mailed to approximately 56 interested and affected agencies, organizations, tribes, individuals and adjacent landowners. See the Consultation and Coordination section of this document for a listing of the interested and affected agencies, organizations, tribes, individuals and adjacent landowners contacted. These letters informed recipients of the Proposed Action and requested their input. Additional information was sent to those that requested it. The proposal was also listed in the Cherokee National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in April, July, and October 2006 and January 2007. Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and tribes, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of issues to address. Issues ______The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found at the CNF Tellico Ranger District in the project record. Significant issues were derived from the responses received from the public and by the IDT. The issues carried forward and used to develop alternatives are the following:

• The amounts, arrangements, and conditions of habitats are not in the optimal ratio to support native fish and wildlife species within the analysis area.

• White and Virginia pine, fire-intolerant species, are now found reproducing generally throughout the forest having replaced shortleaf, pitch, table mountain pine, and other pine or pine-oak communities on the landscape.

• Habitats that promote early successional wildlife species, including: open woodlands, savannahs, and grasslands; native warm-season grass fields; and young growth (early succession) in the general forest, are below optima.

• Terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the analysis area host locally rare species.

17 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Buck Bald project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives ______Alternative A No Action Under the No Action alternative, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural processes and disturbances. No project activities would be implemented.

Alternative B The Proposed Action This is the proposal that was scoped to the public. A more detailed account of the proposed activities is presented in the previous chapter. In this alternative the Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts are proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need:

• Restore natural oak and oak-pine communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 366 acres of existing forested stands

• Restore shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak communities through silvicultural treatments on up to 130 acres of existing forested stands

• Improve forest health by diversifying age classes or promoting tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on up to 216 acres of existing forested stands

• Control non-native invasive herbaceous species

• Create ephemeral pools

• Maintain approximately 21 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings

• Restore approximately 93 acres of open woodlands, savannas, or grasslands

• Construct 5.5 miles of temporary roads

• Reconstruct 23.2 miles of existing system roads to bring them up to haul standards

• Maintain the grassy nature of Buck Bald

18 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ______Alternative C An issue that surfaced internally during the scoping period was to use prescribed fire to accomplish those activities which are proposed to be achieved through timber harvest and chemical treatments. It was subsequently determined that this proposal was not feasible for meeting the desired diversification of the stands, controlling the target non-native invasive plant species, or rehabilitating Buck Bald.

Alternative D An alternative was originally considered that included more stands which would have resulted in achieving more acres toward meeting RLRMP objectives. After detailed field reviews these stands were dropped from inclusion in the project due to various resource constraints (riparian areas, rare plant locations, etc.). Mitigation Common to All Alternatives ______The RLRMP contains Forest Wide, Management Prescription specific, and Management Area specific standards that mitigate adverse effects to all resources. These standards are part of all action alternatives. To comply with Forest Wide Standard 28 (“Protect individuals and locations of other species needed to maintain their viability within the planning area. Site specific analysis of proposed management actions will identify any protective measures”.) the following protective measures would be followed: • Data on the location of individuals of Carex purpurifera (limestone purple sedge) would be used during sale layout to ensure that impacts to this species are minimized.

• Data on the location of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. (Large yellow lady slipper) would be used during sale layout in an attempt to protect this site; however, protection is not required and would only be implemented if it is feasible within the silvicultural objectives of the unit.

• The sites of known Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern) and Liparis liliifolia (large twayblade orchid) would be avoided if possible by the designation of a no-skid zone during harvest activities.

• Clump of trees have been marked delineating the sites of known Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower) and Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banter) and timber would be directionally felled away from this zones whenever possible. Also, no skidding would take place within the marked area whenever possible. Additional mitigation measures were also developed to reduce impacts from the alternatives. The following mitigation measures are in addition to those required by the RLRMP.

19 • Coordinate with Tusquitee Ranger District with regard to regeneration of stands that border the state line, especially stand 133/15. Buffer strips or other measures may be needed. Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 3 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 3. Alternative Comparison ACTIVITY UNITS ALT. A ALT. B VEGETATION Seedtree with reserves Acres 0 130 Shelterwood with reserves Acres 0 366 Thinning Acres 0 103 Group selection Acres 0 120 Site Preparation - Manual and Burning Acres 0 130 Burning Acres 0 77 Chemical Acres 0 13 Regeneration - Pine planting Acres 0 130 Oak planting Acres 0 13 Natural Acres 0 393 Seedling release - Chemical Acres 0 143 Sapling release-chemical Acres 0 32 Early successional habitat Acres 196 692 TRANSPORTATION Road Reconstruction Miles 0 23.2 Temporary Roads Miles 0 5.5 Maintenance Miles 2 2 WILDLIFE Maintenance of linear and spot openings Acres 19 21 Creation of ephemeral pools Number 0 10-30 Woodland restoration Thinning 93 Burning Acres 0 450 Non-native invasive control chemical Acres 0 570 RECREATION Maintain Buck Bald Acres 0 6

20 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected analysis area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above. The lands of the Buck Bald analysis area are made up of 24 acquisition tracts or portions of tracts (USDA undated). The largest portion of the analysis area is a portion of the 89,000+ acre K-1 Tract. The K-1 Tract was purchased by the Forest Service from the Tennessee Land Company in 1912 under provisions of the Weeks Act of 1911. It was one of the first acquisitions of the CNF. When the tract was purchased by the Forest Service, the seller retained logging rights to portions of the tract. The other tracts in the analysis area have a similar land use history of industrial ownership. The analysis area was extensively logged between the 1910’s and the 1940’s with peak logging probably occurring in the 1920’s and 1930’s. The area was sparsely settled before Forest Service acquisition. Typically the local population relied on subsistence farming and logging. It was common practice to use fire to clear and maintain fields and forest for grazing. The logging history and the subsequent wildfires resulted in a large portion of the area in 61 to 90 year age class. Very little active management took place in the analysis area in the years after the land was acquired. During the last 90 years of Forest Service administration, substantial progress has been made with wildfire prevention and control in the analysis area and the CNF in general. The reduction of wildfire has had a number of effects on the landscape, and it has aided the regeneration and establishment of fully stocked forest stands in the analysis area. Very little even age timber harvesting took place in the analysis area between the 1940’s and the 1960’s. Some thinning and uneven-aged regeneration may have occurred, though records are sketchy. Approximately 28 percent of the analysis area has been regenerated by even aged methods in the last 40 years. The southern pine beetle (SPB) impacted the analysis area between 1999 and 2002. Some nearly pure stands of pine and many scattered individual pine were killed. The species affected were Virginia, pitch, shortleaf and white pine. The present forest composition on the ridges and upper slopes is predominantly shortleaf and Virginia pine and upland oak species. Coves and lower slopes have yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock. Most of the forest acreage (approximately 64%) is greater than 60 years of age due to past land management practices. Activities that have occurred in the analysis area in the recent past (1990’s- 2006) include: harvesting (Dalton Branch, Unicoi Mountain, and Brannon Cove salvage); prescribed burning; recreational uses such as camping, hiking (including newly designated Benton MacKaye Trail), hunting, picnicking etc.; utility right-of-way (ROW) maintenance; maintenance of Buck Bald itself; and as mentioned above impacts from SPB. Activities that are currently occurring in the analysis area include: recreational uses; maintenance of roads, existing ROWs, trails and Buck Bald; and restoration of areas impacted by SPB.

21 Reasonably foreseeable activities expected in the analysis area include: maintenance of roads, existing ROW’s, trails and Buck Bald; restoration of areas impacted by SPB; recreational uses; impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid; changes in private land use patterns; development of trail heads from proposed CNF trails strategy; treatments of non-native invasive plants; and harvesting on NFS land or private land in North Carolina. Biological Factors ______This section discloses effects to biological elements of the environment expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. The biological environment includes the diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat components, and individual species of concern or interest. Analysis of effects to these elements is organized in this document following the framework used during forest planning (USDA 2004b). Use of this framework is designed to ensure comprehensive consideration of effects to the biological environment. Elements in this framework are listed in Table 4, where they are assessed for their relevance to this project. Only those relevant to the project are analyzed further in this document. Forested community types and successional stages were calculated using data from the Forest Service “R8 FSVeg Age Class Distribution” table run on January 29, 2007. Data for the six compartments in the Buck Bald analysis area (114, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 137) were used. Successional stages were analyzed based on the year 2008 for each alternative.

Table 4. Elements of the biological environment, derived from RLRMP analysis, their relevance to Buck Bald Vegetation Management, and whether they will be further analyzed in this document. Analyzed Biological Element Relevance to this Project Further? Mesic Deciduous Forest Yes Mesic deciduous forests occur on 2,532 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas; and 172 acres would be impacted by the proposed activities. Spruce-fir Forest No There are no spruce-fir forests in the vicinity of the affected areas. Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest Yes Hemlock or white pine forests occur on 2,174 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas, and 535 acres would be impacted by the proposed activities. Oak and Oak-pine Forest Yes Oak and oak-pine forests occur on 1,777 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas; and 42 acres would be impacted by the proposed activities. Pine and Pine-oak Forest Yes Pine and pine-oak forests occur on 1,633 acres in the vicinity of the affected areas and 69acres would be affected by the proposed activities. Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands Yes The activities propose to create this type of habitat. Rare Communities Wetland Communities No Associated with small streams in many stands. Barrens, Glades, and Associated Woodlands No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Carolina Hemlock Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Table Mountain Pine Forests No None of this type of habitat would be affected by the proposal. Basic Mesic Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Beech Gap Forests No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Rock Outcrops and Cliffs (includes forested No None of this type of habitat occurs in boulder fields) the vicinity of the affected areas. High Elevation Balds and Meadows Yes One bald (Buck Bald) occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Caves and Mines Yes No caves are known to occur in the area however some evidence of karst topography was encountered in the area and a short mine shaft was found outside the project along Forest Road 311. Successional Habitats Yes Vegetation manipulation activities would alter the forest age-class distribution.

23 Table 4. Elements of the biological environment, derived from RLRMP analysis, their relevance to Buck Bald Vegetation Management, and whether they will be further analyzed in this document. Analyzed Biological Element Relevance to this Project Further? High Elevation Early Successional Habitats No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Permanent openings and old fields, Rights-of Yes The project proposes to maintain this way, Improved pastures type of habitat Forest Interior Birds No The affected area is not identified in the RLRMP as an area where edge effect is an issue. Old Growth No None of this type of habitat occurs in the vicinity of the affected areas. Riparian Habitats Yes Riparian habitats occur within or near the proposed affected areas. Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Yes Snags occur in or near the proposed affected areas. Aquatic Habitats Yes Aquatic habitats occur in the proposed affected areas. Threatened and Endangered Species Yes Potential effects to T and E species will be analyzed. Demand Species Yes Demand species could be impacted by the project. Migratory Birds No Migratory bird issues are included in Major Forested Communities section. Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals Yes Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals could be impacted by the project. Species Viability Yes Species with viability concerns occur in the area. Forest Health Yes Forest health is an issue in the impacted area.

The RLRMP selected management indicator species (MIS) as a tool to help indicate effects of management on some elements of this framework. A subset of these MIS is selected for consideration in this analysis because their populations or habitats may be affected by the project (Table 5).

24 Table 5. Forest-level Management Indicator Species Selected for Reasons for Species Name Purpose Project Selection/Non-Selection Analysis? Prairie warbler To help indicate management Yes Some proposed activities would create effects of creating and early successional communities. maintaining early successional forest communities Chestnut-sided warbler To help indicate management No There are no high elevation effects of creating and communities associated with the maintaining high elevation affected area. early successional forest communities and habitat Pine warbler To help indicate effects of Yes Pine and pine oak communities occur management in pine and in the vicinity of the project and some pine-oak communities are subject to management actions. Pileated woodpecker To help indicate management Yes Forests with snags occur in the effects on snag dependent vicinity of the project and some are wildlife species subject to management actions. Acadian flycatcher To help indicate management Yes Riparian habitats occur near the effects within mature riparian proposed affected areas. forest community Scarlet tanager To help indicate effects of Yes Xeric oak and oak pine communities management in xeric oak and occur in the vicinity of the project, and oak pine communities may be subject to management actions.

Ruth’s golden aster To help indicate management No No populations of this species or their effects on the recovery of this habitat occur in or near the vicinity of T&E plant species the project. Ovenbird To help indicate management No The affected area is not identified in effects of wildlife species the RLRMP as an area where edge dependent upon mature forest effect is an issue. interior conditions Black bear To help indicate management Yes Hunting demand for black bear could effects on meeting hunting be impacted by the alternatives. demand for this species Hooded warbler To help indicate effects of Yes Mesic deciduous communities occur management on providing in the vicinity of the project, and may dense understory and be subject to management actions. midstory structure within mature mesic deciduous forest communities

Existing Condition The analysis area encompasses approximately 6,600-acres within the Hiwassee River watershed. The area varies widely in topography, from sloping hills and flatter areas around the streams to steeper slopes on ridges in the area. Elevations are from around 1,000 feet to 3,000 feet above sea level. Dry upland sites occupied by white pine, yellow pine, upland hardwood, and mixed

25 stands are characteristic of the overall area; cove sites are also present and include yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock as predominant overstory species. Common shrub zone species including mountain laurel, blueberry, huckleberry, and greenbrier are present. Common herbaceous species include galax, poison ivy, ferns, trillium, and smilax. Approximately 48% of the compartments are greater than 70 years of age. There are currently 196 acres within the 0-10 year age class (base year 2008) of the total forested acres in the six compartments. These are previously planned SPB restoration acres considered to be in regeneration and accounted for in the age class distribution for all alternatives. Perennial water sources are readily accessible from all parts of the compartments. Openland, grassy wildlife openings within the compartments total approximately 7 miles of linear wildlife openings and approximately 1 acre of spot openings. The percentage distribution of major forest communities and corresponding successional stages are presented in Figures 6 and 7. There is some overlap of forest types and communities, thus the percentage of major forested communities will not equal 100%.

38%

33% Mesic deciduous forests

27% 25% Oak and oak-pine forests Pine and pine-oak Percent forests Eastern hemlock and white pine forests

Communities

Figure 6. Buck Bald Major Forested Communities

26 37% 35%

25% Early successional Sapling/pole Mid successional Late successional

Successional Stage

Figure 7. Buck Bald Successional Stages Existing Condition

Data for the analysis area and surrounding landscape (approximately 17,300 acres including compartments 114, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 166, 179, 180 and Tusquitee Ranger District compartments 1, 2, and 3) has been analyzed. Forage availability (herbaceous material, browse, and soft mast) is low to moderate throughout most of the forest in the area. Snag density appears to be average to high. This is a result of several factors including the recent SPB outbreak, stand age and condition, species composition, and further susceptibility to insect, disease, and storm damage. Snag densities are expected to increase as existing stands mature and pines continue to die. Cover in the form of shrubby habitat is low to moderate. Many of the streams and hollows in the area have a good deal of downed trees, primarily as a result of past storms and insect outbreaks. In the stands proposed for harvest, the dominant overstory component is conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood. The midstory and herbaceous layers vary within forest types and communities. The primary wildlife management concern within the Buck Bald compartments is the lack of habitat diversity. Proposed actions are aimed at restoring communities based on their ecological potential. From a wildlife standpoint, proposed actions are designed to diversifying the vegetation by increasing the amount of 0-10 year old stands in order to increase browse and cover, promoting hard mast production by planting oak as well as planting pine on a wide spacing within harvested stands thereby allowing reproduction of oaks, creating open woodlands for foraging and nesting habitat controlling non-native invasive plant species, and increasing upland water sources. The following sections describe the affected environment and effects by alternative for each biological element listed above in Table 4.

27 Existing Condition Mesic Deciduous Forest Mesic deciduous forests as defined in the RLRMP include northern hardwood, mixed mesophytic, and bottomland hardwood community types, as well as the dry-mesic oak forest communities. These forest types are characterized by relatively low levels of disturbance, and from a habitat perspective, their primary value is providing habitat for a variety of species dependent on mid- and late-successional forest stages. Mesic deciduous forests are abundant and well distributed on the CNF, comprising 44 percent of the CNF (USDA 2004). The best, most clustered distributions are found at the higher elevations of the Tellico Ranger District and Big Frog Mountain, followed by Big Bald, Unaka, Roan, Pond and Holston Mountains and Rogers Ridge. Poorest distributions are found on the pine- dominated Starr and Chilhowee Mountains. Mesic deciduous forests represent approximately 38 percent of the forested acres within the analysis area. These consist primarily of three forest types: cove hardwood-white pine-hemlock, white oak-red oak-hickory, and yellow poplar-white oak-red oak. Hooded Warbler (MIS) The hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) is a neotropical migrant that is fairly common throughout the southeastern U.S. during the breeding season (Hamel 1992). It nests in understory of deciduous forest, especially along streams and ravine edges, and thickets in riverine forests. It is an inhabitant of both young and mature forests but is most abundant in the latter. A dense shrub layer and scant ground cover are important. In North Carolina, it is common in mountain ravines with dense growth of mountain laurel and rhododendron and in bottomland swamps with dense pepperbush and giant cane. This warbler generally favors large tracts of uninterrupted forest, but sometimes nests in forest patches as small as 5 hectares, probably where these are close to larger forested areas. The nest is placed in sapling or shrub in dense deciduous undergrowth, usually between 0.3 - 1.5 m. Individuals often return to the same area to nest in successive years (males are more likely to do so than females) (Sauer et al. 2005). North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a fairly static population in the Blue Ridge Mountains from 1966-2005 (Sauer et al. 2005). The trend is significantly positive in eastern North America. It has been identified as a MIS for mid-late mesic deciduous forests with canopy gaps and structurally diverse understories. The hooded warbler is common in appropriate habitat on the CNF. Direct and Indirect Effects Mesic Deciduous Forest Stands proposed for treatment in the proposed action and alternative classified as mesic deciduous are mixed mesophytic hardwood and dry-mesic oak forests. Dry upland slopes are typified by Virginia pine, pitch pine, shortleaf pine, as well as a mixture of chestnut oak, scarlet oak, and northern red oak. Vegetation becomes subxeric-submesic further down slope and the overstory commonly includes white oak and southern red oak. More mesic slopes and coves usually contain white pine, white oak, hemlock, and yellow poplar. Regeneration treatments would potentially affect the future quantity and distribution of mid-late-old successional mesic deciduous forests. Table 6 shows the number of acres of mesic deciduous forest that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative.

28 Table 6. Acres of Mesic Deciduous Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Shelterwood with reserves 0 acres 76 acres Woodland restoration 0 acres 57 acres Group selection 0 acres 39 acres Total 0 acres 274 acres

Alternative A (No Action) Under this alternative there is no change to the existing age class distribution of mesic deciduous forests. Forests would continue to age, only affected by natural forces of disturbance. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the RLRMP (USDA 2004b) states that expected population trends for hooded warblers under plan implementation is relatively stable for the next 50 years. Alternative A would have no effect on populations of this management indicator. The community may be affected by the increased invasion of non-native invasive plants. Dry- mesic oak forests may also be affected by the lack of fire. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore plant communities to a more natural species assemblage. The lack of fire would decrease biodiversity. This would lead to a reduction of habitat needed by wildlife and native plants, including hooded warbler.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under this alternative 76 acres would be reverted to early successional habitat through shelterwood harvest. Creation of early successional habitat within this forest type is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that use both early and late successional habitats including black bear, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Harvest treatments in this alternative would have the potential to temporarily negatively affect hooded warblers on 1% of the six-compartment area. The negative effect would occur when the overstory is removed and the understory is also disturbed decreasing foraging habitat. This would be a temporary effect until the understory has time to become more developed. Another 57 acres would be thinned for creation of a woodland community. Thinning would benefit hooded warblers by adding more structure in the understory to the older age class forest, which increases feeding and breeding habitat. Few nests would be disturbed due to the hooded warbler’s preference for nesting in riparian areas. The creation of open pine and oak woodlands would decrease the suitability of these areas for hooded warbler, however this treatment would occur in more xeric habitats not usually preferred by hooded warblers. Other species would benefit. This treatment is discussed in further detail in the section Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands. Mesic deciduous forests comprise 38% of the six-compartment area. The loss of the 76 acres in the regeneration areas would leave 37% of the mesic deciduous forests in the analysis area. There would be ample habitat remaining in the surrounding forest until the understory can once again be developed. Conditions in other areas would remain relatively stable as the forest ages with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire.

29 Herbicide use would benefit the community by reducing non-native invasive plants allowing native species to increase. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with dry-mesic oak forests. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the MIS or the community. Cumulative Effects Mesic Deciduous Forest

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would not allow the control of non-native invasive plants which would negatively affect natural species assemblages within this community. The lack of prescribed burning may both beneficially and negatively affect the community and the MIS. Without burning, the dense understories preferred by hooded warblers would not be affected in the short-term. However, the lack of burning would also cause the forest to age and the canopy to close, causing less understory growth as sunlight is reduced to the forest floor. Lack of burning may also promote non-native invasive plants and species not usually found in these communities, including the increase of white pine. An increase of white pine would decrease the oak component. A decrease in oak would decrease the mast and habitat for many species. Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory temporarily, thus affecting foraging habitat for the MIS. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the hooded warbler when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid may affect hooded warblers by decreasing nesting sites; however foraging sites would increase by the increase in sunlight causing new growth in the understory. This community as a whole would likely be affected by the loss of this component, but how is unclear. The loss of hemlock is a new development and effects will need to be determined as it occurs. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Mature mesic hardwood forests were widespread historically. Species composition, diversity and structure of today's forests does not approximate historic conditions due to loss of the American chestnut, unregulated cutting and burning in the early 20th century, and loss of large diameter trees. Under plan implementation, long term stability or increases in mature mesic forest is expected (USDA 2004). Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory temporarily, thus affecting foraging habitat for the MIS. Burning in dry-mesic oak forests may be beneficial by maintaining the community. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the hooded warbler when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth.

30 The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid may affect hooded warblers by decreasing nesting sites, however foraging sites would increase through the increase in sunlight causing new growth in the understory. This community as a whole would likely be affected by the loss of this component, but how is unclear. The loss of hemlock is a new development and effects will need to be determined as it occurs. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Existing Condition Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest Eastern hemlock and white pine forests are broadly defined to include those forested communities that are either dominated or co-dominated by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) or eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) in the canopy. For the purposes of this analysis, forests with a significant component of eastern hemlock are classified as hemlock forests, even where white pine may be dominant (FSVeg types 4, 5, 8). White pine forests include all other forests where white pine is dominant (FSVeg types 3, 9, 10). This division puts priority on the presence of hemlock as a key habitat component. Eastern hemlock forests typically occur on acidic soils and often have a dense shrub layer composed of ericaceous species. These communities are typically low in herbaceous diversity, but may support rich bryophyte communities. White pine forests occupy similar sites but also may occur on dryer locations, particularly in areas where fire has been suppressed. White pine forests have also been artificially created as timber plantations. The combination of a largely evergreen canopy and a dense midstory in naturally occurring hemlock and white pine forests provide for a variety of benefits, including shading and cooling of riparian systems, thermal cover for wildlife, and nesting and foraging habitat for several species of neotropical migrant birds dependent upon the layered canopy structure and understory thickets (USDA 2004b). There is some evidence that hemlock-white pine forests provide necessary habitat components for the long-term conservation of red crossbills (USDA 2004b). Eastern hemlock forests may also be important refugia for species typically adapted to higher elevations. Red-breasted nuthatches, winter wrens, and golden-crowned kinglets are found in late successional hemlock forests down to elevations of 2,000 feet and several species of rare bryophytes that are known to occur primarily within the spruce/fir zone are also found at lower elevations in humid gorges often under a canopy that includes eastern hemlock (USDA 2004b). The current amount and distribution of mature eastern hemlock forests is threatened by the recent emergence of the hemlock woolly adelgid in the southern Appalachians. First identified in the eastern U.S. near Richmond, VA in the early 1950’s, this exotic pest has recently spread into the southern Appalachians and threatens to spread throughout the range causing mortality within five years after initial infestation (SAMAB 1996). On the CNF, eastern hemlock forests are found primarily in association with north facing coves and slopes and riparian systems. Years of fire suppression have allowed individual hemlocks and white pine to creep upslope onto more xeric slopes and ridges where they would not likely exist under a natural fire regime. There are currently approximately 45,125 acres of white pine forest types on the CNF; 6,664 acres of which originated as plantations. Two key habitat variables are selected as management indicators to monitor the condition of eastern hemlock and white pine forest: the number of acres of hemlock forests infested with

31 hemlock woolly adelgid, and the number of acres of white pine plantations restored to diverse native communities will be tracked annually. Stand 4 in compartment 133 is designated as forest type 4, white-pine hemlock. Timber harvest in that stand is focused on the restoration objectives of improving diversity in upland white pine stands. Direct and Indirect Effects Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest The action alternative proposes a maximum of 535 acres of white pine forests be treated by timber harvest. Table 7 shows the number of acres of white pine forest that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative by treatment type.

Table 7. Acres of White Pine Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Thinning 0 acres 103 acres Group selection 0 acres 81 acres Seedtree or shelterwood with 0 acres 351 acres reserves Total 0 acres 535 acres

Alternative A (No Action) Without treatment in white pine forests, white pine would increase and continue to become established in forests where it is not historically naturally occurring. Oaks and other native species would decrease leading to a reduction in mast and other wildlife habitat components. Non-native invasive plant species would also continue to increase due to a lack of management. Native plants would be displaced and suitable habitat for wildlife would decrease.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, 535 acres would be harvested to begin restoration of diverse natural communities. The eventual forested stands would approximate desired future conditions favoring a mixed stand of tree species. This would increase the diversity of the forest and eventually favor more mast producing species. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with these communities. The goal is to restore natural communities which have been displaced by off-site tree species including white pine and other vegetation. These would lead to the diversification of the forest as a whole which would benefit many animal species by creating more forage, nesting, and brood habitat. Herbicide use would reduce the number of non-native invasive plant species leading to an increase in native plants and wildlife habitat. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community.

32 Cumulative Effects Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest

All Alternatives Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas would reduce white pine in the understory. White pine is susceptible to burning. Without burning and other treatments to reduce the amount of white pine, it would continue to increase across the analysis area. Non-native invasive plant species would also increase without treatments for control. Non-native invasive plants crowd out native species, decreasing habitat for native wildlife. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. Despite protection and restoration objectives given in the RLRMP, the current amount and distribution of mature eastern hemlock forests is threatened by the recent emergence of the hemlock wooly adelgid in the southern Appalachians. The fact that this community type is naturally limited in distribution, coupled with the impending threats from the hemlock wooly adelgid that will impact the species regardless of land ownership, leaves the long-term maintenance of historical distribution and abundance of this community type in question. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect.

Existing Condition Oak and Oak-pine Forest Oak dominated forests covered under this section include dry to mesic oak and oak-pine forests. Dry-mesic oak forests vary greatly in their species composition due to their wide distribution. The major species include chestnut oak (Quercus montana), northern red oak (Q. rubra), black oak (Q. velutina), white oak (Q. alba), and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) (USDA 2004). The dry to mesic oak-pine forests considered here are oak-dominated forests containing a significant pine component. Predominant pine species include white pine (Pinus strobus), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), and loblolly pine (P. taeda). In the southern U.S., acres of oak-hickory and oak-pine forests have increased over the last 50 years (USDA 2004). Oak and oak-pine forests are common throughout the South, comprising over half of the timberland of the region as a whole (USDA 2004). Oak-hickory forests are the dominant forest type in the Southern Appalachian Ecoregion. Oak forests are abundant on the CNF, comprising 36 percent of the CNF acreage. These forests are very well distributed within the northern portion of the CNF. Oak forests are less evenly distributed on the southern CNF, especially along the pine-dominated lower elevations including Starr Mountain and the lower Citico Creek drainage; and in the highest elevations, where mesic deciduous forest types predominate. Several management indicators have been identified for assessing effects to oak and oak-pine forest communities. These indicators include both MIS and key habitat variables. Because of their wide distribution across moisture gradients, mid- and late-successional oak and oak-pine forests support a wide variety of species. Drier oak forests support a slightly different mix of species due to their more open condition. To represent this upland oak community, the scarlet tanager is selected as an MIS. This species is most abundant in upland mature deciduous forest (Hamel 1992).

33 Scarlet Tanager (MIS) The breeding range of scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) includes eastern North Dakota and southeastern Manitoba across southern Canada and northern U.S. to New Brunswick and central Maine, south to central Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, northern Alabama, northern Georgia, northwestern South Carolina, western North Carolina, central Virginia, and Maryland (NatureServe 2004). North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a stable population in the Eastern U.S. from 1966-2005, but a declining trend in the Blue Ridge Mountains in the same time period (Sauer et al. 2005). Habitat on breeding grounds is deciduous forest and mature deciduous woodland, including deciduous and mixed swamp and floodplain forests and rich moist upland forests. The scarlet tanager prefers oak trees for nesting. They nest less frequently in mixed forest and are most common in areas with a relatively closed canopy, a dense understory with a high diversity of shrubs, and scanty ground cover. They are able to breed successfully in relatively small patches of forest. Tanagers also sometimes nests in wooded parks, orchards, and large shade trees of suburbs. They are known to breed in various forest stages but are most abundant in mature woods (according to some sources, prefers pole stands). Direct and Indirect Effects Oak and Oak-pine Forest Table 8 shows the number of acres of oak and oak-pine forests forest that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative by treatment type.

Table 8. Acres of Oak and Oak-Pine Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Woodland restoration 0 acres 42 acres Total 0 acres 42 acres

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct effects of the No Action Alternative. However, there would be indirect effects by no action. There would be an increase in non-native invasive plants and other species not naturally occurring in these communities without treatments. Prescribed fire and herbicide use would not be used. Lack of treatment with burning and timber removal would mean oak trees preferred by nesting scarlet tanagers would age and fall from the canopy, and would be often replaced by white pine or maple. This would lead to a reduction in scarlet tanager habitat.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, approximately 42 acres (less then 1% of the analysis area) would be treated to create an open woodland or savannah. Burning and other treatments to open these stands would benefit natural systems. The goal is to restore natural communities which have been displaced by off-site tree species including white pine and other vegetation. These would lead to the diversification of the forest as a whole which would benefit many animal species by creating more forage, nesting, and brood habitat. Thinning would increase the mast producing species in the stands, providing additional hard and soft mast for wildlife. These alternatives would have both negative and positive impacts to scarlet tanager. Removal of the overstory would reduce nesting sites in those stands. However, nesting habitat would remain

34 in the trees left on site. In addition, the harvest would diversify the understory. Suitable habitat would increase as the stands grow. There would also be ample habitat remaining in the surrounding forest. Conditions in other areas would remain relatively stable as the forest ages with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire. Herbicide use would promote native species growth, contributing to habitat for wildlife. Burning would further promote oak regeneration and help restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with these communities. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community. Cumulative Effects Oak and Oak-pine Forest

Alternative A (No Action) Insects and diseases such as gypsy moth and oak decline are expected to have an overall negative effect on oak forests in the future (SAMAB 1996). Several gypsy moth infestations have been detected in the Forest’s northeastern counties, and spread of the infestation is expected to expand throughout the Forest by 2020. Many of the older xeric oak forests are experiencing oak decline. The greatest impact of oak decline would be immediately behind the advancing front of gypsy moth due to repeated severe defoliations. As existing oak stands grow older, susceptibility would increase. Although oaks would not be eliminated from effected areas, oak abundance and diversity would be reduced. On both national forest and private lands, the future of oak forests would largely depend on management activity such as thinning and burning that encourage oak reproduction to offset the impacts of these insects and diseases. Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory temporarily, thus affecting foraging habitat for the MIS. However, with the understory sprouting that typically occurs after a prescribed burn, the area would again provide better habitat to tanagers within a year or two. There would be no cumulative effect to scarlet tanagers because burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the scarlet tanager when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or MIS to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Cumulatively, Alternative A would not have an effect to scarlet tanager.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Insects and diseases such as gypsy moth and oak decline are expected to have an overall negative effect on oak forests in the future (SAMAB 1996). Several gypsy moth infestations have been detected in the Forest’s northeastern counties, and spread of the infestation is expected to expand throughout the Forest by 2020. Many of the older xeric oak forests are experiencing oak decline. The greatest impact of oak decline would be immediately behind the advancing front of gypsy

35 moth due to repeated severe defoliations. As existing oak stands grow older, susceptibility would increase. Although oaks would not be eliminated from effected areas, oak abundance and diversity would be reduced. On both national forest and private lands, the future of oak forests would largely depend on management activity such as thinning and burning that encourage oak reproduction to offset the impacts of these insects and diseases. One of the primary management objectives of this project is to enhance oak. Both action alternatives would revert some acres to early successional habitat conditions, which may have some long-term forest health benefits through diversification of age-class distributions. Prescribed burning in or near any of the affected areas would remove understory in some areas, making the area temporarily less attractive to scarlet tanagers. However, with the understory sprouting that typically occurs after a prescribed burn, the area would again provide better habitat to tanagers within a year or two. Burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the scarlet tanager when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or MIS to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Cumulatively Alternative B would benefit scarlet tanagers in some areas and have no effect in other areas. Existing Condition Pine and Pine-oak Forest Pine dominated forests covered in this section include all “Southern Yellow Pine” (USDA 2004) forest types with various mixtures of hardwood species occurring as minor components. These forests occur on a variety of landforms at a wide range of elevations. Historically, in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province, these communities occupied areas that were subject to natural fire regimes and typically occurred on ridges and slopes with southern exposures (NatureServe 2002). However, due to a combination of previous land use, fire exclusion, and intensive forestry (plantations), many pine species have expanded beyond their natural range and today, pine-dominated communities can be found on virtually all landforms and aspects.

Pine Warbler (MIS) The pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) is a short-distance migrant and summer resident that occurs primarily at elevations below 3500 feet. It is more abundant on the southern ranger districts of the CNF. Based on 1992-1993 point count data collected on the Tellico Ranger District, this species is not a predominant component of any community type, but was detected in yellow pine forest types across all successional stages. Point count data collected for this species from 1996- 2002 on the Tellico and Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger Districts, indicates 88% of pine warbler observations were in conifer forests, 17% were in early successional vegetation, 54% were in mid successional, and 29% were in late successional. The overall regional population trend (Blue Ridge Mountains) for 1966-2005 is a slow and slight decrease (Figure 8) (Sauer et al. 2005).

Figure 8. Breeding Bird Survey trend data for Pine Warbler, Blue Ridge Mountain region.

Direct and Indirect Effects Pine and Pine-oak Forests Table 9 shows the number of acres of pine and pine-oak forests that would be affected by timber harvest under each alternative by treatment type.

Table 9. Acres of Pine and Pine-oak Forest Treated by Treatment and Alternative Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Seedtree with reserves 0 acres 69 acres Total 0 acres 69 acres

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct effects of the No Action Alternative. However, there would be indirect effects by no action. There would be an increase in non-native invasive plants and other species not naturally occurring in these communities without treatments. Prescribed fire and herbicide use would not be used. Lack of treatment with burning and timber removal would mean shade tolerant species, likely white pine or maple, would secede into pine and pine-oak communities reducing habitat of species which prefer those habitat types. This would lead to a reduction in pine warbler habitat.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under Alternative B, 69 acres of pine and pine-oak would be treated by timber harvest. The timber harvest and other treatments would promote and maintain these communities. The maintenance of naturally occurring pine and pine-oak would benefit species dependent on that

37 habitat type, including the pine warbler. Furthermore, the amount of shade tolerant species that would replace these communities without treatment would be reduced. Creation of early successional habitat within this forest type is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that depend on both late and early successional habitats including black bear, white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, ruffed grouse, and a variety of non game species. Shrubby and grassy habitats interspersed among the remaining mid to late successional habitats within the activity area provide soft mast and other forage, cover, and bugging areas important to those species. The importance of this habitat is further discussed in the section of this document pertaining to “Successional Habitats”. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with these communities. Burning and other treatments to open these stands would benefit natural systems. The goal is to restore natural communities which have been displaced by off- site tree species including Virginia pine and other vegetation. These would lead to the diversification of the forest as a whole which would benefit many animal species by creating more forage, nesting, and brood habitat. Herbicide use would reduce the number of non-native invasive plant species leading to an increase in native plants and wildlife habitat. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community. Cumulative Effects Pine and Pine-oak Forests

All Alternatives Prescribed burning in or near any of the affected areas would benefit this community by suppressing shade tolerant species. Pine and pine-oak communities would be favored. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the community and MIS in some areas where pine was either planted or regenerated naturally. In other areas where red maple and other species are prolific, the community did not respond favorably. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or MIS to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of this habitat. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Cumulatively Alternative A would benefit the community and MIS in some areas and have no effect in other areas. Existing Condition Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands Complexes of woodlands, savannas, and grasslands were once a frequent occurrence across portions of the southeastern landscape, primarily in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain provinces. Smaller occurrences likely occurred in the southern Appalachians on xeric ridge-tops and south- facing slopes where they were maintained by frequent fire (USDA 2004). Woodlands are open stands of trees, generally forming 25 to 60 percent canopy closure and may be of pine, hardwood (typically oak), or mixed composition. Savannas are usually defined as having lower tree densities than woodlands; grasslands are mostly devoid of trees. All of these conditions typically

38 occurred in mixed mosaics within a fire-maintained landscape. In all cases, a well-developed grassy or herbaceous understory is present. Existing remnants of this habitat in both the southern Appalachians and Piedmont are limited primarily to roadsides and powerline rights-of-way due to reductions in fire frequency across most landscapes. One hundred thirty-seven species of viability concern are associated with this community in the southern Appalachian region. Of these, thirty-five species are of concern on the CNF. Because existing woodland, savanna, and grassland complexes are rare and not consistently tracked, the current acreage in such conditions is not well documented. These communities would likely occur on landforms currently occupied by xeric pine and oak communities. The distribution and condition of xeric pine and oak forests are discussed in other sections of this document. In an effort to restore some of the ecological role that these communities have historically played, the RLRMP includes objectives for restoring complexes of woodlands, savannas, and grasslands to fire-maintained landscapes. Desired conditions include heterogeneous canopy coverage averaging 25 to 60 percent, and dense grass and herbaceous ground layers. Scattered patches may be devoid of canopy to provide for interspersed savanna and grassland conditions. Restoration activities may include thinning of trees (generally to less than 60 sq. ft. of basal area per acre) and prescribed burning. Prescribed fire on relatively short rotations (1 to 3 years) typically would be used to maintain desired conditions, and may involve both dormant and growing season fires. Direct and Indirect Effects Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no treatment to establish and maintain this community. Forests would continue to age, and non-native invasive plant species would continue to increase.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Restoration and maintenance activities on approximately 90-100 acres would provide habitat for species associated with these community types, including several species of viability concern. Fire adapted species are expected to increase over time within these areas. Restoration and maintenance activities, including prescribed burning, may cause some short-term negative effects to individual species, by causing disturbance, mortality, or temporarily setting back plant and animal reproduction or growth. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long- term beneficial effect on organisms associated with xeric woodlands. Species associated with this community are relatively adapted to such disturbances, which are necessary to create and maintain optimal habitat conditions. In balance, these actions would result in long-term beneficial effects to associated species. Herbicide use would reduce the number of non-native invasive plant species leading to an increase in native plants and wildlife habitat. The other actions in Alternative B, including maintenance of wildlife openings, planting pine and oak, creation of ephemeral pools, road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the community.

39 Cumulative Effects Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands

Alternative A (No Action) Past prescribed burning likely benefited this community by keeping the canopy open and increasing the grassy component, especially in areas affected by SPB. Future prescribed burning would do the same. Other past and future activities would have little effect. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community, but its effects are not clear. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would likely not affect woodlands, savannas and grasslands. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to woodlands, savannas and grasslands.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Past prescribed burning likely benefited this community by keeping the canopy open and increasing the grassy component, especially in areas affected by SPB. Utility rights of way may increase the amount and benefits of this community if maintained in a grassy state. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community, but its effects are not clear. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would likely not affect woodlands, savannas and grasslands. Historically present on xeric sites due to presence of fire, these habitats are much reduced today. Restoration would improve their distribution, but not likely to historical levels under any alternative. Restoration and management activities on national forests would play a critical role in the conservation of this community within the landscapes containing NFS land. Natural woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats are currently rare, occurring on private ownerships primarily along mowed roadside and powerline rights-of-ways. It is not expected that private landowners would restore or manage to maintain significant amounts of woodland, savanna, and grassland complexes; therefore, they would remain limited in abundance without national forest restoration efforts. Existing Condition Rare Communities

Rare communities are assemblages of plants and animals and unique substrates that typically occupy a small portion of the landscape, but contribute significantly to biodiversity. They generally are limited in number of occurrences, small in size, and have relatively discrete boundaries. Forest Wide Standard 47 of the RLRMP states that rare communities, wherever they occur on the forest, will be managed under the rare community prescription (USDA 2004a). This is done to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. Buck Bald is named in the RLRMP FEIS (USDA 2004b) as a bald and thus a rare community. It is currently maintained in non native grasses. In addition, some evidence of karst topography was found within stand 137/5 (Donaldson 2006). Additionally, a small mine shaft was encountered outside the project area along NFSR 311 (Donaldson 2006).

40 Direct and Indirect Effects Rare Communities

Alternative A (No Action) Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on rare communities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Forest Wide Standard FW-47 states that rare communities, wherever they occur on the forest, will be managed under the rare community prescription (USDA 2004a). This is done to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. The proposal includes actions to maintain the grassy nature of Buck Bald. This would be beneficial by maintaining that community. Since there are no other rare communities identified in the analysis area, there would be no other effects as a result of this project. Cumulative Effects Rare Communities

Alternative A (No Action) There would be no cumulative effects to rare communities. Rare communities would be protected regardless of the action proposed in any projects.

Alternatives B (Proposed Action) The CNF RLRMP recognizes the value of rare communities on the landscape and provides for their protection. There would be beneficial effects to Buck Bald and no effects to the karst topography or mine shaft. Existing Condition Successional Habitats Forest age and related structure are key determining factors for presence, distribution, and abundance of a wide variety of wildlife. Some species depend on early-successional habitats, some depend on late-successional habitats, and others depend on a mix of both occurring within the landscape (USDA 2004). These habitat conditions are also important as wintering and stopover habitats for migrating species. In order to support viability of diverse plant and animal populations and to support demand for game species, a variety of habitat types are needed within national forest landscapes. This section deals only with successional forest conditions. Permanent openings such as open woodlands, savannas, grasslands, barrens and glades, balds, wildlife openings, old fields, pastures, and rights-of-way are covered elsewhere in this document. Mid- and late- successional/old growth conditions can be found under individual forest community sections. Early-successional forests are important because they are highly productive in terms of forage, diversity of food sources, insect production, nesting and escape cover, and soft mast. Early- successional forests have the shortest lifespan (10 years) of any of the forest successional stages, and are typically in short supply and declining on national forests in the southern Appalachians, and in the eastern U.S. (USDA 2004). Early-successional forests are also not distributed regularly or randomly across the landscape. These habitats are essential or beneficial for some

41 birds (ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided warbler, golden-winged warbler, prairie warbler, yellow- breasted chat, blue-winged warbler); beneficial to deer, turkey, and bear in the South; and sought by hunters, berry pickers, crafters, and herb gatherers for the opportunities they provide. Many species commonly associated with late-successional forest conditions also use early successional forests periodically, or depend upon it during some portion of their life cycle (USDA 2004).

Prairie Warbler (MIS) Prairie warblers (Dendroica discolor) are shrub land-nesting birds found in suitable habitats throughout the southern Appalachians (Hamel 1992). Prairie warblers require dense forest regeneration or open shrubby conditions in a forested setting. Near optimal habitat conditions are characterized by regeneration, thinned areas or patchy openings ten acres or more in size where woody plants average two to three meters in height, three to four centimeter in diameter, and occur in stem densities around 3,000 stems/acre (USDA 2004). Populations respond favorably to conditions created three to ten years following forest regeneration in larger forest patches. Providing a sustained flow of regenerating forests is necessary to support populations of prairie warbler. Populations of prairie warbler have been steadily declining in the eastern U.S. (Trend - 2.08, P value 0.0000; Sauer et al. 2005). Direct and Indirect Effects Successional Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) No additional early successional habitat would be created with this alternative. Forests would continue to age, affected by an increase in shade tolerant species that don’t provide habitat for species that use these communities. Non-native invasive plant species would continue to expand their populations. There are currently 196 acres of existing forest in the 0-10 year age class, (3% of the analysis area). This alternative would have no direct or indirect effect to prairie warbler. Habitat conditions would remain relatively stable as the stands age with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Under these alternatives, 496 acres (7% of the 6,500 acre area) would be treated to create early successional habitat in Alternative B. Creation of early successional habitat is intended to provide optimal habitat conditions for species that depend on early successional habitats including chestnut-sided warbler, golden-winged warbler, prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and blue-winged warbler. The percentage distribution of successional stages if Alternative B is implemented is presented in Figure 9.

42 35% 30%

25% Early successional Sapling/pole Mid successional 10% Late successional

Successional Stage

Figure 9. Buck Bald Successional Stages Alternative B

The proposed action would harvest 496 acres of forest bringing the early successional age class to 10%. None of the other proposed activities would affect prairie warbler because they don’t affect its habitat. Alternative B would create 496 acres or 7% more prairie warbler habitat. Alternative B would benefit prairie warbler by creating more nesting habitat. Cumulative Effects Successional Habitats

All Alternatives Any activity which would open the understory and create patchy openings would benefit this community and MIS. This includes prescribed burning, timber harvest, utility rights of way and SPB affected areas. Recreation would not affect these types of habitats. Therefore, there would be beneficial cumulative effects to prairie warbler. The development of private land may have a detrimental affect if the land is converted to a use other than forested land. Existing Condition Permanent Openings and Old Fields, Rights-of-Way, Improved Pastures Habitats considered here include permanent openings and old fields, utility ROW, and improved pastures. Other early successional habitats such as woodlands, grasslands, and early successional forests are discussed elsewhere in this document. Permanent Openings and Old Fields Permanent grass/forb and seedling/sapling/shrub habitats are important elements of early successional habitat. Permanent openings typically are maintained for wildlife habitat on an annual or semi-annual basis with the use of cultivation, mowing, or other vegetation management treatments. These openings may contain native grasses and forbs, but many are planted to non-native agricultural species such as clover, orchard grass, winter wheat, annual rye, or other small grains. Old fields are sites that are no longer maintained and are succeeding to forest or are maintained on a less frequent basis (5-10 year intervals, usually with burning and mowing). They are largely influenced by past cultural activities and may be dense sod or a rapidly changing field of annual and perennial herbs, grasses, woody shrubs and tree seedlings.

43 Permanent openings are used by a variety of wildlife, both game and non-game species. The benefits of permanent openings to white-tailed deer are well documented. Permanent openings, especially those containing grass-clover mixtures, are used most intensively in early spring, but also are an important source of nutritious forage in winter, especially when acorns are in short supply. Forest openings also are a key habitat component for wild turkeys throughout the year. Maintained openings provide nutritious green forage in the winter and early spring and seeds during late summer and fall. Because of the abundance of insects and herbaceous plants produced in these openings they are especially important as brood rearing habitat for young turkeys. Linear openings, especially those associated with young regenerating forests provide optimal brood habitat conditions for ruffed grouse. There also are numerous wildlife benefits from openings maintained in native species. Native warm season grasses provide nesting, brood-rearing, and roosting habitat for northern bobwhite and other grassland species of wildlife. Native species are well adapted to local environments and generally require less intensive maintenance following establishment. Old fields provide food and cover for a variety of wildlife species. A number of disturbance- dependent birds, such as northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, golden-winged warbler, and blue winged warbler are associated with old field habitat. Recently abandoned fields are important for rabbits and many small mammals. Woodcock use old fields as courtship, feeding, and roosting sites. Although managed less intensively than other types of permanent openings, some degree of periodic management is necessary to maintain these habitats. There are approximately 1,517 acres of permanent maintained openings on the CNF. This represents 0.2 percent of the total NFS acres. Many were created by the expansion of log landings following timber harvest or by closing and seeding old roads to create linear openings. They are maintained with funding provided by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), the Forest Service, and partners including the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF). Many are planted in non-native grass-clover mixtures, which include combinations of white or red clovers along with wheat, rye, oats, orchard grass, and ryegrass. Some of the older openings are dominated by fescue and/or annual weed species, and some of the recently renovated openings are planted to grain sorghum. Rights-of-Way and Improved Pastures Although pastureland acreage has declined over the last 50 years, pastures still comprise approximately seven percent of the southeastern U.S. For Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) area, pastures comprise approximately 17 percent of the area, 99 percent of which is on private land (SAMAB 1996). There are no comparable estimates for rights-of-way. Utility ROWs and improved pastures typically are managed for purposes other than to provide wildlife habitat. However, they can provide wildlife benefits if managed appropriately. Rights- of-way can be established and maintained in plantings that enhance their benefits to wildlife. Once established, maintenance costs generally are reduced. There are approximately 1,300 acres of powerline ROW on the CNF. Right-of-way acreage was estimated by multiplying the existing 85 miles of powerline ROW known to the CNF by an average width of 125 feet. The majority of these support a mixture of herbaceous plants and shrubs and are maintained by a variety of methods.

44 The conversion of fescue pastures to native warm season grasses improves habitat conditions for northern bobwhite and numerous grassland species. Featured sites are primarily old farms that were in cultivation when acquired by the Forest Service. Native warm season grass plantings have been established at Doc Rogers fields, several tracts along the French Broad River, and along a powerline ROW between the Ocoee and Hiwassee Rivers. Emphasized species include bluestems, Indian grass, switchgrass and native legumes. An experimental native cool season grass planting (Virginia wild rye) has been established along the Nolichucky River. These plantings total approximately 215 acres and were established with funds provided by the Forest Service, TWRA, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and several sportsmen’s organizations including Quail Unlimited. Direct and Indirect Effects Permanent Openings and Old Fields, Rights-of-Way, Improved Pastures

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would allow the spread of non-native invasive plant species into permanent openings and old fields, rights-of way, and improved pastures. Nepal grass and fescue, common on rights-of-way and fields now, would continue to displace native and other desired vegetation.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The proposed action would include approximately 21 acres of wildlife opening maintenance and herbicide use to control non-native invasive plant species. This would benefit many species of wildlife, both game and non-game species. The openings provide an important source of nutritious forage in winter, especially when acorns are in short supply. Forest openings also are a key habitat component for wild turkeys throughout the year. Maintained openings provide nutritious green forage in the winter and early spring and seeds during late summer and fall. Because of the abundance of insects and herbaceous plants produced in these openings they are especially important as brood rearing habitat for young turkeys. Linear openings, especially those associated with young regenerating forests provide optimal brood habitat conditions for ruffed grouse. Alternative B includes the use of herbicides to control Nepal grass, fescue, and other undesired vegetation. This alternative would benefit this element by favoring native and other desired vegetation. Cumulative Effects Permanent Openings and old fields, Rights-of way, Improved pastures

Alternative A (No Action) Non-native invasive plant species would continue to spread in the analysis area and surrounding areas. Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas could provide some of the benefits of openings if the burning frequency is adequate to stimulate grassy vegetation and create small openings. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect.

45 Alternative B (Proposed Action) Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas could provide some of the benefits of openings if the burning frequency is adequate to stimulate grassy vegetation and create small openings. There would be no net loss or gain or other effect from road maintenance. If road maintenance occurs to access a stand then the road would be replanted after harvest and maintained as a linear wildlife opening again. Openland habitat, in the form of wildlife openings and rehabilitated roads (linear openings), would be maintained in these alternatives. This habitat type provides year-round forage, soft mast, and an abundance of insects for many species. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Existing Condition Riparian Habitats Terrestrial riparian habitats encompass the transition area between aquatic systems and upland terrestrial systems. All wetlands (including beaver ponds), as well as margins of varying widths along streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, are contained within terrestrial riparian habitats. These areas provide a number of critical functions for associated species. Most importantly, they provide rich, moist environments, not often found in upland areas. Riparian terrestrial habitats may serve as corridors for wildlife movement, allowing for daily travel and seasonal migration. The riparian area may serve as a connector of habitats and populations allowing gene flow to occur, thus keeping populations genetically vigorous (USDA 2004). Riparian habitats ideally include a mosaic of native plant and animal communities and successional stages, with a predominance of late-successional forests. Late successional riparian forests contain multiple canopy layers that provide a variety of ecological niches, thermal and protective cover, and maintenance of moist conditions. Decadence of older forests provide an abundance of snags and downed wood, which also help retain moisture and provide important habitat substrate for reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, invertebrates, and mosses and liverworts. The majority of riparian dependent species need or prefer late-successional forest conditions for the diverse structure and the moist, temperature-moderated microclimates they provide. This section of the Environmental Assessment examines the biological elements of the terrestrial riparian area. The physical elements are addressed in “Water and Soil Resource” discussed later. Acadian Flycatcher (MIS) Breeding range of the Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) includes southeastern South Dakota east across southern Great Lakes region to southern New England, south to southern Texas, Gulf Coast, and central Florida, west to central Kansas; in Canada, restricted to southwestern Ontario (NatureServe 2002). The highest nesting densities were in the Cumberland Plateau and in Virginia and West Virginia. Key habitat requirements are moist deciduous forests with a moderate understory, generally near a stream (Hamel 1992). Humid deciduous forest (primarily mature), woodland, shaded ravines, floodplain forest, river swamps, hammocks and cypress bays of south, thickets, second growth, and plantations are used for nesting and breeding. Acadian flycatchers require a high dense canopy and an open understory. These birds tend to be scarce or absent in small forest tracts, unless the tract is near a larger forested area. North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a stable population in the Eastern U.S. from 1966-

46 2005, but a declining trend in the Blue Ridge Mountains in the same time period (Sauer et al. 2005). Direct and Indirect Effects Riparian Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would have no direct or indirect effect to Acadian flycatchers. Habitat conditions would remain relatively stable with the possible exception of natural storm events or wildfire. This alternative would have no short-term or long-term effects.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The proposed action would have little to no effect on Acadian flycatchers. This project would comply with the riparian area provisions of the RLRMP. No riparian habitat would be affected. These alternatives are not expected to affect Acadian flycatchers. Cumulative Effects Riparian Habitats

All Alternatives Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas would not cumulatively affect Acadian flycatchers. These projects would also be in compliance with the RLRMP and thus not be likely to impact Acadian flycatcher habitat. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to Acadian flycatchers. Existing Condition Snags, Dens, and Downed Wood Large woody debris (including branches, large logs, stumps, and root wads) is an important habitat component both to streams and terrestrial areas. It is important both structurally and as a source of energy. Large snags provide birds with nesting and feeding sites, singing perches, and as lookout posts for predators and prey (USDA 2004a). Bats roost and produce maternity colonies under exfoliating bark. Amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and invertebrates utilize woody debris as cover. Animals use snags, logs, and stumps as denning sites. Downed wood and logs are used for drumming by grouse to attract mates. Turtles and snakes use logs in streams and overhanging branches for basking and sunning. Large woody debris in riparian areas is used as cover by amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates, and small mammals. Small mammals utilize logs as travel ways. Fungi and other decomposers of woody debris are key components of food webs. Rotting wood tends to absorb moisture during wet periods and release it in dry periods thus helping to maintain a cooler microclimate (USDA 2004a). Snag availability is currently not considered a limiting factor on the CNF. Snag availability is influenced by a variety of factors including tree species, age, slope, aspect, and health allowing for lots of variability within the landscape. It is estimated that there are about 7 to 8 snags per acre across the forest and the recent SPB outbreak has resulted in a sharp increase in snag availability over the past several years. Unless another disease outbreak occurs, a gradual decline toward pre-SPB outbreak levels should be expected over the next several years as these trees decay and fall to the ground. Snag availability is expected to exhibit a gradually increasing long-term trend as the average age of the forest continues to increase. With the provisions

47 included under all alternatives in the RLRMP, existing snags, downed wood, and den trees would be well maintained on NFS land. Pileated Woodpecker (MIS) The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) utilizes many forest communities, but generally is limited to mature coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests with large, dead trees (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Highest densities occur in mixed pine-hardwood sawtimber. It is a locally common permanent resident of Tennessee found in woodlands with trees large enough for nesting and foraging (Nicholson 1997). It can be found throughout the elevational range of the Unaka Mountains but is less common at higher elevations and spruce-fir forests. It is typically considered a forest interior species but will readily fly across openings and is somewhat tolerant of forest fragmentation. Its occurrence in an area is more dependent on regional forested area rather then individual forested tracts. Tennessee Christmas counts show an increase in pileated numbers (Nicholson 1997). See the CNF FY04 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for details of habitat requirements, Cherokee point count data information, and RLRMP Standards and Objectives forest wide (USDA 2005). Figure 10 shows Breeding Bird Survey population trends for Blue Ridge Mountains. The overall regional population trend (Blue Ridge Mountains) for 1966-2005 is a steady increase (Sauer et al. 2005).

Figure 10. Population trends for pileated woodpecker in the Blue Ridge, 1966-2005.

48 Direct and Indirect Effects Snags, Dens and Downed Wood

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would have no effect to snags, dens, and downed wood. The forest would continue to age, causing an increase in those elements. No management activities would take place. There would be no effect to pileated woodpeckers.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The proposed timber harvests would remove potential snags, dens and downed wood. This would negatively affect species in the area that use those elements due to the loss of nesting sites, dens and escape cover. The effects would be limited to the areas affected by harvest. Due to the recent SPB outbreak, snags are not a limiting factor at this time. The proposed habitat improvements would negatively impact pileated woodpeckers by removing mature trees the birds might use for nesting and feeding. There is an abundance of this type of habitat found in the surrounding area. The proposed action would remove approximately 496 acres (7% of the 6,500 acre analysis area) of forest over 70 years of age in the area. The other activities proposed would not affect the woodpecker. Cumulative Effects Snags, Dens and Downed Wood

All Alternatives Areas affected by SPB and other areas potentially affected by hemlock woolly adelgid would increase snags, dens and downed wood and would benefit pileated woodpeckers. Timber sales may also provide snags and downed wood but would also remove some mature trees. Prescribed burning near any of the affected areas would not cumulatively affect pileated woodpeckers. Recreation would not affect this habitat component or the MIS. Private land development may reduce snags, dens and downed wood. Existing Condition Aquatic Habitats All streams in the Buck Bald analysis area drain to the Hiwassee River (5th level Hydrologic Unit Code – 06020002030). The analysis area (NFS lands only) contains approximately 23 miles of perennial streams; 5 miles of these perennial streams are capable of supporting fish (Table 10).

Table 10. Aquatic habitats in the Buck Bald Analysis Area (includes all Forest Service managed streams) Aquatic Habitats Project Ephemeral Streams 84 miles Intermittent Streams 28 miles Perennial Streams (no fish) 18 miles Coldwater Fish Streams 3 miles Coolwater Fish Streams 2 miles Warmwater Fish Ponds 0 acres

49 These streams support both cold (3 miles) and cool (2 miles) water fisheries (Table 11). All of the stream reaches are small having stream orders of 4 or less. Stream order is positively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Gradient varies from a low of 0.1% to a high of 4.7%. Gradient is negatively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Elevation (at the lower end of the stream reaches) ranges from 1,100 to 1,600 feet and is negatively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Generally cold water habitats (capable of supporting trout) occur above 1,200 feet on the CNF.

Table 11. Streams capable of supporting fish in the Buck Bald Analysis Area on the Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts. Stream Name Reach Stream Fishery Order % Grad Low Miles Elev. Brushy Creek 1 .2 Cool 4 0.1% 1140 Brushy Creek 2 .4 Cool 3 3.0% 1160 Brushy Creek, West Fork 1 1.5 Cool 3 2.5% 1180 Coker Creek 2 .2 Cool 4 2.5% 1100 Dalton Branch 1 .6 Cold 3 .7% 1540 Dalton Branch 2 1.1 Cold 2 4.7% 1600 Dalton Branch, Unnamed 1 .4 Cold 2 1.0% 1520 Tributary Mill Branch 1 .9 Cold 4 4.4% 1440

Based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the RLRMP (USDA 2004b) the Hiwassee watershed (5th level HUC) has an average condition rating for sediment, point source pollution, temperature and altered stream flow. An average rating is acceptable for point source pollution, temperature and altered stream flow but is not acceptable for sediment.

Forest Service, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Auburn crews conducted ten stream surveys (USDA 2006) between 1997 and 2005 on streams in the Buck Bald analysis area. All streams capable of supporting fish have been surveyed (USDA 2006). Aquatic habitat conditions were evaluated. All habitat surveys indicated that sediment ratings were acceptable. None of the substrate surveys by the Forest Service indicated that sediment conditions were below average. It is likely that the unacceptable sediment rating for the larger Hiwassee watershed is predicted based on conditions that occur on privately owned lands. Direct and Indirect Effects Aquatic Habitats

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or use of herbicides. No new adverse effects would occur to the aquatic environment.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Alternative B would employ filter strips between ground disturbance and streams (Forest Wide Standards-FW-3, FW-6, FW-7, FW-9, and FW-10; USDA 2004a). Vegetation management within defined riparian corridors would emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris

50 recruitment as the desired condition (Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11- 29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32; USDA 2004a). These standards are adequate to protect all aquatic habitats.

Herbicides would be used during timber stand improvement, site preparation activities, along road ROWs, and to treat a kudzu patch. Forest Wide standards (FW-14, FW-15, and FW-16; USDA 2004a) would be followed during implementation.

Implementation of Alternative B with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect effects to aquatic habitats from these management activities (USDA 2004b). Cumulative Effects Aquatic Habitats

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A does not propose any new ground disturbance. Other activities in the area (see pgs. 21-22) may be contributing sediment to streams. However, sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP (USDA 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic habitats regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Alternative B includes seed tree, shelterwood, group selection and thinning vegetation treatments; non-native plant control; rehabilitation of Buck Bald; ephemeral pool construction; maintenance of wildlife openings; temporary road construction; maintenance and reconstruction of system roads; planting of pine and red oak; and woodland creation. Each of these activities must follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP for the CNF (USDA 2004a). Following these standards would result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re-vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams.

Other activities in the area (see pgs. 21-22) may be contributing sediment to streams. However, sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities implemented in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on NFS lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the RLRMP for the CNF (USDA 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative B, they would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

51 Existing Condition Threatened and Endangered Species Effects to federally-listed threatened and endangered species are analyzed in detail in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix A) for this project. Villosa trabalis (Cumberland bean pearly mussel) and Epioblasma florentina walkeri (tan riffleshell) have been found in the Hiwassee River near the analysis area. They would be protected by riparian mitigation and thus there would be no effects. They are not further evaluated here. Two federally listed species were analyzed in detail and the results are summarized here. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Threatened and Endangered Species

Indiana Bat With Alternative A, no activities would take place in habitat for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), therefore, there would be no affect to Indiana bat. The proposed action is consistent with the RLRMP (USDA 2004a). The RLRMP established standards aimed at protecting Indiana bat including provisions for snag retention (FW-34) and prescribed burning (FW-36). Ephemeral pools are being created in part for the benefit of Indiana bats. Alternative B is not likely to adversely affect the Myotis sodalis, because the project is consistent with the protective measures for Indiana bat set forth in the RLRMP. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurs with this finding (Barclay 2007). Small Whorled Pogonia This species was not found during surveys and is only analyzed for prescribed burning effects. Alternative A would have no effect. Dormant burning would have no effects. Growing season burns would restore natural assemblages and likely have long term beneficial effects. Alternative B is not likely to adversely affect the Isotria medeoloides. The USFWS concurs with this finding (Barclay 2007). No other Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species that occur on the CNF would be affected. Formal consultation with the USFWS is not required. Existing Condition Demand Species

Black Bear (MIS) The black bear (Ursus americanus) uses a wide variety of habitats in the southern Appalachians, occurring primarily on national forests and national parks of the Southern Blue Ridge, Northern Cumberland, and Allegheny Mountains and the Northern Ridge and Valley. These public lands in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia connect to form a forested landscape of over six million acres where bears are generally distributed at low to medium densities. The increase of older oak forests in this large block of habitat, along with increased protection and conservative hunter harvest, has allowed bear populations throughout the southeastern mountain region to moderately increase over the past 30 years. Bears generally are absent from the Cumberland Plateau, Southern Cumberland Mountains, Southern Ridge and Valley and Piedmont (SAMAB 1996). Tennessee’s black bear population is estimated at 1,000 to 1,500 animals, half of which may occupy the CNF. Bait station survey data and legal harvest data indicate a significant population increase since 1980 (USDA 2004c).

52 In the southern Appalachians, including the CNF, important habitat elements are habitat remoteness, habitat diversity, den site availability, and availability of hard mast. Black bears are opportunistic omnivores and consume a variety of seasonal plant and animal foods including flowering plants, grasses, various roots and tubers, and especially soft mast (grapes, berries, apples, etc.). However, availability of hard mast (acorns and hickory nuts) is critical throughout the winter, and reproductive success is closely related to this habitat factor. Total production of hard mast and production by individual trees can fluctuate from year to year due to climatic and other factors (USDA 2004). Bears den in a wide variety of sites including road culverts, abandoned buildings, and in vegetation. Traditional dens are found on the ground in caves, rockfalls, or under the root mass of uprooted trees, and in hollow trees. Some researchers have found that hollow trees are preferred dens. Others have found that ground dens are preferred in the North Carolina mountains. Preference may be related to availability and may be a learned behavior (USDA 2004). Availability of potential den trees on the CNF is augmented by a forest wide standard requiring their retention during all vegetation management treatments. For this reason, the black bear was selected as an MIS to help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species. Ginseng While not designated as an MIS in the RLRMP, Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) is included here due to its status as a species in demand by the public. It is tracked by the number of permits issued. Ginseng is endemic to almost half of the U.S. and over a quarter of North America. It has been reported and documented in 33 states, the District of Columbia, and 2 Canadian provinces. Its range is from southwestern Quebec, southern Ontario, south to Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Kauffman 2006). Habitat varies somewhat across its range, but is generally described as nutrient rich, mesic hardwood forests (Weakley 2004). Ginseng is previously known from seventy-four sites on the CNF, though there are numerous sites that have not yet been added to the Forest database, bringing the current total to well over 100 known sites. Despite high numbers of sites for the species, few populations support more than 50 individuals and most contain only a few scattered plants. This is consistent with range wide trends reported by Kauffman (2006). Ginseng was found within the following Buck Bald stands: 114/21 (single plant), 133/4 (large colony of over 70 plants), 134/22 (several plants at scattered locations), and 134/36 (several plants at scattered locations). Previously known locations of this species fall under the Management Prescriptions shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Prescription allocations of previously known locations of ginseng. Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A - Designated Wilderness 5 4A - Appalachian Trail Corridor 8 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 2 7B - Scenic Corridors/Sensitive Viewsheds 3 7D - Concentrated Recreation Zone 1 7E2 - Dispersed Recreation Areas 5

53 8A1 - Mixed Successional Habitats 12 8B - Early Successional Habitat Emphasis 2 8C - Black Bear Habitat Management 29 9F - Rare Communities 5 9H - Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant 2 Associations to Their Ecological Potential

Within the State of Tennessee, ginseng harvest is regulated through a permit system administered by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation - Division of Natural Heritage. The Tennessee ginseng program arose out of the Ginseng Dealer Registration Act of 1983, and the Ginseng Harvest Season Act of 1985. This program regulates Tennessee’s ginseng industry in compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora of 1973 (CITES). The Division permits about 50 ginseng dealers annually and certifies the roots for export. The purpose of this program is to monitor the harvest level of wild ginseng to ensure that commercial exploitation does not cause it to become endangered. Statewide harvest data for 1978-2004 is presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Statewide Ginseng Harvest Totals (lbs.) 1978-2004

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000 Pounds Harvested

5000

0 2003 2004 2000 2001 2002 1996 1997 1998 1999 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Year of Harvest

In 1998 and 2004, the state data were broken down into county level increments in order to see how counties contributed to the statewide total (Table 13). The following table shows the contribution from the counties that make up the CNF.

Table 13. Ginseng Harvest Data Summary (number of dry pounds*) for Counties that Comprise the Cherokee National Forest YR Carter Cocke Greene Johnson McMinn Monroe Polk Sullivan Unicoi Washington ‘98 167 105 34 21 12 9 3 76 30 51 ‘04 120 211 183 12 25 245 5 214 39 111 * Estimated # of pounds harvested per county

54 In addition to the state permitting process that is geared at regulating commercial trade in ginseng roots, the CNF further tracks the removal of ginseng from Forest lands through a fee permit system (Table 14). Permits are sold to individuals at a rate of $20 per pound (green weight) for ginseng collection. Ginseng harvest on NFS lands has steadily increased since 1999.

Table 14. Ginseng Harvest Data Summary for Cherokee National Forest Lands, TN, 1999-2005. (Pounds are wet weight)

Fiscal # Permits Pounds Price Year 1999 41 44 $880 2000 79 79 $1,580 2001 41 67.5 $1,350 2002 78 96 $1,920 2003 69 69 $1,380 2004 102 102 $2,040

2005 32 32 $640

Alternative A (No Action) The No Action Alternative would result in a decrease in vegetative age class diversity. Habitat diversity would decrease over time as young timber stands grow out of reach for browsing, soft mast production in early successional areas declines, and dense escape cover declines. Black bear utilize shrub/sapling stage vegetation to varying degrees, and the RLRMP guidelines require that 4-10% of each compartment in Prescription 9.H be comprised of such habitat (0-10 year age class). Currently, 3% of lands in the analysis area are in the 0-10 year age class. This alternative allows the increase of white pine and other shade tolerant tree species to become more dominant. Hard mast would continue to decrease as a result. No other wildlife habitat improvements would take place under Alternative A. Commercial collection of ginseng roots is listed as the primary factor in the species’ decline although impacts from timber harvest activities can also negatively impact the species (Kaufmann 2006). Twenty-three of the previously known seventy-four sites occur within mapped prescription allocations (1A, 4A, 7A, 7B, 9F) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Many of the sites also fall into the unmapped riparian prescription that would also provide protection. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF will be protected.

55 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority recently published a “non- detriment” finding for the harvest and export of wild and wild-simulated ginseng roots “provided that exported roots are from plants that were at least 5 years of age or older at the time of harvest.” Timber harvest activities affect plants irregardless of age and thus could be detrimental to the species survival. Kauffman (2006) states that anecdotal information suggests that mature individuals are more resistant to canopy removal than young plants and seedlings, however very little published information exists on the impacts of canopy manipulation on ginseng. The site in stand 114/21 only supports a single individual but would be protected in conjunction with another rare species, Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunch flower) (see section below on Viability Concern Species). The population within stand 133/4 is unique in that it supports a large number of plants (>70), most of which occur within an exposed drain at the northeast end of the stand. The site is described as “Twenty-four 1-prong, thirty-seven 2-prong, thirteen 3- prong, and three 4-prong in a narrow deciduous cove community. The northeast exposed drain has a small eastern exposed drain to its west. Ginseng continues up this small drain >30m, as well as up the main drain to within 30m of WP181, to the end of the area with the moderately lush herb cover. It occurs 20+m up from the main cove on the slope between the main cove and its smaller drain.” (Donaldson 2006) Based upon Donaldson’s description, many of these plants would be protected by adherence to riparian standards and standard exclusions for hemlock forests. Plants in stands 134/22 and 134/36 include several individuals and colonies scattered along drains within the stands and would likewise be protected by riparian exclusions. No further mitigations are proposed. Under Alternative A, no changes to the existing environment would occur beyond those attributed to natural disturbances. Based upon the above information, implementation of Alternative A would have no effect on the viability of Panax quinquefolius (ginseng).

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The timber harvest in Alternative B increases the percentage of acreage in the 0-10 year age class from 3% to 10% in 2008 for all forested lands. The addition of structural and biological diversity in the form of shrub/sapling vegetation would provide soft mast, insects, forage, and escape cover. Additional cover would be provided by tops and root wads which are left behind. Known black bear den sites would be protected for as long as they remain suitable by prohibiting vegetation management and ground-disturbing activities within a minimum 100 feet around the den. Potential black bear den trees would be retained during all vegetation management treatments. Potential den trees are those that are greater than 20” DBH and are hollow with broken tops. Openings created by harvest would benefit black bear by providing soft mast and cover. Female bears use middle elevations with higher stand richness during summer months (Van Manen personal communication) and the addition of structural and biological diversity in the form of shrub/sapling vegetation would provide soft mast, insects, forage, and escape cover. Soft mast-producing species (dogwood, black gum, hawthorn, grapes, serviceberry, etc.) would be retained during vegetation cutting treatments to the extent possible, within constraints of meeting treatment objectives. Soft mast and other forage is a valuable diet supplement to black bears, especially during the months when hard mast is absent and in years when there is a hard mast failure. Those that would grow naturally after harvest, such as blackberries, would provide this. The treatments include removing pine and planting oak in many stands. Oak would be

56 released in some of the harvest areas producing a mixed pine-hardwood or hardwood-pine stand where there is now a pine stand. This would increase hard mast and would benefit bears. Negative effects would be a temporary increase in human disturbance. Overall use of the area by forest visitors is expected to increase slightly even though the open road density would remain the same. Access by foot, horseback, and mountain bike are likely to increase along newly closed roads. Disturbance disrupts movement patterns affecting feeding and mating. Disruption of these patterns uses essential energy and loss of energy could result in poor health, especially during winter when food is not as available and bears become dormant. Openland habitat, in the form of wildlife openings and rehabilitated roads (linear openings), would be maintained in these alternatives. This habitat type provides year-round forage, soft mast, and an abundance of insects for many species, and would be a benefit to black bear. Ephemeral pools may serve as a water source, but otherwise would not affect bears. Herbicide use would benefit the community by reducing non-native invasive plants allowing native species to increase. The use of prescribed fire is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and would likely have a long-term beneficial effect on organisms associated with dry-mesic oak forests. The other actions in Alternative B, including road construction and reconstruction and other activities would not appreciably affect the MIS or the community. Alternative B would regenerate 496 acres of forest 71+ years of age. Over 2,300 acres (35%) of late successional forest would remain within these compartments. The proposed action alternative would benefit bears after the initial disturbance while timber is harvested. Within the four stands where ginseng was found, protection to most of the populations would occur through adherence to riparian standards or other resource exclusions. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian or rich cove habitats and thus would have no effect on ginseng. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of non-native invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of ginseng. The intent of treating non-native invasive plant species is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for ginseng in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Panax quinquefolius. Cumulative Effects Demand Species

Alternative A (No Action) Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory immediately after the burn, but it is soon followed by a flush of new growth. That is beneficial to bears. There would be no cumulative effect because burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. Other timber harvests that have taken place are so minimal as to have almost no effect. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the bears when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth.

57 The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or bears to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of habitat for bears. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. There would be little to no cumulative effects to bears from the No Action Alternative. Ginseng is a widespread species that is under intense pressure from commercial collection. The species has well over 100 populations documented on the forest, though most are small with only scattered individuals. Many new locations found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area occur within riparian areas and would be protected from timber harvest impacts. The biggest threat to this species survival comes from commercial harvest. The CNF issues permits for harvest in accordance with findings from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority. Based upon this, Panax quinquefolius would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Examination of this cluster of compartments within the context of the surrounding landscape reveals that approximately 4% of the total 17,000-acre analysis area would be considered early successional habitat after cutting in Alternative B. This habitat would provide needed age class diversity and soft mast. Large areas within these compartments would not be harvested, providing the extensive, fairly remote habitat black bear need for mating and feeding. Hard mast production would increase with the planting and release of oaks in the regeneration areas. Harvest of these stands within the analysis area would have a beneficial cumulative effect on black bear when viewed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past prescribed burns may have reduced the understory immediately after the burn, but it is soon followed by a flush of new growth. That is beneficial to bears. There would be no cumulative effect because burns would take place in different years, so that the understory over a large area would be in different stages of regrowth. The SPB outbreak likely benefited the bears when sunlight from the increased canopy openings caused a flush of new and dense undergrowth. The death of hemlock from hemlock wooly adelgid apparently would not affect this community or bears to any extent, but its effects are not clear. Any development on private land would potentially decrease the availability of habitat for bears. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities (see pgs. 21-22) would have little effect. Ginseng is a widespread species that is under intense pressure from commercial collection. The species has well over 100 populations documented on the forest, though most are small with only scattered individuals. Many new locations found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area occur within riparian areas and would be protected from timber harvest impacts. The biggest threat to this species survival comes from commercial harvest. The CNF issues permits for harvest in accordance with findings from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority. Based upon this, Panax quinquefolius would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

58 Existing Condition Non-Native Invasive Plants and Animals A multitude of non-native invasive plant species threaten the integrity of native ecosystems in the southern Appalachian area. These include, but are not limited to, species such as kudzu, privet, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and Nepal grass. The SAA (SAMAB 1996) provides a summary of the major threats from non-native invasive plant species. In 1999 the Southern Region released a Noxious Weed Management Strategy that outlined five emphasis areas, 1) Prevention and Education, 2) Control, 3) Inventory, Mapping, and Monitoring, 4) Research, and 5) Administration and Planning. This was followed in 2001 with the development of the Regional Forester’s Invasive Exotic Plant Species list. The RLRMP includes numerous goals, objectives, and standards to address the potential impacts of non-native invasive species. These include control efforts and maintenance and restoration of native species. On the CNF, the following non-native invasive plant species are tracked through project level inventories: Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), small carpetgrass (Arthraxon hispidus), autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), English ivy (Hedera helix), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). While other non-native invasive plant species may occur with scattered distributions on the Forest, these species are recognized as having substantial occurrences with a high potential for impacts to native communities on the Forest. Within the Buck Bald analysis area non-native invasive plant species are abundant, yet mostly restricted to roads and trails and other disturbed sites. Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are a particular problem along linear wildlife openings and roads. Nepal grass out-competes other desired vegetation and is often dominant where it occurs. Wildlife do not use Nepal grass, thus the plant is having an adverse effect on wildlife habitat within the analysis area. A four acre kudzu (Pueria lobata) patch has been identified within stand 133/14. Direct and Indirect Effects Non-Native Invasive Plants and Animals

Alternative A (No Action) No action would be taken to eliminate or control non-native invasive plant species. Nepal grass, sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle, and other non-native invasive plant species would continue to spread though normal vectors, further affecting wildlife forage and native and desired non-native plants in the analysis area. The kudzu patch in stand 133/14 will continue to spread, soon covering all adjacent vegetative communities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would treat non-native invasive plant species within 100 feet of roads, trails, or wildlife openings with herbicides targeted to each species (imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate). Treatments would reduce the impacts from these plants and reduce the likelihood of them spreading and becoming established. This would benefit the impacted area by allowing native and desired non-native vegetation to reoccupy the site. Wildlife habitat would improve by the increase in forage and bugging areas. The kudzu patch in stand 133/14 would be treated

59 chemically. These treatments would be repeated until kudzu is replaced by native vegetation at the site. Cumulative Effects Non-native Invasive Plants and Animals

Alternative A (No Action) No action would be taken to eliminate or control non-native invasive plant species. Non-native invasive plant species would continue to spread on the landscape over time, causing displacement of native species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative would use herbicide to control non-native invasive plant species in the Buck Bald affected area. The action is intended to slow the spread of these species on the landscape. The action would not cumulatively affect other areas or actions. Existing Condition Viability Concern Species Effects to Regional Forester Sensitive Species are analyzed in detail in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix A) for this project. These species are those for which there is concern for viability of their populations across their range. Phoxinus tennesseensis (Tennessee dace), Cheumatopsyche helma (Helma’s net spinning caddis fly), Gomphus consanguis (Cherokee clubtail), Gomphus viridifrons (green faced clubtail), Macromia margarita (mountain river cruiser), Ophiogomphus alleghaniensis (Allegheny snaketail), Ophiogomphus incurvatus (Appalachian snaketail), Pleurobema oviforme (Tennessee clubshell), Fusconaia barnesiana (Tennessee pigtoe), Lasmigona holstonia (Tennessee heelsplitter), Lexingtonia dolabelloides (slabside pearly mussel), and Potamogeton tennesseensis (Tennessee pondweed) have either been found in the Hiwassee River or are possible near the analysis area. These aquatic species would be protected by the riparian mitigation and thus there would be no effects. They are not further evaluated here. Based on this analysis, seven sensitive species occur in the vicinity of the project and are evaluated in detail. Some species were not found during surveys, but habitat is available within the prescribed burn areas. Thus they were also analyzed in the BE. Table 15 displays species evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect for each. Table 15. Species Evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect Determination of Determination of Scientific Name Effect-Alternative A Effect-Alternative B No effect. No activities would May impact individuals, but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal Plethodon aureolus affected. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. No effect. No activities would May impact individuals, but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal Plethodon teyahalee affected. listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. May impact individuals, but not No effect: No activities would likely to cause a trend to federal Speyeria diana occur; no habitat would be listing or a loss of viability. Negative affected. effects short term.

60 Table 15. Species Evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect May impact individuals, but not No effect: No activities would Corynorhinus likely to cause a trend to federal occur; no habitat would be rafinesquii listing or a loss of viability. Negative affected. effects short term. May impact individuals, but not No effect: No activities would likely to cause a trend to federal Myotis leibii occur; no habitat would be listing or a loss of viability. Negative affected. effects short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not Fumonelix archeri occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal affected. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not Paravitrea placentula occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal affected. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not Vertigo bollesiana occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal affected. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals, but not Vertigo clappi occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend to federal affected. listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Ditrichum ambiguum affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Homaliadelphus sharpie affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Aster georgianus affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Berberis canadensis affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Botrychium jenmanii affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Buckleya distichophylla affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not Delphinium exaltatum occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal affected. listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not Diervilla rivularis occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal affected. listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Fothergilla major affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial.

61 Table 15. Species Evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and Determinations of Effect No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Gentiana affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative austromontana impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Lysimachia fraseri affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Monotropsis odorata affected. listing or loss of viability. Benefit from opening understory, negative impacts are short term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Penstemon smallii affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Pycnanthemum beadlei affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Thaspium pinnatifidum affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Thermopsis mollis var. affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative fraxinifolia impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial. No effect: No activities would May impact individuals but not occur; no habitat would be likely to cause a trend toward federal Tsuga caroliniana affected. listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial.

The implementation of the proposed activities may affect individuals of sensitive species, however, this would not likely lead to a loss in range wide viability or trend toward federal listing. In addition to Regional Forester Sensitive Species, forest managers have responsibility to maintain occurrences of all native and desired non-native species that are necessary to maintain viable populations of these species on the Forest under RLRMP Forest Wide Standard 28 (FW- 28). Appendix E to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the RLRMP (USDA 2004c) lists species of viability concern known to occur on the Forest. Appendix B describes the existing condition and effects by alternative for each plant species of viability concern that was found in the area. Site specific information is drawn directly from the botanical survey reports (Donaldson 2006). Note that the descriptions provide a summary of important information for each species. The botanical reports (Project File) contain comprehensive data, maps, and locations for each species and surveyed area.

62 Appendix C describes the existing condition and effects by alternative for each aquatic species of viability concern that was found in the area. Existing Condition Forest Health Forest health concerns for the CNF include insects, diseases, and potential storm damage. Damage to forest communities occurs in varying degrees depending on community types and species composition, location on the landscape, age of the forested community, past disturbance, and weather conditions. Gypsy Moth Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is a major defoliator of hardwood trees in both forest and urban landscapes. It was introduced from Europe into Massachusetts sometime between 1867 and 1869. Because the favored host, oak, is widespread in the eastern deciduous forests, gypsy moth thrives and continues to escape its range west and south each year. By the 1980’s, gypsy moth was established throughout the northeast. Today the area considered generally infested includes parts of Virginia, just north of the CNF. Gypsy moth is projected to occur on the forest between the year 2010 and 2025 (SAMAB 1996). The CNF can anticipate gypsy moth attack on the north end of the forest as early as the year 2010 and for the south end of the forest as early as 2020. Gypsy moth larvae feed on more than 300 species of trees, shrubs, and vines. Favored hosts include oak, apple, birch, basswood, witch hazel, and willow. Hosts moderately favored include maple, hickory, beech, black cherry, elm, and sassafras. Least favored hosts are ash, yellow poplar, American sycamore, hemlock, pine, spruce, black gum, and black locust. Feeding on less favored host plants usually occurs when high-density larval populations defoliate the favored tree species and move to adjacent, less favored species of trees to finish their development. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) (HWA) was introduced into the eastern U.S. from Asia in the early 1950's near Richmond, Virginia. The HWA was present on some exotic tree species that a private collector planted in his arboretum. The distribution of the HWA remained localized until the 1960's. The population has since spread throughout the Shenandoah Valley into the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and the northeastern U.S. The entire range of eastern hemlock is threatened and could be infested within 30 years. There are also well-established populations in North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park adjacent to much of the CNF. Recently, the adelgid has been found in several locations on the Tellico and Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger Districts. The CNF can expect to see much of its hemlock infested in the near future. Impacts to the host species Tsuga canadensis and T. caroliniana, eastern and Carolina hemlocks, respectively, are severe. Once infested, tree mortality usually occurs in two to five years. Mortality is not restricted to any size or age of hemlock. This insect pest threatens the hemlock resource and also threatens the unique ecosystem it helps comprise. Hemlock provides habitat for a variety of plants and animals and helps to maintain stream temperatures for a variety of aquatic species.

63 Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) The SPB (Dendroctonus frontalis) is the most destructive pine bark beetle in Tennessee and the southern U.S. (USDA 2004a). Pine trees are killed singly, in small groups, or in large numbers, sometimes exceeding hundreds of acres. The SPB is a native pest to the South and occurs in small numbers (endemic) until outbreak or epidemic population levels develop. Infestations can develop into outbreak levels when pine forests are stressed by crowded growing conditions, trees are damaged from ice or wind, during drought conditions, or when stands are considered biologically mature. These stress conditions can often prevent the tree from producing adequate resin flow to "pitch out" the attacking insect, which is the tree’s main defense in a SPB attack. Once pine stands are weakened, they become more susceptible to attack by SPB. Once populations develop in weakened trees, the beetles may spread to healthy trees that normally would resist attack. When beetle populations become large (epidemic), they can successfully attack healthy, vigorous trees and result in widespread mortality. Natural enemies, including diseases, parasites, and predators (primarily the clerid beetle) can help maintain beetle populations at endemic levels. However, these forces seem to have relatively little effect during the early stages of an epidemic when SPB populations explode faster than parasite and predator populations respond to the availability of new host beetle levels. Ultimately, however, these biocontrol agents catch up with and actually exceed the abundant host beetles (food source) and contribute to the collapse of the epidemic. Most major outbreaks last three to five years and occur in irregular cycles of about seven to ten years, sometimes longer in the mountain region. The SPB attacks all species of pines including white pine, but prefers loblolly, shortleaf, Virginia, and pitch pines all of which are native to the CNF. Pine is a significant component of the forested communities on the CNF and represents a large portion of the CNF. Storm Damage Storm damage to trees from tornadoes, hurricanes, snow or ice loading with or without wind, is similar. These stresses cause hardwoods and pines to break off, split, be root sprung, bend and suffer branch and foliage losses. Stresses appear to be much the same, regardless of storm type. Tree crown configuration; age (old, large trees suffer greater damage); size and limberness of stems; branching habit; lean of bole; anchorage based on rooting characteristics and soil; and the presence of root and stem diseases have as much or more to do with tree damage as the intensity of the storm itself. Elevation can be important in the case of ice and snow damage. Frequently, a variation of one or two degrees in air temperature can result in bands of varying damage on the same hillside at different elevations, depending on the temperatures there at the time of precipitation. However, even here, pre-storm management to minimize damage is not possible because of the natural randomness of weather patterns. Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Health Alternative A (No Action) No action would result in no immediate change in the existing vegetation. If no regeneration occurs, the present species composition of the forest would eventually shift from the current overstory of predominately shade-intolerant species to that of shade-tolerant species. Shade intolerant species such as shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, yellow poplar would decrease in abundance. Shade tolerant species such as red maple, black gum, white pine

64 and hemlock would increase in abundance. The assemblage of understory plants would change following the succession of the forest canopy composition. White pine, and to a lesser degree eastern hemlock, have benefited from the absence of wildland fire in the analysis area. These species are best suited to occupy lower slope and riparian habitats and do not become established in areas that have periodic fire. Due to the lack of fire in the analysis area they have seeded in on many upland sites. The long-term effect of no action would be an older, more uniform forest where species composition, age-class distribution, and understory vegetation would continue to change relatively slowly by processes of natural succession. This alternative would not provide further age-class diversity with the addition of early- successional habitat through timber harvest and regeneration. Barring a major natural disturbance, plant communities favoring oak or shortleaf pine would be replaced under this alternative by the shade-tolerant species currently in the understory. There would be a higher proportional amount of acres in the 70+ age classes which would further imbalance the age-class distribution. This gradual shift of shade-intolerant species to that of shade-tolerant species would result in a reduction of some important wildlife elements such as hard and soft mast production, which would decline as the percentage of mature scarlet, black, chestnut and white oak trees declined. Soft mast would also be reduced due to the loss of early-successional habitat. As the trees grow older, there would be an increased vulnerability to insect and disease, which would result in trees with slower growth and decreased vigor. The Gypsy Moth poses real threats to oaks and hardwood stands in general. The SPB, which was noted as a threat to stands of white and yellow pine in the analysis area, has killed some nearly pure pine stands as well as many scattered pine. Hardwood stands of advanced age may be vulnerable to oak decline. Twelve stands (196 acres total) of SPB killed pine in the analysis area are scheduled for restoration. This treatment consists of site preparation followed by planting shortleaf pine. This activity is part of a previous restoration decision and project (CNF 2006). The 196 acres being treated is considered to be in regeneration and is accounted for in the age class distribution for all alternatives. HWA poses a serious threat to the eastern hemlock found in the analysis area. The CNF HWA Suppression EA and DN (USDA 2005b) includes a hemlock treatment area (Wolf Creek) approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the analysis area. This area will be treated in the next few years using biological and chemical controls. This site was chosen for treatment as part of a landscape level effort to maintain the presence and genetic diversity of hemlock. The treatment site was chosen in coordination with other treatment sites on the landscape so that pollen may be transferred between sites. The older trees in the analysis area would eventually die as natural processes along with insect and disease impacts continue. Woody debris in the form of large trees and limb wood may increase on the forest floor as older trees and suppressed trees finally die and fall. No action would result in no immediate change in the existing vegetation. The long-term effect of no action would be an older, more uniform forest where species composition, age-class distribution, and understory vegetation would continue to change relatively slowly by processes of natural succession.

65 Alternative B (Proposed Action) Table 16 indicates the age class distribution for the Buck Bald analysis area after the proposed harvest activities would occur. The acreage in older successional stages and the associated vegetation would decrease by 496 acres or 7% in Alternative B. Implementing this alternative over the long-term would lead to a more balanced forest-wide age- class distribution and improve the health and vigor of individual stands through harvesting. The base year for the table is 2008.

Table 16. Age Class Distribution for the Buck Bald Analysis Area Age 0- 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt A 3% 10% 7% 8% 0% 9% 17% 11% 20% 12% 3% 100% Alt B 10% 10% 7% 8% 0% 9% 17% 9% 17% 11% 2% 100%

The definition of Basal Area is useful for the narrative that follows. Basal area is the cross sectional area of a tree measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. Basal area per acre is the sum of all individual tree basal areas on an acre which is used as a measure of stand density. Seedtree with reserves (130 acres, stands 131/20, 132/19, 133/13, 137/5) These stands are on upland sites with southerly or westerly aspects. They are predominantly Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, or white pine, with oak and other hardwood components. The seedtree with reserves regeneration method would leave 10 to 20 BA/AC (Basal Area per acre) of well spaced shortleaf pine seed trees where possible. All den trees would be left as well as some mast producing trees in order to make up the leave basal area. Most if not all of the trees left with this regeneration method would remain in the stand through the next stand rotation. This method produces a two- aged stand. The seedtree with reserves method is similar to the shelterwood with reserves method in that residual trees are left after regeneration. In general, seedtree with reserves method is used to establish pine dominated stands, the shelterwood with reserves method is used to establish oak dominated stands. For the purpose of this analysis they are similar in effect. Seedtrees which are left, produce seed for the regeneration of the next stand. Natural regeneration of shortleaf pine can be unpredictable and planting these species is necessary to ensure adequate stocking. These stands would be planted with shortleaf pine at a rate of approximately 300 trees pre acre. The seedtree method allows enough sunlight to reach the forest floor to facilitate both the artificial and natural regeneration of shade intolerant species such as pitch pine, shortleaf pine and the oaks. The seed tree with reserves regeneration method would produce a mixed stand of shortleaf pine, mixed with Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, chestnut oak, white oak, and other hardwood species. Shelterwood with reserves (366 acres, stands 131/9, 132/11, 132/13, 132/22, 132/31, 133/9, 133/15, 133/20, 134/13, 137/20, 137/21) These stands are predominantly white pine and mixed stands of white pine and hardwood. The shelterwood with reserves method would produce stands with a greater component of upland oaks and other hardwood, and a reduced component of white pine. Using the shelterwood with reserves method, stands would be harvested with enough trees left in the individual stands to maintain approximately 20 to 40 BA/AC as a

66 residual stand. In addition, stands 133/15 and 131/9 would be site prep burned after harvesting in order to reduce the existing white pine sapling component in these stands. The purpose of the leave trees is to provide a limited amount of shelter for the development of the new stand. Leave trees would be selected to approximate the species composition of the uncut stand. Most, if not all of the trees left with this regeneration method would remain in the stand through the next stand rotation. This method produces a two-aged stand. Group Selection (120 acres, stands 134/7, 134/14, 114/21) Group selection openings of approximately two acres in size or less would be distributed throughout each stand. The total acreage of these openings would be approximately one third of the total stand acreage, which would be about 40 acres, or 20 two acre groups. Group selection would create uneven age stands that contain more than 2 age components. Hardwood regeneration in these small openings is rapid, and growth is fast. Stands 134/7 and 134/14 currently have a substantial white pine component and white pine would be present in the regenerated stand along with upland oak and other hardwood species. The groups regenerated in stand 114/21 would receive cut stump chemical site preparation, northern red oak planting (50 trees/ac) and a second year chemical release. This stand is currently dominated by yellow poplar and this treatment would insure an oak component in the regenerated stand. Thinning (103 acres, stands 133/4) Thinning would leave a residual stand of approximately 50 basal area or greater. Thinning increases the growth and health of residual trees by making more space and nutrients available. Increased sunlight on the forest floor would increase the production of browse for wildlife and promote advanced oak regeneration. With thinning and all the harvesting methods used in this project, some residual trees would be damaged during the felling and skidding operations. Most damage would not be severe and most trees would recover quickly from these mechanical injuries. Open wounds are an entry point for insects and disease, and some trees may die as a result. The residual trees are more vulnerable to wind throw and ice damage, and some trees may be lost to these causes. Manual site preparation with burning (130 acres) This treatment consist of cutting residual stems not wanted for the residual stand, followed by prescribed burning. A manual site preparation and site prep burn would be done in those stands regenerated by the seedtree with reserves method. This treatment would be conducted to accomplish several goals. It would help to clear the area and ease the planting operations, and it would help to control competing vegetation until seedlings become established. Burning also releases nutrients that benefit the growth and development of seedlings. Oak species sprout and grow well after fire and they would contribute to the stocking of the new stands. Site preparation by prescribed burning (77 acres) This treatment consists of prescribed burning after harvesting is completed. It would be used in this project to reduce the existing white pine sapling component in these stands. Seedling Release, chemical (175 acres) Chemical release would be used in all the regenerated stands that are planted with shortleaf pine and northern red oak. The release treatment would give a competitive advantage to the planted seedlings in the newly regenerated stands. When forest stands are regenerated, there would be a naturally occurring flush of new growth. This is more pronounced on the higher quality sites, such as the ones that are planted with oak. These

67 new sapling stands contain large amounts of red maple, sourwood, black gum, and other species. Usually small amounts of northern red oak and shortleaf pine regenerate naturally, and more are planted to ensure a well-stocked stand. The release treatment using the herbicide triclopyr would give these desirable species a competitive advantage at a critical time in their development. Release treatments with herbicides are highly effective for improving the growth and survival of seedlings. Chemical release can make the difference between successful or unsuccessful planting. A single herbicide release treatment is as effective as repeated treatments without herbicides in most cases. Delays in treatment result in a reduction of survival and growth of desirable species. Triclopyr would be applied using the thinline method. Thinline is spraying a fine stream of herbicide solution from a hand held sprayer, onto the lower stem of a targeted sapling. The thinline method would be used to open a three to five foot radius around the planted northern red oak and shortleaf pine seedlings. Saplings treated by this method generally die or are stunted to the point that they are no longer competitive. Because the herbicide can be applied directly to targeted stems, very little overspray occurs. The thinline treatment would be applied in the second year after seedlings are planted. Stand 131/5, a young sapling stand of mixed hardwood and shortleaf pine, would be chemically released to improve species composition. This treatment would favor shortleaf pine and oak species by reducing competition from red maple, black gum and other species. Non-native invasive plant species control (570 Acres) Control non-native invasive herbaceous species by the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate. Species can include, but are not limited to, kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, and mimosa. The herbicides would be applied selectively using hand held or tractor mounted equipment. The sites for treatment would be NFSRs (with 100 foot buffer), existing spot openings and one known 4-acre kudzu patch. It is not likely that the entire 570 acres would be treated. These non-native invasive species occur sporadically in the analysis area. Removing non-native invasive plant species would improve the natural diversity of the analysis area. Removing non-native invasive plant species provides growing space and frees up nutrients for native species. Alternative B would establish approximately 10% of the forested acres in the 0-10 age class thereby falling within 4-10% percent range prescribed in the 9H prescription. This alternative provides an amount of managed disturbance that would help improve overall vegetative diversity to the area. The proposed action would decrease the risk of oak decline, SPB outbreak and gypsy moth infestation by promoting vigorous stands and diversifying age class. In addition, Alternative B would improve soft mast production. Alternative B contributes to RLRMP objectives for the control of non-native and unwanted native species (15.02), the restoration of oak or oak pine forest (17.02), restores shortleaf pine (17.03), contributes to the reduction of Virginia pine and restoration of fire adapted pine or oak communities (17.05), promotes the health of susceptible forest communities by maintaining basal area (18.02), and the creation of early successional habitat for prescription area 9H (9H- 1.01).

68 Cumulative Effects Forest Health The area considered for vegetative cumulative effects on age class is all forested acres in the analysis area and adjacent compartments, including compartments on both the Cherokee and Nantahala National Forests. The compartments considered are: 114, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 166, 179, 180 and Tusquitee Ranger District compartments 1, 2, and 3. This area is 17,311 acres of NFS land.

Alternative A (No Action) See Table 17 for the age class distribution in the previously mentioned compartments, in the various age classes (base year 2008) for Alternative A. In the short term, Alternative A would have its greatest effect on the 0-10 age class. In the year 2008, there would be no new acreage in the 0-10 age class. This limits the amount of soft mast and low cover for wildlife. In the long term, this alternative would create an older, more uniform forest, which would be more susceptible to oak decline, gypsy moth, HWA and SPB. Oak decline, gypsy moth, HWA and SPB would affect the forest structure and composition. Oak decline and the gypsy moth could affect the analysis area due to the large amounts of mature oak. Approximately 18 percent of the analysis area classified as primarily oak and oak pine forest types is over the age of 70. The effect would be a decline in the number of oaks and its associated hard mast. The SPB outbreak (1999 through 2002) has impacted the analysis area and the surrounding landscape. Approximately 196 acres of SPB impacted area are planned for restoration under another decision document. Additional acres were affected by SPB and have pine mortality, but the amount of mortality was not enough to justify restoration. Approximately 29 percent of the analysis area is pine or pine hardwood forest types over the age of 60 and highly vulnerable to SPB. The probability of another SPB outbreak is high, and would result in a further reduction of pine species. Hemlock is a major forest component on approximately 8 percent of the analysis area, and a minor but important component over much more area. Most of these stands are older than 60 years. Hemlock wooly adelgid is likely to kill most of these hemlocks. Their position in the forest canopy is likely to be replaced by white pine and yellow poplar. Alternative A does not respond to the prescription area 9H objective of providing 4 to 10 percent of the analysis area in the 0-10 age class for early successional wildlife species. Alternative A does not provide measures to improve forest health and reduce forest susceptibility to disease and pest outbreaks.

69 Alternative B (Proposed Action) See Table 17 for the age class distribution in the previously mentioned compartments, in the various age classes (base year 2008) for Alternative B.

Table 17. Age Class Distribution for Cumulative Effects Age 0- 11- 21- 31- 41- 51- 61- 71- 81- 91- 101 Total 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 + Alt A 2% 8% 6% 9% 2% 4% 12% 12% 19% 19% 7% 100% Alt B 5% 8% 6% 9% 2% 4% 12% 11% 18% 18% 7% 100%

Alternative B would increase the amount of 0-10 year old habitat from 2 to 5 percent in the larger cumulative effects analysis area. The above table indicates that there is currently very little early successional habitat (0-10 year old). The majority of the area (54 %) would still be in the 71+-age class. Timber harvesting in the last forty years has begun to establish a more balanced distribution of age classes and the proposed action contributes to this. There are no other reasonably foreseeable activities on the CNF portion of the analysis area for the next 5-10 years. The Tusquitee Ranger District is considering a project that may include vegetation management activities that would occur within the area considered in this cumulative effects analysis. The Tusquitee Ranger District project, pending NEPA process and decision, may add as much as 3% to the early successional habitat (0-10 year old) of the area considered. The Buck Bald project and the Tusquitee Ranger District project, if both implemented in full, would place about 8% of the cumulative effects area in the 0-10 year age class. These projects would contribute to a more balanced age class distribution for the area considered. If this and future projects regenerated 8% of the forested area per decade, it would produce a long term balanced age class distribution with an average stand rotation of 125 years. The Buck Bald project and future projects on the Tusquitee Ranger District may designate stands for regeneration that are adjoining or in close proximity to one another. This would be coordinated and mitigated to prevent adverse cumulative effects or RLRMP conflicts. Chemical release of planted seedlings would occur on 175 acres using the herbicide triclopyr, and the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate would be used to treat non-native invasive plant species on as much as 570 acres. The cumulative use of these chemicals would not adversely affect desirable, non target tree species. The stands proposed for harvests were evaluated as to the possibility of them being identified as existing old growth. This process followed the Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old- Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA 1997). None of the stands were found to qualify as existing old growth. Alternative B would reduce the risk of oak decline, gypsy moth, and SPB at the landscape level. Regeneration harvest diversifies the age class distribution and promotes the development of younger, healthy stands. Thinning improves the health, growth and vigor of stands by providing growing space for residual trees. Alternative B would not have any effect on limiting the spread of HWA because no hemlock is proposed for treatment. The cumulative effects of the proposed action along with other past harvesting would have minimal effect on the even-aged age class distribution in the area being considered.

70 Summary of Alternatives The following table (Table 18) provides a comparison of the alternatives with regard to Biological Elements.

Table 18. Comparison of Alternatives regarding Biological Elements. Biological Element Alternative A Alternative B Mesic Deciduous Forest No effect Benefit some species. Temporarily negatively affect individual MIS. Eastern Hemlock and White Pine Forest No effect Benefit many species. Oak and Oak-pine Forest No effect Positive effect to many species. Both positive and negative effects to MIS. Pine and pine-oak forest No effect Benefit many species. No effect to MIS. Woodlands, Savannas, and Grasslands No effect Short term negative effect to some species. Benefit many species, including viability concern. High Elevation Balds and Meadows No effect Beneficial effect Caves and Mines No effect No effect Successional habitats No effect Benefit many species, including MIS. Permanent openings and old fields, No effect Benefit many species, rights-of-way, improved pastures including MIS. Riparian habitats No effect No effect Snags, dens and downed wood No effect Minor reduction in available habitat Aquatic habitats No effect No effect Threatened and Endangered Species No effect Not likely to adversely affect. Demand species No effect Benefit many species including MIS. Invasive non-native plants and animals No effect Controls existing non native populations. Species Viability No effect May impact individuals. Forest health Increased vulnerability Improve the health and to insect and disease, vigor

Social/Economic Factors ______Existing Condition Scenery and Recreation Resources The Buck Bald analysis area is in the Hiwassee River and Coker Creek recreation zones. Recreation activities in the analysis area include: . Long-distance backcountry hiking on the John Muir National Recreation Trail #152 or the newly designated Benton MacKaye Trail #2 . Scenic destination hiking at Coker Creek Falls #183 in the Coker Creek Scenic Area

71 . Horseback, bike, hike and motorcycle use on Unicoi Motorcycle Trail #82, Unicoi Mountain Trail #117 and open forest roads . Fishing and water-play in Coker Creek and Wolf Creek, Wolf Creek is easily accessible from the nearby road and has rainbow and brown trout. . Using forest roads and trails to access the general forest for hunting . Sightseeing in the Coker Creek Community, at Doc Roger’s fields, & former fire tower site Buck Bald with long-distance panoramic views . Driving for pleasure along State Scenic Parkway TN 68 . Heritage tourism such as panning for gold in Coker Creek, viewing the effects of historic copper smelting and mining in the surrounding copper basin, exploring the nationally significant Unicoi Turnpike National Millennium Trail, or visiting the historic communities in the vicinity . One outfitter service shuttles bike enthusiasts to top of Buck Bald from which patrons ride down NFSR 198. The desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting is Remote Roaded Natural 2 with an emphasis on maintaining or enhancing the dispersed, primitive quality along backcountry trails (CNF 2004). Hiwassee State Scenic River forms the southern boundary of the analysis area. There are no developed overnight facilities in the analysis area managed by the Forest Service. There may be private lodging or camping facilities managed by the private sector on private land. Dispersed camping is featured as part of the backcountry experience along the long- distance trails. There is also some dispersed camping off of NFSRs and at trailheads. During the planning process for the RLRMP forest-wide scenery inventories were updated to include increasing interest in scenery. Due to the recent completion of the Benton MacKaye Trail, additional scenery inventories were completed during the analysis of this project. Forest landscapes, including the Benton MacKaye, were inventoried based on viewing distance, concern level and scenic attractiveness, and assigned individual scenic classes. Each Management Prescription includes a range of Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) based on the inventoried scenic class. In the Buck Bald analysis area, landscapes are classified as Scenic Classes 1 - 3; these, combined with the Management Prescription, provide the basis for SIOs of Very High, High, Moderate, and Low. “Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be ‘complete.’ The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Human alterations can sometimes raise or maintain integrity. More often it is lowered depending on the degree of deviation from the character valued for its aesthetic appeal.” (USDA 1995) Direct and Indirect Effects Scenery and Recreation Resources The landscape character valued in the Buck Bald analysis area for aesthetic appeal is generally defined as natural appearing. Deviations from the aesthetic appeal and desired landscape character are disclosed as direct and indirect effects for each alternative. The potential to create noticeable deviations from the desired landscape character after project implementation is primarily based on the proposed reduction of Basal Area and tree canopy cover in areas identified as visible middleground and/or foreground from viewing platforms and corridors. In

72 addition, the area lends itself to a remote backcountry experience. Changes in road access would affect the area’s remoteness. Disclosure of effects is based on design criteria recommendations (located in the project file). Intent of design criteria is to reduce elements visually recognized as detracting from scenic quality, and potentially decreasing scenic integrity levels, while promoting elements known to enhance/maintain scenic integrity. Effect analysis is based upon road and landing design, contouring vegetation stands, and understory vegetation which promotes visually attractive trees.

Alternative A (No Action) Under this alternative, the proposed action would not be implemented. The overall effect of the no-action alternative would be no change to the existing natural-appearing landscape. By 2015, most of the tree diameters would increase in size, a positive effect along scenic travelways. Monitoring activities would continue under Alternative A. There would be no significant effects to the scenic resource with the no action alternative. However, while there would be no alterations to the current natural appearing landscape, there also would be no enhancements to improve scenery or create visual diversity, either short- or long-term, which could affect both scenery and recreation resources. Road and trail rehabilitation and proposed wildlife habitat projects would not occur, potentially resulting in a negative short- and long-term effect on recreation.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The effects analysis is organized by proposed activities, noted locations, travel routes, and SIO. Deviations from the aesthetic appeal and desired landscape character are disclosed as direct and indirect effects for each alternative. The potential to create noticeable deviations from the desired landscape character after project implementation is primarily based on the proposed reduction of Basal Area and tree canopy cover in areas identified as visible middleground and/or foreground from noted travel routes. Landscape visibility is a function of many interconnected considerations including (1) context of viewers, (2) duration of view, (3) degree of discernible detail, (4) seasonal variations, and (5) number of viewers (USDA 1995). Using geographic information system (GIS) applications, a spatial analysis was conducted to determine the areas that are potentially visible from identified travel routes (CNF 2006). Shelterwood with Reserves Comp/Std Acres Noted Travel Routes/ Scenic Integrity Objective Visibility Benton MacKaye #2/ Unicoi Moderate Motorcycle Trail #82- Foreground- GIS model & field review predict a low 131/9 37 likelihood of visibility. 132/11 29 Benton MacKaye Trail- Moderate/Low portion of stand is in distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility.

73 Comp/Std Acres Noted Travel Routes/ Scenic Integrity Objective Visibility 132/13 36 Benton MacKaye Trail- Moderate distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. 132/22 39 Benton MacKaye Trail- Moderate/Low portion of stand is in distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. 132/31 40 Benton MacKaye Trail #2- Moderate/Low portion of stand is in distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. 133/9 40 Benton MacKaye Trail #2- Moderate distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. 133/15 40 None. Low 133/20 40 None. Low 134/13 39 Benton MacKaye #2/Unicoi Moderate Motorcycle Trail #82 & TN68 Foreground- GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. 137/20 13 Benton MacKaye Trail #2- Moderate distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. 137/21 13 Benton MacKaye Trail #2- Moderate distant foreground. GIS model & field review predict a low likelihood of visibility. TOTAL 366

Forest visitors traveling on the noted travel routes above may notice some of the proposed shelterwood with reserves treatment. Potential effects include a decrease in canopy cover, an increase in sunlight, and browned or dying vegetation resulting from the site-preparation burning or removing timber. Created openings may be noticeable through the difference in texture and color of treated areas particularly, if viewed in conjunction with areas that have not been treated. However, the majority of the stands proposed for treatment have a low likelihood of visibility based on GIS visibility modeling and leaf-off field review. Implementation of design criteria for Seedtree with Reserves (in project file) ensures the actions meet assigned SIOs and scenery standards.

74 Seedtree with Reserves Comp/Std Acres Noted Travel Scenic Integrity Objective Routes/Locations None. A portion borders Low 131/20 39 private land. 132/19 31 Benton MacKaye #2, Unicoi Moderate Motorcycle Trail #82 Immediate Foreground. Portions of stand visible. 133/13 30 Benton MacKaye #2, Unicoi Moderate Motorcycle Trail #82 Immediate Foreground. Portions of stand visible. 137/5 30 None. Low TOTAL 130

Stands proposed for seedtree with reserves treatment have prescribed SIOs of Low and Moderate. Note: a portion of stand 137/5 falls in the Coker Creek Scenic Area and has a corresponding Very High SIO- no vegetation management would occur in the Scenic Area. Stand 131/20 may be visible from bordering private land. Portions of stands 132/19 and 133/13 are visible as foreground views from the Benton MacKaye Trail and Unicoi Motorcycle Trail. Visitors on these trails or private landowners may notice a more open forest canopy, with increased sunlight, and increased visual penetration into the understory in the treatment areas. The first year following the controlled burn, scorched or black earth and dead or browned vegetation may be perceptible. An increased pine component may be noticeable over time. The sounds of motorized equipment may be heard during project implementation. Noticeable effects include increased openings in the canopy, bare earth devoid of vegetation, piles of logging debris, logging platforms and skid trails. Design criteria outlined in the project file ensure that proposed harvests meet minimum assigned SIOs and RLRMP standards for scenery. Thinning Comp/Std Acres Noted Travel Scenic Integrity Objective Routes/Locations 133/4 103 Old Highway (NFSR 311) Moderate Portions of stand visible in immediate foreground. 134/22 42 Old Highway (NFSR 311) Moderate Portions of stand visible in immediate foreground. 134/36 57 Buck Bald High & Moderate TOTAL 202 The proposed thinning treatment areas have Moderate and High SIOs. When the proposed thinning treatments are visible in the immediate foreground, Forest visitors may notice a less dense stand of trees, and an increased view into the understory. Stands 133/4 and 134/22 are in the immediate foreground of Old Highway, NFSR 311, one of the routes used to access Buck

75 Bald. Stand 134/36 is in close proximity to the Hiwassee State Scenic River, State Scenic Parkway TN68, and the John Muir National Recreation Trail #152: however steep slopes limit visibility from these travel routes. Miller Cove Ridge is likely visible from Buck Bald as a distant foreground view, the proposed thinning is not likely to create a noticeable deviation when viewed in conjunction with the surrounding landscape. When 134/22 and 134/36 are burned as part of the proposed savanna creation, smoke may be visible from the noted travel routes/location, as well as from adjacent travel routes including Shuler Creek Road, TN68, and John Muir National Recreation Trail #152. Post-burn effects include visible dark charred; soil, understory vegetation, and tree trunks, if viewed in the immediate foreground. The effects are likely temporary in nature and not likely perceived after spring re-growth. Implementation of design criteria for thinning (in project file) ensures the actions meet assigned SIOs and scenery standards. Group Selection Comp/Std Acres Noted Travel Routes Scenic Integrity Objective 114/21 39 Benton MacKaye Trail #2 Moderate (immediate foreground), Unicoi Mountain Trail #117(immediate foreground) 134/7 27 Benton MacKaye Trail #2 Moderate (filtered distant foreground - low visibility), TN68 (immediate foreground) 134/14 54 Benton MacKaye Trail #2 Moderate to Low (filtered distant foreground- low visibility), TN68 (immediate foreground) TOTAL 120

The group selection treatment proposed may be visible from the above noted travel routes, particularly those with views in the immediate foreground. Visitors may notice openings in the canopy, increased sunlight to forest floor, and visual penetration into the treated stands. Sapling Release Comp/Std Acres Noted Location Scenic Integrity Objective 131/5 32 Borders private land Low TOTAL 32 The proposed sapling release may be noticeable from nearby private land. When visible, dead or dying vegetation resulting from the chemical treatment may be perceptible. The effects are temporary in nature and would likely be unnoticeable a year after treatment.

76 Ephemeral pools The proposed ephemeral pool creation would not likely be visible as most log landings and temporary roads are screened or out of view of travel routes. Non-native Invasive Plant Species Treatment Visitors may notice dead or dying vegetation appearing scorched, brown, or blackened from the proposed non-native invasive plant treatments when visible from the John Muir National Recreation Trail #152, Benton MacKaye Trail #2, Old Highway, Joe Brown Highway and Shuler Creek Road. Currently non-native invasive plants present a deviation from the desired landscape character and treatment is necessary to restore native landscapes. The effects are likely to be temporary and support long term scenery goals. Spot and Linear Wildlife Opening Maintenance The maintenance of existing spot and linear wildlife openings would increase habitat and thereby have a potential to increase wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities. Linear wildlife openings are likely perceptible as former roads when seen by visitors. Transportation Improvements Scenic resources may be affected by the proposed 5.5 mile of temporary road construction, as well as the proposed 23.2 miles of reconstruction and 2 miles of prehaul maintenance. Even with obliteration and seeding, temporary roads change landscape character by creating cut banks and beds, which are distinguishable as corridors for a long period of time. Reconstruction and prehaul maintenance of existing roads could expose previously undisturbed areas of mineral soil, increasing viewshed visibility of those roads. Road reconstruction has the highest potential to impact scenery in the long term. Buck Bald Maintenance The proposed prescribed burn and manual and chemical treatment of Buck Bald, would maintain the open panoramic views. Visitors would notice the charred and dead vegetation resulting from the prescribed burn and manual and chemical treatments in the immediate foreground. This change in maintenance creates an opportunity to discuss burning and reduced mowing efforts in CNF with visitors. Potential outlets include website and the information board at Buck Bald. This would allow visitors to alter their plans, if necessary, during implementation. Post burn, visitors to this area of the Forest may notice an increase in scorched earth, dead or dying vegetation, or blackened vegetation in the burned area. The effects are likely temporary in nature and not likely perceived after spring re-growth. Cumulative Effects Scenery and Recreation Resources

Alternative A (No Action) In the past, the SPB outbreak that occurred from 1999-2003 impacted the scenic integrity and recreation opportunities across CNF, especially the south end of the forest. The consequent dead and dying pine trees have either been removed or allowed to fall and remain on the ground. Many of these areas are within view of roads, trails, and waterways. Presently, some of the affected viewsheds display stands of pine trees in various stages of recovery. Some of these views are dominated by standing dead trees while others display fallen

77 or removed trees. In foreground views, slash and stumps created by the removal of pine trees may be visible along forest roads and trails. In middle ground views, the landscape patterns established by SPB typically reflect the naturalness of the event and blend into the surrounding landscape. SPB has opened up some new vistas along travelways that were once blocked by living pine stands. Natural pine regeneration is becoming more visible each year. Under the No Action alternative, SPB and past management activities would continue to keep scenic integrity at a lower level. However, natural regeneration of pine stands and hardwoods would eventually raise scenic integrity in affected areas over the next ten years.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Impacts from past timber harvests, dead timber stands resulting from past SPB, past prescribed burns, existing utility corridors, combined with the proposed action can have cumulative effects on forest landscapes (including private land and NF’s in North Carolina), particularly if viewed sequentially along a travel route. Mortality to native hemlock trees due to spreading HWA infestations is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. Selected hemlocks are being treated as part of a Forest-wide strategy to help maintain the species. Visitor safety caused by numbers of dead trees would be an issue to be addressed in developed and dispersed corridors. Otherwise, as a natural disturbance, areas of dead and decaying hemlocks are likely to be left to a natural recovery process. The newly designated Benton MacKaye Trail provides increased access to the backcountry. As the trail grows in popularity and as part of the in process trails strategy, additional trailheads may be constructed. Buck Bald would continue to be maintained as a long distance panoramic viewpoint. Recreation demands are likely to continue and grow in some cases. Existing Condition Cultural Resources Cultural resources are the non-renewable, physical remains of prehistoric and historical human activities. They are subject to damage or destruction from land disturbing activities, including those associated with vegetation manipulation and road construction. Area disturbance can damage or destroy the historical, cultural, or scientific integrity of historical or prehistoric resources. Disturbance of historical sites, such as old cabins, can reduce the ability to reconstruct the recent history of settlement in the local area. Disturbance of ethnographic sites, such as traditional Native American campsites or burial grounds, can reduce the interpretive significance of the site or can infringe on religious rites. The current direction on the CNF is to protect significant cultural resources from adverse impacts that may occur as the result of land disturbing activities, and to inventory NFS lands in order to locate and evaluate all cultural resources. This policy is based on adherence to Federal and state laws and regulations. Cultural resources are closely coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In compliance with executive order 11593, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the USFS regulations (Forest Service Manual 2360), a cultural resource inventory was performed to determine if potentially significant cultural resources would be affected by the project.

78 Direct and Indirect Effects Cultural Resources

Alternative A (No Action) This alternative would have no effect on cultural resources. There is limited potential for discovery of currently unknown sites.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative would not affect cultural resources as long as site(s) that have potential eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are avoided during project implementation. If additional cultural resources were to be discovered during project implementation, the project would be halted until the resource(s) is/are evaluated Cumulative Effects Cultural Resources

All Alternatives There are no known cumulative effects. Civil Rights None of the alternatives would have disproportionate adverse health or environmental impacts to minority groups, women, or low-income populations. It is difficult to assess the degree of impact each action alternative presents to these groups due to other variables. The best information suggests that when assessing the effects of each action alternative on minority and low-income groups, the effects are minimal and not disproportionate to these groups when compared to other groups. Existing Condition Economics An analysis of the economic efficiency of the alternatives was conducted in order to provide a reliable means to contrast the relative costs and benefits of the proposed activities. The results of the analysis provide the Responsible Official with the assurance that economic efficiency was considered. It also provides some information about the potential economic impacts of the alternatives. Cost and unit estimations are derived from field data, maps, and actual prices from similar projects. The economic analysis only looks at stumpage related benefits and the costs involved in preparing and implementing a timber sale. Timber harvesting activities may result in changes, both positive and negative, to other resources such as wildlife or recreation. These changes can have an associated economic value, but they are often difficult to quantify in amount or value, and are therefore not considered in this analysis. However, these items would be considered in the decision making process, along with the economics of the sale. Direct and Indirect Effects Economics

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative A does not produce revenues or incur financial costs. There would be no benefits to the local economy with the No Action Alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

79 Economic effects are presented in Table 19. This table follows direction given in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18.30 (USDA 1995b). Some calculations that were used to arrive at the values in the table were derived using a computer spreadsheet (Project File).

Table 19. Benefit Cost Ratio ALT B REVENUES Timber $733,732 Recreation 0 Wildlife 0 Other 0 Total Present Value Revenues $733,732 FINANCIAL COSTS Harvest Administration $45,780 Sale Preparation $210,588 Analysis and Documentation $22,890 Other Resource Support $22,890 Brush Disposal (FS Component) 0 Road Design & Construction $198,300 Reforestation $39,067 KV Other 0 Silvicultural Exams $2,387 Stand Improvement $13,903 Transportation Planning $500 Total Present Value Financial $556,305 Costs Present Net Value $177,427

Alternative B has a present net value of $177,427 and would produce 9,160 CCF (4,578 MBF) of forest products. CCF is the notation for “hundred cubic feet” and MBF is the notation for “thousand board feet”. The action alternative provides an economically efficient timber harvest, which benefits the local economy, provides jobs, and provides payments to local and federal governments. This timber sale would provide a positive impact on the local economy by providing high quality sawtimber and pulpwood. The action alternative contributes to RLRMP objectives for providing sawtimber (Objective 19.01) and pulpwood (Objective 19.02). Cumulative Effects Economics

Alternative A (No Action) The No Action Alternative does not provide an economically efficient timber harvest.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) As previously stated, the sale of timber would provide revenue to the local economy through the sale of high quality sawtimber and pulpwood. This alternative specifically responds to RLRMP

80 objectives 19.01 and 19.02. In addition, in the following section cumulative analysis states that timber harvesting within the past ten years has been minimal. Collectively considering the economic value of this vegetation manipulation and the future timber harvest (approximately 100 acres) in the Coker Creek watershed the positive increase would benefit the local economy (including revenues), provide opportunity for jobs, and provide high quality sawtimber and pulpwood. Physical Factors ______Existing Condition Water and Soil Resource The Buck Bald analysis area is located eleven miles east of Reliance, Tennessee in the Blue Ridge Mountains Eco-region (Griffith, Omernik, and Azevedo 1995). The area is a portion of the Hiwassee River watershed. Activities proposed in this project would take place in the Coker Creek, Brushy Creek, Watertank Branch, Miller Cove and Womble Branch sub watersheds of the Hiwassee River. These streams flow directly into the Hiwassee River. The watershed area of the Hiwassee River above the analysis area is approximately 1,136 square miles (727,040 acres) while the size of the watersheds associated with Coker Creek, Brushy Creek, Watertank Branch, Miller Cove and Womble Branch is estimated to be 24.4 square miles (15,616 acres), 5.3 square miles (3,392 acres), 0.36 square miles (230 acres), 0.19 square miles (120 acres) and 1.25 square miles (800 acres), respectively. There is very little private ownership within the Buck Bald analysis area. The Womble Branch, Watertank Branch and Miller Cove watersheds contain no private ownership, while the Brushy Creek watershed contains three small parcels of private land located near the confluence of Brushy Creek with the Hiwassee River. Only a small portion of the Coker Creek watershed is contained within the Buck Bald analysis area. Outside of the Buck Bald analysis area, a large proportion of the Coker Creek watershed is in private ownership. The physical character of the analysis area is greatly influenced by the geology associated with the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The affected watersheds are located within the Blue Ridge Mountains-Southern Metasedimentary Mountains Ecoregion. This is a region of low mountains with local relief from 1,000 to 3,000 feet. The geology consists of metamorphic and sedimentary rocks of the Pre-Cambrian age: mostly siltstone, shale, conglomerate, graywacke, arkose, phyllite, slate, schist, and quartzite. In some areas in this Ecoregion, slate and phyllite of the Anakeesta Formation are present. This Formation contains iron sulfides that can locally acidify small streams, especially when bedrock outcrops, slumps or road cuts expose the sulfide materials to air and water. The diverse parent material along with other factors such as aspect, topography, climate and vegetation has resulted in a wide range of soil types within the analysis area. There are over 20 soil mapping units found within the analysis area. The primary soil series are Evard, Fletcher, Ditney, Ranger, Citico, Shoun, Sylco, Talladega and Tusquitee. These series are each further delineated into soil mapping units based primarily on landform slope class (See Appendix D for further information concerning these soil mapping units). Valley types within this analysis area exhibit moderate relief, are generally stable, and have moderate side slope gradients. The upper reaches of streams can be described as A3 types by the use of the classification system developed by Rosgen (1994). Stream gradients are generally steep in the upper reaches of the watershed (10% +) with low stream sinuosity. Channel materials are predominantly cobble with a mixture of bedrock, boulders, gravel and sand. Larger

81 streams generally have a decrease in gradient, and stream types change from an A3 to B or C channels. Both of these stream types are generally stable. Elevation in the analysis area ranges from almost 3,000 feet at Peels High Top to about 1,160 feet at the confluence of Womble Branch with the Hiwassee River. Climatic Conditions The analysis area has an average annual temperature of 57 degrees Fahrenheit. January is usually the coldest month with an average temperature of 37.0 degrees Fahrenheit, while July is usually the hottest month with an average temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The area averages about 57 inches of precipitation annually, which is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. March is usually the wettest month with an average of 6.4 inches of precipitation, while October is usually the driest with an average of 3.6 inches of precipitation. The length of the growing season is approximately 220 days per year. Prevailing winds in eastern Tennessee are predominantly from the southwest. Stream flow varies seasonally with rainfall and the effects of evapo-transpiration. Tributary streams within the assessment area are free flowing and have an estimated, average annual discharge of about 2.1 cfs per square mile of watershed. Low flows (7Q10) generally range from 0.1 to 0.5 cfs per square mile of watershed. A larger amount of run-off occurs during the winter and early spring when precipitation events are frequent and long lasting, temperatures are low and evapo-transpiration rates are low. A variety of weather-related disturbance has and can occur within the analysis area. These disturbances include flooding, wildfire, ice and snowstorms and tornado or other wind events. These natural disturbances can and have affected channel conditions and riparian and upland forest canopy conditions. Water Quality Water quality in the assessment area is generally good based on empirical evidence. Little, if any, water quality data is known to have been collected in streams within the analysis area. Assuming water quality is typical of that of other headwater streams in fairly high elevation (>1,000 feet) forested watersheds in the Blue Ridge physiographic province, certain characteristics would be expected. Conductivity, total dissolved solids, suspended sediment, alkalinity and hardness values would be low. This would be indicative of water which has a limited capacity to neutralize acids, and is low in dissolved minerals and ionized substances. Low turbidity and suspended sediment values would reflect a watershed with minimal disturbance impacts. Localized erosion and sediment can be associated with roads and trails on NFS lands, however. Water quality impacts can also result from land uses such as urban development, cropland, grazing, and roads associated with private lands within the Coker Creek watershed. To develop a more complete assessment of water quality within the analysis area, affected streams would need to be monitored during a range of climatic conditions especially during low flow conditions and after large rainfall events. Coker Creek and Brushy Creek are classified as “Trout Stream”, “Fish and Aquatic Life,” “Recreation,” “Livestock Watering and Wildlife” and “Irrigation” by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control (TDEC 2004). Other streams within the analysis area are classified as “Fish and Aquatic Life,” “Recreation,” “Livestock Watering and Wildlife” and “Irrigation”. The Hiwassee River is classified as

82 “Domestic” and “Industrial” water supply and as ‘Trout Stream”. No instream uses are known to occur on NFS lands within the affected watersheds other than the maintenance of suitable flows for fish and aquatic life and channel maintenance. The water quality of several streams (Coker Creek and Brushy Creek) within the analysis area have been assessed by the State of Tennessee, and have been found to fully support their designated use(s) classification. Some of the streams within the analysis area have not been assessed at the present time, however. No water bodies are identified as impaired within the Buck Bald analysis area, although the Hiwassee River is listed as partially impaired due to flow alteration by the Appalachia Dam in North Carolina. Suspended sediment and turbidity are key water quality parameters in meeting water uses. While visual observation and monitoring data indicate that suspended sediment concentrations are generally low in water bodies on NFS lands, it can be problematic during periods of intense rainfall. Roads and trails are believed to be the primary source area for sediment from NFS lands. Land uses associated with private lands also result in water quality impacts such as accelerated sediment delivery. The Tennessee Eco-region Project has completed an initial effort to establish reference conditions for water quality by eco-region (TDEC 2000). A summary of water quality statistics for the Blue Ridge Eco-region represented in the analysis area is displayed in Table 20 below. The data values and statistics shown represent sites within the entire eco-region, and provide a first approximation of reference water quality. Table 20. Descriptive Statistics of Water Quality Data for Blue Ridge Eco-region

Parameter Unit # Observations Minimum Maximum Median Mean Temp ° C 153 1.01 24.72 11.60 11.67 DO Mg/l 152 7.74 16.60 10.06 10.31 Ph SU 149 3.61 9.230 7.24 7.28 Sp Cond umho 150 9.00 145.00 27.00 33.85 Sus Res Mg/l 164 5.00 49.00 5.00 5.51 Diss Res Mg/l 164 5.00 126.00 22.00 26.96 Turbidity NTU 163 0.10 15.00 0.90 1.50 Tot Alk Mg/l 162 3.00 108.00 8.00 13.16 Tot Hrd Mg/l 164 0.50 211.00 12.00 17.32 Amn N Mg/l 164 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 NO2/3 Mg/l 164 0.005 1.47 0.16 0.17 Tot N Mg/l 160 0.05 0.24 0.05 0.055 Tot Phos Mg/l 163 0.002 0.40 0.005 0.01 Arsenic Ug/l 157 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.51 Cadmium Ug/l 158 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.500 Tot Chrom Ug/l 154 0.50 4.00 0.50 0.53 Copper Ug/l 137 0.50 12.00 0.50 0.94 Iron Ug/l 153 12.50 944.00 50.00 95.12 Lead Ug/l 155 0.50 1.00 0.500 0.51 Manganese Ug/l 153 2.50 63.00 5.00 7.74

83 Table 20. Descriptive Statistics of Water Quality Data for Blue Ridge Eco-region Zinc Ug/l 164 0.50 34.00 2.00 3.69 Fec Col /100 160 0.0 8400.00 8.00 122.6* ml E Coli /100 58 0.0 40.00 0.00 5.7** ml * Geometric Mean for fecal coliform is 3.6 **Geometric mean for e.coli is 0.

Erosion Processes The Buck Bald analysis area, as is true with most of the Southern Appalachian area, has been influenced and impacted by humans for hundreds and even thousands of years. Before any human intervention, an undisturbed forest condition dominated the landscape. From a hydrologic perspective, the landscape was subject to normal or geologic erosion, that represented the wearing away of land due to actions that resulted from the interplay of climate, topography, soil and vegetation. Hillside erosion in much of the undisturbed forest probably remained near zero except on rare occasions when erosion rates increased enormously due to phenomenal rain events that saturated the soil, causing overland flow and debris avalanching. Less dramatic, but of equal and probably greater significance, was the recurrent rise and fall of water level in streams due to smaller floods that scoured various amounts of sediment from channels consistently throughout time. The major source of sediment in streams draining undisturbed forest is usually not hillsides, but the stream channel system. Close observation of many minimally disturbed experimental watersheds established rates of average annual sediment production on the order of 0.05 to 0.10 tons per acre per year for undisturbed forest (Patric 1994 and 1976). Change from the undisturbed condition described above has resulted from human influence over thousands of years. Before the Euro-American settlement of the region, Indians had occupied, and influenced the landscape for thousands of years. This influence was limited, however, to agricultural-related alterations of the larger alluvial river valleys, primitive settlements in these valleys, and to the use of fire that affected uplands, as well as, riparian areas. Euro-American settlement in the late 1700’s through the late 1800’s was characterized by an agricultural subsistence economy similar to that which characterized the Indian lifestyle. The main difference was that agriculture and grazing extended beyond the larger river valleys to stream bottoms and coves at all elevations, slopes, and aspects (Bass 1999). The combined effects of forest fallow farming, grazing, and uncontrolled use of fire resulted in near-universal soil erosion to much of the Southern Appalachian forest ecosystem (Ashe and Ayers 1905, and Roosevelt 1902). These activities and effects likely occurred on at least part of the area defined by this project. During the time period from 1900 to 1930, commercial logging on a large scale occurred within the Southern Appalachians. Mass removal of the forest canopy was often followed by devastating wildfires. The combination of these activities along with grazing and farming resulted in highly accelerated rates of soil erosion. Commercial logging undoubtedly occurred during this time over most of the analysis area.

84 The Federal government acquired lands destined to become the CNF in the early part of the 20th century. The lands were protected from fire, and allowed to rehabilitate over the next 50 or more years. During this time, roads were constructed to provide access to the Forest and roads already in existence were improved. Vegetation management began with the first commercial timber sales occurring in the late 1960’s. NFSRs were constructed, if needed, to provide access to the sales. Several timber sales have occurred in the Buck Bald analysis area over the past 30 years. In the analysis area, most NFS lands are currently in a condition that closely mimics an undisturbed forest condition from a hydrologic perspective. Minimal erosion occurs on these lands. Legacy sediment from past human use in the analysis area is evident in some streams, however. In addition, sources of continued, accelerated erosion and sediment delivery are present. The primary source of this erosion on NFS lands is from the existing road system. There is little evidence of recent mass wasting. Existing NFSRs located within the watersheds associated with the analysis area include NFSRs 311, 311A, 311B, 11331, 40, 40A, 2114, 2131, 2131A, 2131-1, 2133, 2137, 11371 and 11350. In addition, there are county and private roads located within the area. All or a segment of NFSR 40, 2114, 2131, 2131A, 2131-1, 311, 2137, 40A, and 11371 is located in the Coker Creek watershed; all or a segment of 2133, 311B, and 11311 is located in the Brushy Creek watershed; all or a segment of 11350 and 311, is located in the Womble Branch watershed; a segment of 311, 311A, and 311B is located in the Watertank Branch watershed; and a segment of 311A is located in the Miller Cove watershed. Within this analysis area, NFSRs 311 and 2131-1 are most significant in terms of their length and potential influence on surface and subsurface hydrology. NFSRs within the analysis area are basically ridge-top and upper sideslope road locations and their effect on surface or subsurface hydrology is primarily confined to crossings of ephemeral drainages. Roads within the analysis area are generally outsloped with dips and culverts providing drainage or are insloped with ditches and cross drain culverts. As a rule, stream crossings are made by the use of culverts. Many of the NFSRs are gated and normally closed to all but administrative traffic. Most cut and fill slopes have been revegetated by natural or induced means (most often by a combination). Lack of maintenance of some of these roads, has resulted in deteriorated travelways. Some roads have lost much of their cushioning material (gravel) and rock and bedrock is exposed. Drainage and surfacing improvements of the roads within the area can be improved to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to streams. These measures could range from additional culverts, or dips to improve surface drainage, gravel replacement, improved vegetation on cut and fill slopes, and other possible treatments. There is very little private land located within this analysis area. Evaluation of aerial photography indicates that the few tracts of private land within the analysis area are mostly forested. Stream Channel/Riparian Areas/Wetlands Valley types within this analysis area exhibit moderate to steep relief, are generally stable, and have moderate to steep side slope gradients. The upper reaches of streams can be described as A or B types by the use of the classification system developed by Rosgen (Rosgen 1994). Stream gradients are generally steep to moderately steep in the upper reaches of the watershed (5- 10% +) with low stream sinuosity. Channel materials are predominantly cobble with a mixture of boulders, gravel and sand. This stream type is generally stable.

85 Stream channels in the analysis area are generally in good physical condition. Legacy sediment deposition from past land use may be present in some streams, and continued erosion from the existing road system likely results in sediment deposition into streams. A proper functioning condition assessment has not been completed on forest riparian areas. Most riparian areas on NFS lands are believed to be functioning at or near their proper capability and potential. Where roads exist in riparian areas, proper functioning condition could be at-risk or non-functioning. Sufficient quantities of large woody debris, for example, may be absent in some streams due to these facilities and/or past land use practices. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps do not identify any wetland areas on NFS lands within the analysis area. It is quite likely, however, that small wetland areas, associated with springs and seeps, are within the analysis area. If so, these would be identified and protected during project implementation. Wetlands delineated through the NWI are identified primarily through stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photographs based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and geography in accordance with Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979). Field evaluation and verification is not conducted during the preparation of these delineations. To identify jurisdictional wetlands subject to Clean Water Act regulations requires field delineation and identification. Field delineation would be required prior to conducting any management actions near wetland areas. Scope of Analysis The scope of this analysis includes the Coker Creek, Brushy Creek, Womble Branch, Watertank Branch and Miller Cove sub watersheds of the Hiwassee River. Only a small portion of the Coker Creek watershed is included in the analysis area. The size of the Hiwassee River watershed above the analysis area is 1,136 square miles, and is considered to be too large to set the bounds for this analysis. The time-period considers the past ten years and future actions that could occur within five years. Direct and Indirect Effects Water and Soil Resource

Alternative A (No Action) The No Action Alternative provides a basis to judge changes that could result from an action alternative’s implementation. The existing condition is analogous to the conditions which would exist with the implementation of the No Action Alternative. The alternative would result in the continuation of current conditions in the affected watersheds. Minimal, geologic erosion would continue from undisturbed forest lands. Other than geologic erosion, accelerated erosion would continue primarily from existing roads and from land uses associated with private lands. The No Action Alternative would result in no new actions such as timber harvest, temporary road construction, silvicultural treatments, prescribe burning, and system road reconstruction and maintenance. No effects to the soil and water resources would result from new management activities. This alternative would forego the opportunity to provide timber sale related road improvements through reconstruction and maintenance to 25.2 miles of NFSRs. Improvement of these roads would enhance soil and water protection by improving drainage and hardening roadbeds with surface aggregate.

86 Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative proposes to meet wildlife habitat and forest health (restoration) objectives by using commercial timber harvest on 719 acres using the seedtree with reserves, shelterwood with reserves, group selection and intermediate harvest (thinning) treatments. Seedtree with reserves harvest would be completed on 130 acres, shelterwood with reserves harvest would be completed on 366 acres, group selection harvest on 120 acres (40 acres of actual harvest) and intermediate harvest treatments would be completed on 103 acres. Post harvest site preparation by burning would be completed on 77 acres, manual site preparation via chainsaw and prescribe burning would be completed on 130 acres, and chemical site preparation with herbicide would be completed on a portion of a 39 acre stand that would be regenerated by group selection harvest (approximately 13 acres). Pine seedlings would be planted on 130 acres and oak seedlings would be planted on 13 acres. After planting, a chemical release treatment with herbicide (triclopyr) would take place 2 or 3 years after planting on 143 acres. A chemical release treatment with herbicide (triclopyr) would also be completed on a 32 acre sapling stand. Buck Bald would be maintained in a grassy condition by burning and the use of herbicides on 6 acres. This alternative would also use the herbicides, clopyralid, imazapic and glyphosate to control and eradicate non-native invasive plant species on up to 570 acres within the analysis area. Much of this herbicide application would be along road corridors that are located on ridgetops. Open woodland habitat would be created on 93 acres using a combination of prescribed burning, understory and midstory thinning treatments and targeted herbicide application to reduce the sprouting of woody vegetation. Burning would be implemented on 450 acres in order to permit the use of roads and natural barriers for firelines. The alternative also proposes to reconstruct or maintain 25.4 miles of NFSR and construct 5.5 miles of temporary road. Scientific literature is available to make informed analysis of effects to watershed condition and water quality and quantity that could result from forest management activities such as timber harvest, prescribed burning and silvicultural treatments. To this end, a qualitative assessment would be made that addresses possible effects when particular sets of management activities are prescribed on a given land area over time. There is much research and attendant literature available (see References) which describes effects associated with forestry practices implemented in the Appalachian Mountains. There is also much information available that details mitigation of effects that can be expected when a given set of Best Management Practices is implemented in association with timber harvest, road construction or reconstruction, and site preparation. This analysis will address, qualitatively, the effects that can be expected in three general areas— water yield and hydrology, soil erosion and sediment delivery, and water chemistry. Water Yield/Hydrology Changes in water yield would occur in response to timber harvest, road and skid trail development and silvicultural activities such as mechanical slashdown of vegetation. These activities would increase water yield by decreasing the interception of precipitation by trees and the loss of soil water due to transpiration. Research indicates that achieving a measurable increase in streamflow requires at least a 20% decrease in basal area (Douglas and Swank 1972 and Patric 1994). As basal area reduction increases to 100%, greater increases in streamflow take place. Any basal area left on harvested areas would tend to reduce the water yield increase.

87 Stream flow increases do not last long in the southeastern U. S. due to the rapid regeneration of dense new stands on cut areas. Although increased yields are possible from 5 to 10 years after harvest, almost all of the increase is over after 5 years for clearcuts and within 1 to 3 years when less than 50% of the basal area is removed (Swank, Vose, and Elliot 2001). In terms of the timing of yield increases, almost all of the increased streamflow takes place during the growing season (and often during periods of low stream flow). This is because soil moisture is usually deficit during this time of the year and any increase in soil moisture due to a decrease in evapo-transpiration can move through the soil and augment streamflow. In the vegetative dormant season when little evapo-transpiration occurs, soils are usually saturated anyway. The increased water yields diminish yearly as vegetative regrowth and the resultant increase in evapo-transpiration return the water balance to precut conditions. Alternative B would regenerate eighteen stands (536 acres) utilizing the seedtree, shelterwood with reserves and group selection harvest methods. The potential for water yield increase would exist in the harvested stands. Seedtree harvest would leave approximately 10 to 20 square feet of basal area scattered within the cut stands. Reserve areas with no treatment would also be left in the stands along streams and other areas. This basal area would remain after site preparation. Shelterwood harvest would leave 20 to 40 square feet of basal area scattered within the cut stands. Reserve areas with no treatment would also be left in the stands along streams and other areas. This basal area would remain after any site preparation. Small group selection cuts would be made on approximately 40 acres. These groups would be small (2 acres or less) and would be scattered throughout larger stands. Intermediate treatments (thinning) would be completed on 103 acres, and open woodland restoration would be completed on 93 acres. Creation of open woodland and the thinning treatments would leave 40 to 60 basal area of overstory canopy, and would have little, if any, effect on water yield. Growing season stream flows would be increased in relation to the amount of cutting taking place in a given watershed. The following table (Table 21) displays the amount of harvest by cutting method in each watershed.

Table 21. Timber Harvest in Watersheds by Cutting Method

Watershed Watershed Shelter Seedtree Group Intermediate % With Size in wood Selection Treatments* Harvest (acres) Acres (acres) Activity (acres) (acres) (Estimated) Coker Creek 15,616 63 69 13 <1 Brushy Creek 3,392 264 61 103 12.6 Watertank 230 35 15.2 Branch Miller Cove 120 18 15 Womble 800 39 27 40 13 Branch *Intermediate treatments include thinning and open woodland creation. Woodland creation (93 acres) may be through non-commercial treatments.

88 Timber harvesting increases stormflows in relation to the amount of basal area removed, the number of acres of a given watershed treated, inherent watershed hydrologic response factors (such as soil depth) and the magnitude and frequency of storms following treatment. Research indicates that stormflows generally do not change during the dormant, non-growing season, but rather, tend to increase slightly during the growing season (Douglas and Swank 1972). Research at Coweeta Hydrologic Lab indicate that timber harvest (clearcutting) with minimal forest floor disturbance and a low density of carefully located and designed roads produce only small and acceptable (about 15 %) increases in mean stormflow volumes and peak flow rates (Swank, Swift, and Douglas 1988). Timber harvest proposed within the small sub-watersheds (Watertank Branch and Miller Cove) would be for open woodland creation and would leave 40 to 60 basal area of overstory canopy. Little, if any, effect to water yield would occur in these watersheds. Likewise, intermediate treatments proposed in the Brushy Creek and Womble Branch watersheds would result in little, if any, water yield increase. Any augmented flows from the streams in the analysis area would merge imperceptibly into Hiwassee River. Increased stormflows are not necessarily a negative effect, especially since these almost always occur during the growing season when streamflow is at or near low flow. Periodic high flows also act as a flushing mechanism to move sediments downstream through a channel system. Water Chemistry The chemistry of water flowing through forests changes as water passes through the canopy, soil, and subsoil and eventually into streams. In the canopy, interception of precipitation concentrates dissolved elements. Forest harvesting reduces interception losses, allowing more water to reach the soil, thereby diluting nutrient concentrations (all else equal). Timber harvest results in an increase in solar energy reaching the forest floor. The increased litter and soil temperature results in an increase in chemical and biological activity that results in an increased rate of organic breakdown. The removal of mature trees would result in a temporary decrease in the demand for nutrients. Conversely, nutrient pools locked up in the tree bole are removed from the growing site. More nutrients are available due to the increase in organic matter decomposition and are potentially free to move off site. Nutrients can be dissolved in precipitation and infiltrate into underlying mineral soil. Subsequent drainage through the soil can carry some of these nutrients to nearby streams The result can be an increase in nutrient levels such as Nitrogen, Calcium, and Magnesium in stream water. The duration of this possible effect is generally considered to be less than five years. After this time period, sprouts, seedlings and other vegetative growth reestablish shade to the cut area and effectively tie up available nutrients. Long term measurements of chemical changes in water quality at Coweeta Hydrologic Lab are summarized as follows: Based on observations beginning in 1972, none of the harvested areas or other disturbances at Coweeta produced nutrient concentrations that would have an adverse impact on water quality for municipalities or downstream fisheries.

Compared to other forested regions of the U.S., increases in nutrient concentrations of streams at Coweeta were small, even for the most drastic vegetative disturbances.

89 Nitrate-N is a sensitive indicator of forest disturbance and although concentrations are quite low (<0.2 mg/1), elevated levels in streams draining clearcuts appear to persist for 20 years after cutting. However the increase is substantially diminished by the fifth year after cutting and appears to approach pre-logging levels.

Any chemical changes that might occur from the project should be examined in the context of the streams natural or background chemical composition. Streams draining the affected area are low in dissolved solids and fertility. Any small infusion of fertility into these streams that are nutrient poor would have benign or possibly positive effects in terms of aquatic habitat. When viewed from the perspective of watershed size, any minor changes in chemical water quality that might result from the project would be diluted by the volume of water associated with the Hiwassee River. Stream temperature would not be affected by the proposed action. Riparian corridors would be left beside perennial and intermittent streams in any stand affected by timber harvest. These corridors would provide shade strips where trees would be left uncut and soil disturbance would be kept to a minimum (see mitigation section of this EA). Available research indicates that pH is not sensitive to most forest management activities. There is no evidence that acid-bearing rock is present in the affected area. If any were to be encountered during project implementation, appropriate steps (project cessation and/or mitigation) would be taken immediately to address the hazard. Alternative B proposes to use four different herbicides for vegetative treatments. These herbicides include triclopyr, imazapic, glyphosate, and clopyralid. The possible use of the herbicides was described earlier. Assuming herbicides would be used on every potential area where they might be needed, 844 acres could receive herbicide treatment in some way. Although the acreage actually treated would be less because only targeted vegetation would be treated on any given area. Most of the stands that would be treated contain inclusion areas such as riparian zones where herbicide would not be used. This would also reduce the number of acres where the herbicide would actually be used. Table 22 displays the estimated number of acres in each watershed that could be treated with herbicide. Table 22. Estimated Herbicide Use in Affected Watersheds Watershed Watershed Size in Proposed Acres % of Watershed Acres of Herbicide Use* with Herbicide (Estimated) Use Coker Creek 15,616 421 2.7 Brushy Creek 3,392 130 3.8 Watertank Branch 230 59 25.6 Miller Cove 120 18 15.0 Womble Branch 800 70 8.7 *Does not include herbicide use at existing wildlife openings and along the southern segment of NFSR 311 that is not within a delineated watershed.

90 Triclopyr would be applied to the base of target trees. The streamline or hack and squirt application method would be used. Only the individual trees or other competing vegetation, requiring treatment, would be targeted. The herbicide is absorbed through the bark and is readily moved throughout the plant. Triclopyr is not highly mobile in the soil, and is not a leaching problem under normal conditions since it binds to clay and organic matter in the soil. It may leach from sandy soils if rainfall is heavy after application. The herbicide is broken down by soil microorganisms and ultraviolet light, and persists for 30 to 90 days (46 day average) in the soil depending on soil type and weather (Extoxnet Fact Sheet 1996). The risk characterization for aquatic organisms differs for triclopyr TEA (Garlon 3A) and triclopyr BEE (Garlon 4). For triclopyr TEA (triclopyr acid), risks to aquatic species are low over the entire range of application rates that may be used in Forest Service programs (SERA 2003). Although triclopyr BEE is much more toxic to aquatic species than triclopyr TEA, or triclopyr acid, the projected levels of exposure are much less even for acute scenarios because of the rapid hydrolysis of triclopyr BEE to triclopyr acid, as well as, the lesser runoff of triclopyr BEE because of its lower water solubility and higher affinity for soils (SERA 2003). Nonetheless, triclopyr BEE is projected to be somewhat more hazardous when used near bodies of water where runoff to open water may occur (SERA 2003). For triclopyr TEA, at an application rate of 1 pound per acre acute and chronic risks to aquatic animals, fish or invertebrates, as well as risk to aquatic plants are low (SERA 2003). The risk of chronic exposure of triclopyr BEE to aquatic species is essentially the same as triclopyr TEA since it rapidly hydrolyzes to triclopyr acid. JLB Oil is used as an adjuvant with triclopyr formulations (Garlon 4). This is a mineral oil and Limonene or vegetable oil and Limonene mixture used as a carrier. This product has been reviewed according to the EPA hazard categories under section 311 and 312 of SARA Title III, 1986 and does not contain hazardous components that require reporting. Glyphosate, imazapic and clopyralid would be used to control and eradicate non-native invasive, plant species along road corridors, at existing wildlife spot openings and at one known kudzu patch (4 acres). Approximately 550 acres could be treated in these areas. Imazapic is generally applied to targeted vegetation with sprayers, injectors or wipe-on devices. It is absorbed by the leaves and roots, and kills plants by inhibiting the production of amino acids necessary for protein synthesis and cell growth. Imazapic is moderately persistent in soils with an average half-life of 120 days and a half-life range of 31 to 233 days depending upon soil characteristics and environmental conditions. There is little lateral movement of imazapic in the soil. Horizontal mobility in the soil is limited to about 6 to 12 inches, although it can leach to depths of 18 inches in sandy soils (Tu 2004). Imazapic is degraded primarily by soil microbial activity. The extent to which imazapic is degraded by sunlight when it is applied to terrestrial plants or soil is believed to be minimal (Tu 2004). It is, however, rapidly degraded by sunlight in aqueous solutions with a half-life of one or two days. Imazapic itself is of low to moderate toxicity to fish, but it rapidly degrades in water, rendering it relatively safe to aquatic animals. Aquatic animals appear to be relatively insensitive to imazapic exposure, with LC50s values of greater than 100 mg/L for both acute toxicity and reproductive effects (SERA 2004b). Glyphosate herbicide would be used without surfactants. It is applied to foliage and rapidly moves throughout the plant. It can also be applied to cut stumps. Glyphosate is inactivated when it comes into contact with soil since it is strongly adsorbed onto soil particles. It is readily metabolized by soil bacteria and many species of soil micro-organisms can use glyphosate as a carbon source. Many field studies involving microbial activity in soil after glyphosate exposures

91 note an increase in soil micro-organisms or microbial activity, while other studies have noted a transient decrease in soil fungi, bacteria and microbial activity (SERA 2003b). There is very little information suggesting that glyphosate would be harmful to soil microorganisms under field conditions and a substantial body of information indicating that glyphosate is likely to enhance or have no effect on soil microorganisms (SERA 2003b). Because of its adsorption to soil, glyphosate is not easily leached and is not likely to contaminate ground water. Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of time depending on soil texture, organic matter content and environmental conditions. The SERA risk assessment for glyphosate generally supports the conclusions reached by U.S. EPA: Based on the current data, it has been determined that effects to birds, mammals, fish and invertebrates are minimal (SERA 2003b). The use of less toxic formulations results in acute hazard quotients that do not approach a level of concern for any species. Nonetheless, the use of glyphosate near bodies of water where sensitive species of fish may be found (i.e., salmonids) should be conducted with substantial care to avoid contamination of surface water. Clopyralid could be used to control non-native invasive plant species. The herbicide would be broadcast sprayed using hand sprayers. The herbicide is absorbed by the leaves and roots of the target species and moves rapidly through the plant. It affects plant cell respiration and growth. Clopyralid should not be applied to areas where soil is permeable such as sandy soils or limestone fractured areas especially where the water table is shallow. Clopyralid is highly soluble in water and does not adsorb to soil particles readily. As a result, clopyralid can leach to ground water if applied to permeable soils overlaying shallow ground water. The risk assessment for aquatic organisms is relatively simple and unambiguous. Clopyralid appears to have a very low potential to cause any adverse effects in any aquatic species (SERA 2004). No adverse effects are anticipated in terrestrial or aquatic animals from the use of clopyralid in Forest Service programs at the typical application rate of 0.35 lb a.e per acre (SERA 2004). In general, herbicides can enter surface waters via three main routes including: 1. Movement or leaching through the soil profile to subsurface water and travel until contact is made with surface systems, 2. Absorption to a soil particle and movement to surface water systems during heavy rains, 3. Direct contact with surface water during application. Several factors are important to consider related to the potential for surface or ground water contamination by herbicides. 1. Mitigation such as streamside buffer zones applied during treatment activity would greatly reduce contamination potential. Generally speaking, buffer zones of 50 feet or larger are effective in minimizing pesticide residue contamination of streamflow (Neary 1996). 2. The very small amounts of herbicide used (generally a pint or less per acre) would greatly reduce the chance of any detectable herbicide reaching ground or surface water. 3. The method of herbicide application (individual stem treatment) would minimize herbicide contact with the soil and eliminate direct application or drift to surface water. 4. Timing the herbicide application to avoid rainfall during and immediately after application reduces the risk of contamination. The herbicides that would be used in the analysis area are low-toxicity chemicals. The general application rate for triclopyr is about 1 pound of acid equivalent per acre, for glyphosate is 2 pounds of acid equivalent per acre, for imazapic is 0.15 pounds of acid equivalent per acre and

92 for clopyralid is 0.35 pounds of acid equivalent per acre. The quantity of herbicide to be used, on-site degradation processes, the method of application, the relatively short persistence of the herbicide in the soil, in-stream dilution and degradation, and mitigation measures to be used, would result in minimal risk of surface and ground water quality impact. No herbicide would be applied within 50 feet of open water. This along with careful control over the weather conditions during which the herbicide would be applied would prevent direct contamination of surface water. Since the herbicide is generally applied directly to targeted species, very little herbicide would make ground contact. As a result, infiltration into the soil and movement via soil water (subsurface) would be minimal. The greatest hazard to surface and ground water quality would result from a possible accident during transportation, storage, mixing and disposal of the chemicals. Alternative B proposes to complete prescribe burning for site preparation on 207 acres for shortleaf pine/oak restoration. This type of burning would create a mosaic type effect where areas of slash accumulation could burn intensely, but most of the sites would have creeping ground fires or would not burn at all. Where slash burns intensely mineral soil would be exposed, but most of the area burned would not expose mineral soil. It is estimated that 90 percent or more of the areas burned would leave most of the organic layer and fine root layer in place. Although prescribe burns have the potential to increase the solubility of some cations in the forest floor, there is little chance of these being transported to aquatic systems. Streamside areas would be minimally impacted by the burns since no harvest would occur in riparian corridors and logging slash would not exist. Fires would be allowed to back down into streamside areas, but typically do not carry far into these damper areas. Very little vegetation is killed in riparian areas by the low intensity fire. There may be some topkill of understory vegetation where the fire fingers into riparian areas, but most of this would resprout rapidly and prolifically. There would be limited potential to change soil infiltration and porosity as a result from the burning since only a small percentage of the areas would burn at high intensity. As a result, there would be little, if any, change in runoff from the burned areas. This alternative proposes to complete 450 acres of dormant season prescribe burning to help achieve and maintain open woodland habitat and 6 acres at Buck Bald to maintain its open, grassy condition. No dozer line would be needed to implement these prescribe burns. The effects associated with this burn would be similar to those described above for site preparation burning. There would likely be less fuel loading and areas of slash accumulation on the landscape associated with the Buck Bald burn, however. Erosion and Sediment As described for the No Action Alternative, geologic erosion would continue on undisturbed forest lands. Accelerated erosion would continue from existing classified and unclassified roads and from private land uses. Implementation of Alternative B would result in the potential for additional accelerated erosion. Activities that could result in accelerated erosion include: timber harvest (temporary roads, skid trails, log landings), fireline construction, and road reconstruction. Research has repeatedly shown that sediment production during timber harvest may accelerate temporarily to about 0.05 to 0.50 tons per acre per year (Patric 1976 and 1994). The amount produced depends upon the topographic, soil, and climatic characteristics of the affected area along with the intensity of management practices being implemented. Mitigation measures would be employed to reduce

93 the amount of erosion that could be possible, and to reduce the amount of off-site movement of soil into stream channels. The act of cutting trees has no direct effect on soil erosion and sediment production (Ursic and Douglas 1978). In so far as water yields can be temporarily increased due to tree harvest, however, sediment yields into forest streams can be indirectly affected. Forest soils remain wetter after tree harvest, and more soil moisture is available to stream channels. For this reason, intermittent drains can be somewhat wetter during the growing season and perennial channel systems can expand slightly upslope into coves that are usually dry before cutting takes place. This effect is temporary, usually lasting no more than 2 or 3 years before returning to a pre-cut condition. Possible water quality effects from timber harvest primarily result from soil disturbance caused by removing trees from the woods. Alternative B would lead to increased potential for soil loss and sediment yields from four main sources: skid trails, roads, log landings and any dozer fire lines required. In addition to soil loss and sediment yield, Alternative B would result in soil compaction. Where compaction is severe and unmitigated, soil productivity would be reduced due to loss of soil structure. Compaction is most likely to occur on those areas where heavy equipment operates repeatedly, especially when soils are wet. Areas subject to compaction include skid trails, temporary roads, and log landings. While subject to many variables, it is estimated that about 10% of a given area harvested by conventional logging equipment (chainsaws/rubber tired skidders) is impacted by skid trails, temporary roads and log landings. The potential effects of soil erosion, sediment yield, and compaction have a spatial and temporal context, and are also greatly affected by mitigation measures applied during disturbance activities. Erosion that results from timber harvest would be greatly modified through time in that disturbance would be temporary and generally a single pulse over a long period of time. Any given area to be disturbed by regeneration harvest would be cut and site prepared within a year’s time. After this, it is unlikely the area would be disturbed (barring natural disturbance) for at least 50 to 60 years. With proper mitigation applied, all effects of timber harvest on soil loss, sediment yield and compaction would return to precutting conditions within 2 to 5 years. The cut areas would assume an undisturbed forest condition (in terms of hydrologic condition) until disturbed again--a period of at least 55 years and probably much longer. Perennial and intermittent streams are close to, adjacent or within stands where harvesting is proposed. Streamside management zones (riparian corridors and filter zones) would be established around these streams as specified in the CNF RLRMP. Filter zones would be established along scoured ephemeral streams. This would be an important mitigation measure protecting water quality in the affected streams. New specified road construction, temporary roads and skid trails would be located mostly on ridge top and side slope locations, where most of the erosion that does occur would filter out in the undisturbed forest floor before reaching stream channels. Log landings would be constructed outside of stream management zones, generally on ridge top locations. Another spatial consideration is the amount of activity taking place in an affected watershed. Harvest activity would take place in 15 percent or less of the affected watersheds. Actual ground disturbance in terms of temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would occur on about ten percent of the acres harvested. This means that less than two percent of any of the affected watersheds would actually be ground disturbed by the timber harvest.

94 In addition to spatial and temporal factors related to proposed treatments, mitigation measures that are employed during and after timber harvest activities to reduce erosion and sediment yield potential are an important consideration. Extensive research and effectiveness monitoring have proven the value of properly applied mitigation measures in greatly reducing erosion and sediment yield potential (Patric 1994 and Curtis, et al. 1990). Alternative B would incorporate mitigation that is based on the following principles: • Build the fewest skid trails, logging roads, and log landings as feasible. • Use broad-based dips or waterbars on all access ways on non-level slopes. • Locate all access as far as practicable from streams. • Maintain as much unbroken forest floor as possible between exposed mineral soil and streams. • Restore vegetation and litter cover on logging roads, skid trails, and log landings as soon as practicable. • Minimize disturbance in stream channels and on the forest floor in channel vicinity. Alternative B would utilize prescribed burning on 663 acres to achieve site preparation (207 acres), create/maintain open woodland habitat (450 acres) and to maintain an open, grassy condition at Buck Bald (6 acres). Ground disturbance created by firelines, particularly those constructed by bulldozers, could result in erosion and sedimentation to streams. Forest-wide management standards are designed to reduce these effects by minimizing the connectivity of firelines to streams, and completing erosion control on firelines, as necessary, to minimize erosion. Alternative B would reconstruct 23.2 miles of NFSR and complete pre-haul maintenance on approximately 2.0 miles of NFSR. Reconstruction and maintenance of these roads would improve surface drainage, harden the road surface and establish vegetation on all or portions of these roads. This activity would reduce the road-related erosion and sediment yield that is currently taking place from these roads. Floodplains and Wetlands Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 and Forest Service policy, require that the impacts of management activities on floodplains and wetlands be considered. Management actions are to be designed and implemented to minimize and mitigate impacts of the action to the natural and beneficial values associated with these areas. Alternative B would be in compliance with Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and Forest Service policy. Mitigation such as streamside management zones would protect the values associated with floodplains. Road reconstruction and maintenance actions would improve drainage features and the stability of existing roads and would lead to a long-term reduction in sediment delivery to affected streams. Any wetlands identified during project implementation would be protected by necessary mitigation such as protective buffer zones. The proposed actions would not adversely alter the natural values of floodplains and wetlands.

95 Cumulative Effects Water and Soil Resource

Alternative A (No Action) The Existing Condition section describes conditions that would be associated with Alternative A. The project proposal would not occur on NFS lands, and no changes to cumulative effects in the area defined by the scope of analysis would take place from these activities. There is very little private ownership within the Buck Bald analysis area. The Womble Branch Watertank Branch and Miller Cove watersheds contain no private ownership, while the Brushy Creek watershed contains three small parcels of private land located near the confluence of Brushy Creek with the Hiwassee River. Based on visual inspection of aerial photography completed during the spring of 2003, the three small tracts of private land in the Brushy Creek watershed are forested. Only a small portion of the Coker Creek watershed is contained within the Buck Bald analysis area. Outside of the Buck Bald analysis area, a large proportion of the Coker Creek watershed is in private ownership. Most of the private land is forested, but a significant percentage of the ownership is in an open (agricultural/pasture/urban) condition. Non-forest land uses and associated roads have and continue to contribute accelerated erosion and sediment yields to Coker Creek. Pasture, farming plots, and private roads are particularly prone to accelerated erosion. Within the past ten years, very little timber harvest activity has occurred on NFS lands within the analysis area. A 32 acre salvage sale (Brannon Cove) was cut in 2004 in the Coker Creek watershed for SPB suppression. It is likely that other small (less than one acre), salvage sales have occurred in the analysis area, especially sales related to the past SPB epidemic. Existing NFSRs located within the watersheds associated with the analysis area include NFSRs 311, 311A, 311B, 11331, 40, 40A, 2114, 2131, 2131A, 2131-1, 2133, 2137, 11371 and 11350. In addition, there are county and private roads located within the area. NFSRs are generally aggregate surfaced and are generally on sideslope and ridgetop locations. The roads are, however, the main source of erosion and sediment yields from NFS lands within this analysis area. Better drainage and additional road hardening with gravel would improve the condition of these roads and reduce road-related erosion. Prescribed burning for fuel reduction occurred within portions of the analysis area in the past. The burns were low intensity, understory burns. Some forest litter and duff was removed by these burns, but most of the organic layer was left intact. The burns did not affect the forest overstory or stream riparian areas. Alternative A would not result in any new ground disturbance or other effects, but it also would not implement any improvements to roads within the affected watersheds. Road improvements through reconstruction and maintenance would improve the condition of the roads and reduce erosion and road-related sediment that is currently taking place.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Cumulative watershed effects that result from past and current conditions in affected watersheds are described in Alternative A. Alternative B would result in additional disturbance within the watersheds from road reconstruction, activities associated with timber harvest and fireline construction. Actual ground disturbance would occur on less than 2 percent of the land area of any watershed within the analysis area and would be dispersed over the landscape. The

96 disturbances would be effectively mitigated to greatly reduce the amount of erosion and sediment yield that could take place. Temporary increases in water yield would occur, but the spatial distribution of the increases and the relatively small amount of watershed affected would minimize this effect. Herbicide use would occur with this alternative. The herbicide, method of application and mitigation associated with herbicide use would minimize any effect to water quality. Prescribe burning would occur on about 663 acres of NFS lands within the analysis area. The burning would create a mosaic type effect where areas of slash would burn intensely, but most of the sites would have creeping ground fires or would not burn at all. There would be limited potential to change soil infiltration and porosity as a result from the burning since only a small percentage of the areas would burn at high intensity. As a result, there would be little, if any, change in runoff and water chemistry from the burned areas. Alternative B would reconstruct 23.2 miles of NFSR and provide pre-haul maintenance on approximately 2.0 miles of NFSR. Reconstruction and maintenance of these roads would improve surface drainage, harden the road surface and establish vegetation on all or portions of these roads. This activity would reduce the road-related erosion and sediment yield that is currently taking place from these roads. Future timber harvest could occur on approximately 100 acres within the Coker Creek watershed. This harvest activity would be upstream of the Buck Bald analysis area. The 100 acre thinning treatment would not affect water yield. Timber harvest and prescribed burning is also proposed in the portion of the Brushy Creek watershed that is located in North Carolina. It is estimated that 200 acres of shelterwood harvest and several hundred acres of prescribed burning would occur in this watershed in about 2010. Based on monitoring and evaluation of other timber sales and prescribed burning that has occurred in the past, and was mitigated with best management practices, it is unlikely that significant water quality or site productivity impairment would result from these future activities. No other Forest Service activity that could affect the hydrologic condition of these watersheds is known or planned. There are very few acres of private land within the analysis area, and land use on these small tracts is not expected to change. Private land use within the Coker Creek watershed as described in Alternative A would continue, and it is possible that new activities could occur on private lands within this watershed that might influence water quality, quantity or timing. Some primary or secondary residential home development is likely, as is some timber harvest activity. The extent and timing of this type of activity is not known, however. It is also likely that pesticides, including herbicides, would be used on private lands in association with home gardens, lawn care and other land uses. However, the Forest Service has no control over these activities. Implementation of Alternative B considered together with past and reasonably foreseeable future activities is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the soil and water resources.

97 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ID TEAM MEMBERS: Robert Lewis, Silviculturist Doug Byerly, Landscape Architect Sarah Belcher, Landscape Architect Mary Dodson, Wildlife Biologist Janan Hay, Planning Team Leader Mark Pistrang, Botanist/Ecologist Jim Herrig, Fisheries Biologist Charlie Lewis, Engineer Mike Nicolo, Hydrologist Quentin Bass, Archeologist Seth Ellis, Forester Seth Cole, Forester Chris Bassett, Archeologist Larry Byam, Implementation Team Leader Bob Merrill, Timber Sale Administrator Dave Martin, Fire Management Officer Ocoee/Hiwassee Andrew Gaston, Natural Resources Team Leader Ocoee/Hiwassee FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: McCoy, Roger, Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage Tennessee Historical Commission Barclay, Dr. Lee, USDI FWS Whitehead, David, TWRA Semingson, Rick, Tusquittee Ranger District, Nantahala NF Urban, Richard, Division of Water Pollution Control TRIBES: Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Muscogee (Creek) Nation Kialegge Tribal Town OTHERS: Arthur, Jim, Cherokee Chapter NWTF Bennett, Matt, Tennessee Forestry Association Britton, Robert Burris, Bill, Weyerhaeuser

98 Butler, Mike, Tennessee Conservation League Callaway, Mike, Bell and Associates Corn, Charles Daniel, Patty Dunn, Larry, Cherokee Forest Voices Fields, Jerry W, East TN QU Frerichs, Terry Guthrie, Julie Hamby, George Herndon, William Jr. and Donna Johnson, Kirk Jones, Ken Kirkland, Gretchen Lawrence Thorpe and Company Manning, Kevin Manning, William E. Mayton, William and Kathleen Medlock, Katherine, Georgia Forest Watch Murray, Catherine, Cherokee Forest Voices Pannell, Clayton, Hiwassee Hiking Club Parsons, Shirl, Wilderness Society Payne, Ray Perez, Judy Rayburn, Earl Reister, David Ryan, Robert SAFC SABP Skelton, William, Sierra Club Sliger, Bob, Monroe County Extension Service Switzer, Harry Tuten, Debbie Watson, J. Allen, Monroe County Mayor Weist, Tom Wilbanks, James Wildlaw

99 REFERENCES Ashe, William W., and Ayers, H. B. 1905. The Southern Appalachian Forests. U. S. Geological Survey. Professional Paper No. 37. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.

Barclay, Lee A. 2003. Letter of Concurrence for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.

Barclay, L. 2007. USFWS concurrence letter #07-I-0288 dated 5 February 2007.

Bass, Quentin. 1999. Draft – Human Influence and the Forest Ecology of the Cherokee National Forest in the Conasauga River Drainage. Page 18.

Bolstad, Paul V. and Swank, Wayne T. Cumulative Impacts of Land Use On Water Quality In A Southern Appalachian Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 33, No. 3. June, 1997. Pages 519-533.

Cherokee National Forest. Scenery Inventory. 1997-99, with updates.

Cherokee National Forest. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, GIS-generated. 2004-05.

Cherokee National Forest. Scenery/Viewshed Analysis, GIS-generated. 2006.

Cherokee National Forest. 2006. Restoration of Pine/Oak Communities Decision Memo, Tellico Plains, TN.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Carter, Virginia, Golet, Francis C., and LaRoe, Edward T. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Curtis, Jeffry G.; Pelren, David W.; George, Dennis B.; Adams, Dean V.; and Layzer, James B. 1990. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices in Preventing Degradation of Streams by Silvicultural Activities in Pickett State Forest, Tennessee. Center for the Management, Utilization, and Protection of Water Resources. Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville. Report for Tennessee Department of Forestry, Nashville. 193 pp.

DeGraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 688.

Dissmeyer, George. 1971. Estimating the Impact of Forest Management on Water Quality. Paper presented at Cooperative Watershed Management Workshop, U.S. Forest Service, Memphis, Tennessee.

Dissmeyer, George. 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices

100 in Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards. Miscellaneous Publication 1520.

Donaldson, J.T. 2006. Botanical Survey of the Cherokee National Forest Buck Bald Project. Polk County, TN. Contract AG-4756-C-05-0021.

Douglas, James, and Swank, Wayne. 1972. Streamflow Modification Through Management of Eastern Forests. Southeast Forest Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-94, 15 pages.

Eschner, A. R. and Patric, J. H. 1982. Debris Avalanches in Eastern Upland Forests. Reprinted from the Journal of Forestry, Vol.80, No. 6, June, 1982.

Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). Pesticide Information Profiles – Triclopyr. 1996. Page 1-4.

Gillis, Joe. 1974. Cherokee National Forest Skid Trail Analysis. A Forest Administrative Study.

Glasser, Stephen, P. 1989. Summary of Water Quality Effects From Forest Practices in the South.

Griffith, Glenn E., Omernik, James M., Azevedo, Sandra H. 1995. Ecoregions and Subregions of Tennessee (Draft). 32 pages

Gucinski, Hermann, Furniss, Michael J., Ziemer, Robert R. and Brookes, Martha H. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. June, 2000. Hamel, P. B. 1992. Land manager's guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437pp.

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Herrig, Jim. 2004. A model for assessing the integrity of fish communities in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Annual Meeting of the Tennessee Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Falls Creek Falls State Park, Tn. March 2-3, 2004.

Hewlett, John, and Hibbert, Alden. 1961. Increases in Water Yield After Several Types of Forest Cutting. Reprinted from Quarterly Bulletin International Association Science Hydrology. Louvain, Belgium.

Hubbard, Robert M., Vose, James M., Clinton, Barton D., Elliot, Katherine J. and Knoepp, Jennifer D. 2004. Stand Restoration Burning in Oak-Pine Forests in the Southern Appalachians: Effects on Above Ground Biomass and Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling. Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Forest Ecology and Management (190). Pages 311-321.

101 Hubricht, L. 1985. The Distribution of the native land mollusks of the Eastern United States. Fieldiana: Zoology (New Series) 24. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Kauffman, G. 2006. Conservation Assessment for American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) L. Forest Service Eastern Region, National Forests in North Carolina. Asheville, NC.

Linzey, D.W. 1995. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. 140pp.

Michael, J.L., Gibbs, H.L., and Fischer, J.B., Webber, E.C. Protecting Surface Water Systems on Forest Sites Through Herbicide Use.

Michael, Jerry L. Best Management Practices For Silvicultural Chemicals And The Science Behind Them. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 4: pages 95-117, 2004.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Climatological Data Annual Summary for Tennessee, 1996, Volume 101 Number 13.

NatureServe. 2002. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe. 2002b. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States, Cherokee National Forest Final Report. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service Region 8 Fisheries, Wildlife, Range, Botany, and Ecology. NatureServe, Durham, NC.

NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Neary, Daniel G., Michael, Jerry L. Herbicides—Protecting Long-Term Sustainability and Water Quality in Forest Ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 26(1/2): pages 241-264, 1996.

Nicholson, C. P. 1997. Atlas of the breeding birds of Tennessee. The Univ. of Tenn. Press, Knoxville. 426pp.

Patric, J.H. October, 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry. Pages 671- 677.

Patric, James. 1977. Soil Erosion and Its Control in Eastern Woodlands. Reprinted from Northern Logger and Timber Processor. Volume 25, Number 11.

Patric, James. 1980. Effects of Wood Products Harvest on Forest Soils and Water Relations. Reprinted from the Journal of Environmental Quality. Pages 73-80.

Patric, James. 1994. Water, Woods, and People: A Primer.

102

Patric, James. 1996. Forest Soil and Streams: Keeping Them (almost) Apart. Policy Fax Analysis, 16 pp.

Peterson, R.T. 2002. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. Fifth edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass. 427 pp.

Roosevelt, Theodore. 1902. A Report of the Secretary of Agriculture in Relation to the Forests, Rivers, and Mountains of the Southern Appalachian Region. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Rosgen, Dave L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22. Pages 169-199.

SAMAB. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version6.2.2006, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Stednick, John D. Part III, Effects of Vegetation Management on Water Quality. Chapter 10, Timber Management. Pages 103-119. Swank, Wayne and Crossley, D. A. Jr. 1984. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Swank, W. T., Swift, L. W. and Douglass, J. E. 1988. Streamflow Changes Associated with Forest Cutting, Species Conversion, and Natural Disturbances. Ecological Studies, Vol. 66: Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag, New York. Page 312.

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

Swank, W.T., Vose, J.M., and Elliot, K.J. Long-Term Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses Following Commercial Clearcutting of Mixed Hardwoods on a Southern Appalachian Catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143, pages 163-178, 2001.

Swift, Lloyd, and Swank, Wayne. 1981. Long Term Responses of Streamflow Following Clearcutting and Regrowth. Pages 245-256. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. March 15, 2003. Triclopyr – Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 13. SERA TR 02-43- 13-03b.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. March 1, 2003b. Glyphosate - Human

103 Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 9. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. December 2004. Clopyralid - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 17. SERA TR 04-43-17-03c.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. December 2004b. Imazapic - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Task No. 17. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. 2000. Tennessee Ecoregion Project 1994-1999.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. 2004. State of Tennessee Water Quality Standards, Chapter 1200-4-3 and 1200-4-4.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2000. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare invertebrates list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2003. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare vertebrates list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage. 2003. Tennessee Natural Heritage Rare Species Databases. Available: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/nh.

The University of Tennessee Herbarium and the Center for Field Biology, Austin Peay State University. 1997-2002. Atlas of Tennessee Vascular Plants. Available: http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/herbarium/vascular/atlas.html

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2003. Big Game Harvest Report 2001-2002. Technical Report No. 03-1. Nashville, TN. 248pp.

Tu et.al. Imazapic. Weed Control Methods Handbook, The Nature Conservancy. January, 2004.

USDA. Agriculture Handbook 701. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. 1995.

US Department of Agriculture. Southern Region. “Guidelines and Techniques to achieve Scenic Integrity Objectives and Landscape Character in Southern National Forests,” 2006.

USDA Forest Service. Unpublished. Upper Hiwassee River Watershed Assessment. Supervisor’s Office, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN 37312. pp. ~50.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual 2360

USDA Forest Service. Undated. Cherokee National Forest, Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger District Land Records, Benton, TN.

104

USDA. Forest Service. 1995b. FSH 2409.18 Chapter 30

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region, R8-FR62.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service Manual 2670, as supplemented.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 463 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 535 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Appendixes for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 380 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Cherokee National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2004. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Cherokee National Forest, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Suppresion EA, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Aquatic database for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Cherokee National Forest FSVEG Database. Cleveland, TN

USDI Fish and Wildife Service. 1988. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Amended through the 100th Congress.

U.S. Geological Survey. Multiple Years. Water Resources Data for Tennessee.

Ursic, Stanley J. and Douglass, James E. The Effects of Forestry Practices on Water Resources. Reprinted from the W. Kelley Mosley Environmental Forum, Proceedings. Auburn University Press. Pages 33-49. May, 1978.

Weakley, A.S. 2002 Draft. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill, NC. 874 pp.

Webster, W.D, J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.

Whitaker, Jr., J.O. and W.J. Hamilton, Jr. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States. Cornell

105 Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 583pp.

Wofford, B.E. 1989. Guide to the Vascular Plants of the Blue Ridge. Univ. of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 384pp.

Wofford, B.E. and E.W. Chester. 2002. Guide to the Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Tennessee. Univ. of Tenn, Press, Knoxville, TN. 286pp.

106 APPENDIX A

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Buck Bald Compartments 114, 131, 132, 133, 134, and 137 USDA FOREST SERVICE, SOUTHERN REGION CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST TELLICO and OCOEE RANGER DISTRICTS

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to document any potential effects of the project on threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) species or their habitat, and to ensure land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. The objectives of this evaluation are to:

1) Ensure Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any plant or animal species or cause a trend toward federal listing of any species. 2) Comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions by federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species. 3) Provide a process and a standard by which TES species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. 4) Meet requirements of FS Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002 which provides direction for the preparation of site-specific BEs, including when to conduct an inventory for PETS plant and animal species

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The Tellico and Ocoee Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest propose vegetation management (Table 1), woodland creation, prescribed burning, wildlife opening maintenance, herbicide use on invasive species, ephemeral pool creation, and road construction and reconstruction. Each alternative is described below. Alternative B Proposed Action

Table 1. Vegetation Management

Comp/Stand Acres Type of Harvest Reforestation 114/21 39 Group selection Site prep, plant northern red oak, 2nd year chemical release 133/4 103 Thinning None 134/7 27 Group Selection Natural Regeneration 134/14 54 Group Selection Natural Regeneration 131/20 39 Seedtree with Site prep with prescribed burning, reserves plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 132/19 31 Seedtree with Site prep with prescribed burning, reserves plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 133/13 30 Seedtree with Site prep with prescribed burning, reserves plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release

Appendix A 133/15 (modified) 40 Shelterwood with Site prep with prescribed burning, reserves natural regeneration 137/5 (modified) 30 Seedtree with Site prep with prescribed burning, reserves plant shortleaf pine, 2nd year chemical release 131/9 37 Shelterwood with Site prep with prescribed burning, reserves natural regeneration 132/11 29 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 132/13 36 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 132/22 39 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 132/31 40 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 133/9 40 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 133/20 40 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 134/13 39 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 137/20 13 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves 137/21 13 Shelterwood with Natural Regeneration reserves TOTAL 719

Additional Wildlife Habitat Improvements – Proposed Activities

1) Create up to 99 acres of open pine and pine-oak woodlands on sites that would naturally support these communities. Treatments associated with creating woodland conditions may include prescribed burning on a rotation suitable to reduce woody vegetation in the understory and encourage establishment of desired herbaceous vegetation; herbicide application to reduce sprouting of woody vegetation; and cutting of understory and midstory vegetation with chainsaws or other hand tools to expose the forest floor to additional sunlight. Activities would occur on the following sites: • Compartment 134 stands 22 and 36.

2) Maintain the grassy nature of Buck Bald by cutting woody stems and brush, treating with herbicides, and burning (134/41) on 6 acres.

3) Restore the natural community to an area dominated by kudzu through herbicide treatment and burning (133/14) on 4 acres.

4) Chemical release of planted pine saplings and naturally occurring oak (131/5) on 32 acres.

Appendix A 2

5) Maintain approximately 15 acres of existing spot and linear wildlife openings. Maintenance activities typically include, but are not limited to, mowing, fertilizing, sowing, day-lighting, and rehabilitation.

6) Control invasive exotic herbaceous species using the herbicides imazapic, clopyralid and/or glyphosate. Species can include, but are not limited to, kudzu, Nepal grass, privet, autumn olive, multiflora rose, paulownia, fescue and mimosa. The sites for possible treatment are the area 100 feet on either side roads or wildlife spot openings.

7) Create ephemeral pools for amphibians and bats in temporary roads and log landings. Approximately 10-30 pools.

Prescribed Burn Unit – Proposed Activities

1) During the winter (non-growing season) prescribe burn the following units: SE-15 (1312 acres); SE-16 (1312 acres); SE-17 (1783 acres). No ground disturbance is needed for fire lines on any of these units.

Roads – Proposed Activities

1) Reconstruct 23.18 miles of existing system roads to bring them up to haul standards. Work primarily consists of widening curves, upgrading culverts, replacing gates, and improving overall drainage. Mitigate crossing of Benton-MacKaye, Unicoi Mountain Motorcycle, and John Muir Trails.

2) Construct 5.3 miles of temporary roads to access treatment units. Stabilize roads and seed with wildlife preferred species after timber hauling is completed.

3) Work on FSR 311 to address Objective MA 5-1.01. Reconstruction will include drainage work to reduce sediment.

Mitigation common to action alternative:

FW-3, FW-6, FW-7 FW-9, and FW-10: Filter strips would be used between ground disturbance and streams.

FW-14, FW-15, and FW-16: Herbicides would be used during timber stand improvement and site preparation activities following these standards.

FW-28 Protect individuals and locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species, and individuals and locations of other species needed to maintain their viability within the planning area. Site specific analysis of proposed management actions will identify any protective measures.

FW-34: The following points apply to roost tree retention for Indiana bat:

Appendix A 3

GENERAL. For Indiana bat, snags with exfoliating bark are not intentionally felled unless needed to provide for immediate safety of the public, employees, or contractors. Exceptions may be made for small-scale projects such as insect and disease control, salvage harvesting, and facility construction.

FOREST REGENERATION TREATMENTS > 10 ACRES. When implementing regeneration treatments in hardwood-dominated forest types, a minimum average basal area of 15 square feet per acre is retained throughout the rotation. In some portion of the treatment area, residual basal area should be clumped or left in travel corridors. All snags and all shagbark hickory over 6 inches DBH are retained except those that are immediate hazards. If additional trees are needed to meet the basal area requirements, priority should be given to hollow/den trees or trees that exhibit, or are likely to develop, characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats. Snags do not count toward the leave basal area. Borders of clearcut units will be irregularly shaped.

FOREST REGENERATION TREATMENTS < 10 ACRES. No residual retention basal area (live trees) is required. All snags will be retained unless they are immediate hazards. Shagbark hickory greater than 6 inches DBH is retained.

FW-35: During all silvicultural treatments in hardwood forest types, retention priority is given to the largest available trees that exhibit characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats.

FW-36: To avoid injury to non-volant young Indiana bats, prescribed burning of potential maternity roosting habitat between May 1 and August 15 is prohibited except where site-specific inventories coordinated with USFWS indicate Indiana bats are not likely to be present, unless otherwise determined by project-level consultation with USFWS.

FW-40: Known black bear den sites will be protected for as long as they remain suitable by prohibiting vegetation management and ground-disturbing activities within a minimum 100 feet around the den.

FW-41: Potential black bear den trees will be retained during all vegetation management treatments. Potential den trees are those that are greater than 20” DBH and are hollow with broken tops.

FW-53: Retain soft mast-producing species (dogwood, black gum, hawthorn, grapes, serviceberry, etc.) during vegetation cutting treatments to the extent possible, within constraints of meeting treatment objectives.

FW-60: Forests dominated by Eastern hemlock will not be subject to regeneration harvest. Hemlock will be retained as patches (a minimum of 0.25 acres) during all silvicultural treatments.

FW-67: When seeding temporary openings such as temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings, use only native or non-persistent nonnative species.

Appendix A 4

FW-97: Dormant season burns have a cutoff date of May 1st or the break of dormancy, as recommended by multi-disciplinary review and TWRA with decision by line officer.

Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11-29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32: Vegetation Management within defined riparian corridors will emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition.

AFFECTED AREA The project area encompasses approximately 6,500 acres within the Hiwassee River watershed. The area varies widely in topography, from sloping hills and flatter areas around the streams to steeper slopes on ridges in the area. Elevations are from around 1,300 feet to 3,000 feet ASL. Dry upland sites occupied by yellow pine, upland hardwood, and mixed stands are characteristic of the overall area; cove sites are also present and include yellow poplar, white pine, white oak and hemlock as predominant overstory species. Common shrub zone species including mountain laurel, blueberry, huckleberry, and greenbriar are present. Common herbaceous species include galax, poison ivy, ferns, trillium, and smilax. Approximately 46% of the compartments are greater then 70 years of age at this time. There are currently 65 acres within the 0-10 year age class (base year 2007) of the total forested acres.

Perennial water sources are readily accessible from all parts of the compartments. Openland, grassy wildlife openings within the ten compartments include approximately 15 miles of linear and spot openings.

The Buck Bald project can be found on the McFarland and Farner quadrangle maps north of Hiwassee River. No special habitat features including caves, talus, boulders, spray cliffs and waterfalls, or seeps and springs have been located in the activity areas.

SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED Using information from project area habitat conditions, species habitat requirements, and species distributions and limiting factors, the entire 2001 Cherokee National Forest TES list was reviewed along with the species habitat list to determine if any TES species were likely to occur in or near the project area. The TES Database Maps (both State Natural Heritage and Cherokee’s GIS) were examined to locate any records of TES species present in the project area.

The need to conduct site-specific inventories of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species for this project was assessed using direction in Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2. Snail, salamander, and butterfly surveys were completed in 2006. Botanical surveys were completed from May 2006 through June 2007. Botanical resources in relation to burning were also assessed by Pistrang (2005). Bat surveys were completed in June 2006. Forest-wide surveys used for this analysis include bat surveys (Cochran et al. 1999, Cochran et al. 2000, Gumbert unpublished data, Harvey et al. 1991, Kiser and Kiser 1999, Libby 2004, Libby 2005, 3-D International 1998), small mammal surveys (Harvey et al. 1991), snail surveys (Brian Cole unpublished data, Caldwell 2004, Gumbert unpublished data), and bird surveys (Bartlett and Buehler 1994, Buehler and Bartlett 1995, Buehler and Klaus 1996, Buehler and Klaus 1997, Buehler and Klaus 1998, R8 Bird, and ongoing surveys).

Appendix A 5

Some species were not found during surveys but habitat is available in the burn areas. Thus they were given a review code of 4a and are analyzed. Phoxinus tennesseensis, Cheumatopsyche helma, Gomphus consanguis, Gomphus viridifrons, Macromia margarita, Ophiogomphus alleghaniensis, Ophiogomphus incurvatus, Villosa trabalis, Pleurobema oviforme, Epioblasma florentina walkeri, Fusconaia barnesiana, Lasmigona holstonia, Lexingtonia dolabelloides, and Potamogeton tennesseensis have either been found in the Hiwassee River or are possible near the project area. The aquatic species including the pondweed would be protected by the riparian mitigation and thus there would be no effects to them. They are not further evaluated here.

Attachment A is the Project Review Form for BE’s. Each species was evaluated and given a Project Review Code (PRC) on the Form based on the Project Review Code Key (Attachment B).

Table 2 lists the species requiring further analysis and a determination of effects based on the analysis in the Project Review Form.

Table 2. Species Requiring Further Analysis

Scientific Name Common Name Insects Speyeria diana Diana fritillary Mammals Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Snails Fumonelix archeri Ocoee covert Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo Non-vascular Plants Ditrichum ambiguum A moss Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp's homaliadelphus Vascular Plants Aster georgianus Georgia aster Berberis canadensis American barberry Botrychium jenmanii Dixie grapefern Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur Diervilla rivularis Riverbank bush-honeysuckle Fothergilla major Large witchalder Gentiana austromontana Appalachian gentian Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia Lysimachia fraseri Fraser's yellow loosestrife Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap Penstemon smallii Small's beardtongue

Appendix A 6

Scientific Name Common Name Pycnanthemum beadlei Beadle's mountain mint Thaspium pinnatifidum Cutleaved meadow parsnip Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia Ashleaf goldenbanner Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock

HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS This section of the BE describes relationships between species and their habitats. Species do not occur at random, but are related to specific habitat types.

Speyaria diana Diana fritillary The original range of this species was possibly as far north as western Pennsylvania; presently it ranges to the Virginias. To the west, its range was formerly mostly through the Ohio Valley to Illinois, and south to northern Louisiana and north Georgia, though distribution has been somewhat spotty. Diana fritillary is currently very rare outside of Appalachia. This species has been found recently primarily in the mountains from central Virginia and West Virginia through the western Carolinas and eastern Tennessee into extreme northern Georgia and adjacent Alabama (NatureServe 2001). Habitat for this species includes glades and other open areas within rich, moist mountain forests (Glassberg 1999). The Diana fritillary routinely lays eggs near violets, the larvae’s host food. The caterpillars hatch, hibernate over the winter as pupae, and then crawl to nearby violets in the springtime (P. Lambdin personal communication). Adults are present from late June to September with males emerging before females. One brood is produced per year. The adult’s food consists of dung and flower nectar from plants including common and swamp milkweeds, ironweed, red clover, and butterflybush (Butterflies and Moths of North America http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ accessed 2006).

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat This species ranges widely over the southern states from Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois south to the Gulf of Mexico; west to Louisiana, Oklahoma, and eastern Texas. It inhabits forested regions. Hibernation in the north and in mountainous regions most often occurs in caves or similar sites; small caves are selected, and the bats stay near the entrance (often within 30 m) and are thought to move about in winter. Winter habitat in the south is poorly known. Summer roosts often are in hollow trees, occasionally under loose bark, or in abandoned buildings in or near wooded areas, instead of being restricted to caves (NatureServe 2001).

Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat This species is found in rocky mountainous areas from Quebec southwest along the Southern Appalachians to northern Georgia, and west to Oklahoma. Abundance is extremely difficult to assess, and populations and occurrences are relatively scattered and small throughout its range. Several bachelor colonies and two maternity colonies have been observed in bridges, mines and rock crevices during the period 2000-2003 (G. Libby, Personal communication). Summer roosts include rock outcrops and cliffs, rock faults and crevices, bridge expansion joints, and abandoned mines and buildings. Rocky areas or bridges with sun exposure in a forested landscape may be important maternity site features. These bats hibernate singly or in small groups in caves, mines and buildings and are often found under talus and rocks on cave floors or wedged into cracks and

Appendix A 7

crevices. Known threats include direct human disturbance of roosts, and landscape changes that alter habitat parameters of roosts or hibernacula. Snag retention is important.

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat The distribution of Indiana bats is generally associated with limestone caves in the eastern U.S. Within this range, the bats occupy two distinct types of habitat. During summer months, maternity colonies roost under sloughing bark of dead and partially-dead trees of many species, often in forested settings (Callahan et al. 1997). Reproductive females require multiple alternate roost trees to fulfill summer habitat needs. Adults forage on winged insects within three miles of the occupied maternity roost. Swarming of both males and females and subsequent mating activity occurs at cave entrances prior to hibernation. During this autumn period, bats roost under sloughing bark and in cracks of dead, partially-dead and live trees.

Fumonelix archeri Ocoee covert This snail has been found in Polk County in leaf litter under rock ledges in ravines.

Paravitrea placentula glossy supercoil The range of this species is Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky. Its habitat is under leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines.

Vertigo bollesiana delicate vertigo This species is found in leaf litter on wooded hillsides and marshes (Hubricht 1985). The range of delicate vertigo is scattered from Maine west to Minnesota, and south to Tennessee and North Carolina (NatureServe 2004). Two records of delicate vertigo on the CNF occur in Monroe County and one record in Johnson County.

Vertigo clappi cupped vertigo This snail is found on steep, often north facing slopes with mixed woodlands, boulders and rock outcrops (Cole unpublished data). Its range includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (NatureServe 2005). There are 5 known occurrences on the Cherokee in Monroe County.

Ditrichum ambiguum a moss Ditrichum ambiguum is a moss species that is known from scattered locations in eastern North America, through Canada to California and disjunct to India. In the east, the species is known to occur on bare soil of moist banks of roads or streams in wooded, upland, or montane habitats (Crum and Anderson 1981). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Homaliadelphus sharpii Sharp's homaliadelphus Homaliadelphus sharpii is currently known from only three counties in Tennessee and one county each from Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia. It is also known from Mexico, Japan, and Vietnam (Crum and Anderson 1981) In Tennessee, the known sites are in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province; however, it is also known to occur in the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Habitat is described as vertical surfaces and ledges of calcareous cliffs and

Appendix A 8

boulders. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Aster georgianus Georgia aster This species is known to occur from central North Carolina, south to central Georgia and Alabama. Disjunct populations occur in Florida. This species is not currently known to occur on the Cherokee National Forest, but is possible in southeastern Tennessee. Habitats are described as dry, rocky, open woods and roadsides in areas that probably had a previous history of periodic fire. This species is considered to be associated with historic post oak and blackjack oak woodlands (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2005) states that there are approximately 60 known extant populations for this species, most of which are small, consisting of stands of only 10-100 stems. “Many populations are vulnerable to accidental destruction from road maintenance activities such as herbicide application, and from road expansion. Other populations are threatened by residential development and/or encroachment of invasive exotic plants. This species has also suffered from fire suppression” (NatureServe 2005). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Berberis canadensis American barberry American barberry ranges from Pennsylvania south to Alabama and Georgia and west as far as Missouri. Considered rare south of Virginia, this species is a broad southern Appalachian Ozarkian endemic. American barberry is generally known from open rocky woods, openings, and streambanks, usually over mafic or calcareous rock. (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2005) states that “Berberis canadensis occurs in open woods, on bluffs and cliffs and along river banks in the eastern and central United States. Formerly an inhabitant of savannas and open woodlands, fire suppression has significantly restricted its habitat to sites with shallow soil (such as glades and cliffs) or areas with mowing or other canopy-clearing activities (such as powerline corridors, railroad/road right-of-ways and riverbanks). Berberis canadensis is found in 19 mountain counties in southwest Virginia. Occupied habitat includes dry, open woodlands over limestone, dolomite, richer sandstone or shale substrates, rocky and cliffy areas and open areas and glades with naturally thin soil. In Georgia, occupied habitat is described as dry, hard soil on upper, west-facing slopes and dry, rocky woods.” (NatureServe 2005). No locations for this plant are currently recorded for the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Botrychium jenmanii dixie grapefern This plant ranges from Virginia south to Florida through Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana. Like most other Botrychiums, specific habitat is difficult to categorize, and may include dry to moist forests and disturbed areas. NatureServe (2005) states that this species is moderately widespread across the southeast. It occurs in a variety of habitats including hardwoods, pine woods, open grassy places, and disturbed areas and is rare across most of its range. No locations for this plant are currently recorded for the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Appendix A 9

Buckleya distichophylla piratebush and Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock These are both southern Appalachian endemics that often occur together on open, dry, rocky bluffs. Piratebush is only known to occur at a few, widely scattered locations in the mountains of southern Virginia, western North Carolina, and northeastern Tennessee (Weakley 2004). There are currently 14 known sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. Carolina hemlock is known from over 50 locations on the Forest and ranges from Virginia, south through Tennessee and North Carolina, to northern portions of Georgia and South Carolina (Weakley 2004). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur This larkspur is known to occur primarily west of the Blue Ridge Mountains from southwest Pennsylvania and Ohio, to Missouri, then east to eastern Tennessee, the mountains of southern Virginia, and the mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina. The species occurs in dry to moist habitats over calcareous or mafic rock, usually in full or partial sun, often on forest edges or within grassy balds (Weakley 2004). NatureServe (2005) states that this species’ habitats include rich woods (and edges of woods), rocky slopes, semi-open woodlands, glades and prairie openings. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Diervilla rivularis riverbank bush-honeysuckle Riverbank bush-honeysuckle is a southern Appalachian endemic, currently known to occur in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina. This species usually occurs on bluffs, rock outcrops, or riverbanks, from moderate to high elevations. (Weakley 2004), but is also found in our area along the Ocoee River at approximately 1,000' elevation. There are currently 12 known sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Fothergilla major large witchalder This species ranges from Arkansas east to Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas. It is typically found in dry, ridgetop forests of moderate elevations especially along the Blue Ridge escarpment (Weakley 2004). There are currently four known occurrences of this species on the Cherokee National Forest. The effects of fire on this species are not known (TN Dept. of Ag. 1994) however, the location of populations, on dry ridgetops, suggest some natural fire effects. The related species, Fothergilla gardeni, is adapted to fire maintained communities in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont (Kral 1983). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Gentiana austromontana Appalachian gentian This is a southern Appalachian endemic known from West Virginia and Virginia, south to the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. Plants are typically found at high elevations in

Appendix A 10

open forests, or grassy balds (Weakley 2004). There are currently 70 known locations on the Cherokee National Forest, many of which occur along forest roads and trails. This is a species of forest openings and edges and is likely suppressed under a closed canopy. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Small whorled pogonia is a federally Threatened species that has an historic range that includes most of the eastern United States, however, it is extremely rare throughout its range. According to NatureServe (2005) this is “a widely distributed species with one hundred four extant sites known, sixty-six centered around the Appalachian Mountains of New England and coastal Massachusetts, eighteen centered around the southern Appalachians, thirteen in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey, and seven widely scattered outlying sites, including one in Ontario, Canada which was last seen in 1987. Populations are typically very small and the total number of individuals is estimated to be less than 3000.” This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Lysimachia fraseri Fraser’s yellow loosestrife This species is a regional endemic, occurring in eastern Tennessee, the Carolinas, Alabama, and Georgia with disjunct populations in southern Illinois and northwestern Tennessee. Known from hardwood forests, forest edges, roadbanks, and thin soils near rock outcrops. Flowering seems dependent upon treefall gaps or other openings in the canopy (Weakley 2004). This species is known from a variety of habitats and often inhabits sites maintained by some type of disturbance, including periodic flooding, fire, and even roadside maintenance. While this species seems to need disturbance to maintain it’s somewhat open habitat, it is critical that these disturbance mechanisms occur during times of appropriate plant phenology. The greatest threats to this species are considered to be shading and competition from successional growth, and, changes in disturbance regimes that may affect reproductive success or damage mature plants. There are currently 10 known locations for this species on the Cherokee National Forest (1 on the northern half, 9 on the southern). It is given a global ranking of G2 indicating there are an estimated 6-20 populations of this species in the world (Pistrang 2001). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata has a range from Maryland and West Virginia south to Georgia and Alabama, though it seems to be centered in the Appalachians (Weakley 2004). It typically inhabits dry to mesic pine and mixed pine-hardwood woodlands. The species is micotrophic (deriving it’s nutrition from another vascular plant via fungal hyphae) thus the distribution of this species may be tied, in part, to the distribution of particular fungi species and other vascular plants. Where found, populations often occupy only a few square meters, thus only a tiny fraction of available habitat is utilized. Although it has a wide distribution and fairly non- specific habitat requirements, it remains an extremely rare plant throughout its range. There are currently ten known sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. Effects from fire are generally undescribed in the literature, however this author has observed vigorous colonies of

Appendix A 11 this plant growing in recently burned areas and it is noted that this species grows in habitats in which fire plays a role (TN Dept. of Ag. 1994). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Penstemon smallii Small’s beardtongue This species is a southern Appalachian endemic that occurs in woodlands, cliffs, glades, and roadsides from northwest North Carolina and northeast Tennessee, south to northwest South Carolina and northern Georgia (Weakley 2004). There are currently no records of this species on the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Pycnanthemum beadlei Beadle's mountain mint Beadle's mountain mint is a southern Appalachian endemic that is known to occur in forests and woodland borders from southwest Virginia south through east Tennessee to southwest North Carolina and northwest South Carolina. There are currently no documented sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest though there is a report (James T. Donaldson personal communication 2000) that this species occurs in Carter County, Tennessee. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Thaspium pinnatifidum cutleaved meadow parsnip This species is known from Kentucky and Ohio, south to western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama where it occurs in forests and woodlands over calcareous rock (Weakley 2004). There is currently one documented site for this species on the Cherokee National Forest. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia ashleaf goldenbanner Thermopsis fraxinifolia is a southern Appalachian endemic that is known from North Carolina and Tennessee, south to northern portions of Georgia and South Carolina. Habitat includes forest openings in dry woodlands and along ridges. Many of the locations on the Cherokee National Forest are associated with roads and trails. There are currently 33 known sites for this species on the Cherokee National Forest, many of which occur along roadsides. No direct information on the effect of fire on this species was found, however according to the USDA Fire Effects Information System (2005) related species in this genus respond favorably after fire. This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock This southern Appalachian endemic ranges from Virginia, south through Tennessee and North Carolina, to northern portions of Georgia and South Carolina. This tree occurs on ridge tops, rocky bluffs, and open forests, generally on drier, rockier sites than Tsuga canadensis, though the

Appendix A 12

two species have been found intermixed in humid gorges (Weakley 2004). This plant was not found during botanical surveys of stands prescribed for vegetation management, however habitat is available in the burn areas and thus it will be analyzed in this document.

EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A: No action With the no action alternative, the forest would continue to age with natural succession occurring. Trees would die, fall from the canopy and leave more debris and logs on the ground. Canopy gaps would become more common, followed by successional growth of maples, black gum, white pine, and sourwood. In the short-term, this may create grassy habitat utilized by Speyaria diana. The increase in fallen logs may be beneficial to the snails by providing more cover. Plant species that are less shade tolerant may benefit from the canopy gaps. The other TES species will not be affected.

In areas of the forest in early to mid successional stages, plants that benefit from increased sunlight on the ground may lose vigor as the forest ages and canopies close. These species include Aster georgianus, Berberis canadensis, Botrychium jenmanii, Delphinium exaltatum, Penstemon smallii, and Pycnanthemum beadlei. The decrease in sunlight may benefit other plants, including most of the mosses and liverworts. Other TES species will not be impacted.

Alternative B: The effects from eight different activities associated with the proposed action will be analyzed for impacts to the above listed species. These are the effects of the ground disturbance created during the timber removal, planting, prescribed burning from August 15-May 1, maintenance of wildlife openings, herbicide use, creation of ephemeral pools, and road construction and reconstruction.

Speyaria diana If any butterfly caterpillars are present during ground disturbing activities, those individuals would likely be destroyed. Prescribed burning may increase habitat, especially in the woodland restoration areas, by increasing grassy areas favored by the butterflies. Given this species preference for moist habitats which would be less likely to be impacted and the short-term disturbance, few individuals would be directly negatively affected by the burning. Maintenance of wildlife openings would benefit the species by providing grassy openings. Herbicide use would not directly affect the caterpillars; indirect beneficial effects may result from a decrease in exotic plants and an increase of native plants. Native plants are host food to caterpillars. The other proposed actions would not affect the species. The project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Corynorhinus rafinesquii and Myotis leibii Suitable roosting and foraging habitat occurs within the affected areas for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and suitable foraging habitat occurs within the affected areas for Eastern small-footed bat. No suitable hibernacula (caves, mines, old buildings) are known to occur within or near the areas. If any bats are in the areas during ground disturbance, individuals utilizing snags may be

Appendix A 13

dislodged. This would result in movement from the area, but mortality is not likely. Indirect effects would include potential changes in forage availability and snag availability due to canopy removal. However, the RLRMP standards aimed at protecting Indiana bat including provisions for snag retention (FW-34) and prescribed burning (FW-36) would also benefit these species. Herbicide use, planting, and maintenance of wildlife openings would not affect the bats. Creation of ephemeral pools would benefit the bats by providing water sources. Long-term population changes are not expected due to the small impact area and scale of the projects. Suitable habitat would remain around the affected areas. The project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Myotis sodalis The proposed action is consistent with the Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2004). The RLRMP established standards aimed at protecting Indiana bat including provisions for snag retention (FW-34) and prescribed burning (FW-36). Ephemeral pools are being created in part for the benefit of Indiana bats. Alternative B is not likely to adversely affect the Myotis sodalis, because the project is consistent with the protective measures for Indiana bat set forth in the RLRMP. The USFWS concurs with this finding (2007).

Snails Areas of suitable habitat for the Ocoee covert, glossy supercoil, delicate vertigo and cupped vertigo may occur within the affected areas. Because these species occur within leaf litter, some individual losses could occur as a result of any ground disturbance. Where burning takes place, habitat conditions would be altered as available leaf litter is reduced. Protective cover would be lost making individuals more susceptible to predation resulting in movements to more favorable habitat (unburned areas). Not all suitable habitat would be impacted within an area. The prescribed burn should not impact moist ravines, coves, springs and seepage areas, and rock outcrops. Individuals at these sites would not be impacted, allowing populations to persist in the area. Any impacts from the burns should be short-term and habitat suitability would increase towards previous levels as leaf litter accumulates over time. Herbicide use, planting, and maintenance of wildlife openings would not affect the snails.

Plants

Non-vascular plants: Ditrichum ambiguum, Homaliadelphus sharpii These species were not found during botanical surveys. Ditrichum ambiguum and Homaliadelphus sharpii are mosses that have been included in this analysis based upon their published habitat descriptions which are sufficiently vague to possibly include the areas considered for prescribed burning. If present within prescribed burn areas, these species would be found associated either with mesic microsites or rock outcrops within the more xeric habitats. These areas are not likely to burn. Some individuals may be impacted, but affects would be minimal. The use of prescribed fire will not negatively impact rare plant populations that naturally occur on these sites. The use of prescribed fire during the growing season is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and will likely have a long-term beneficial effect on rare plant species and other organisms that are associated with xeric woodlands.

Appendix A 14

Vascular plants: Aster georgianus, Berberis canadensis, Botrychium jenmanii, Buckleya distichophylla, Delphinium exaltatum Diervilla rivularis, Fothergilla major, Gentiana austromontana, Isotria medeoloides, Lysimachia fraseri, Monotropsis odorata, Penstemon smallii, Pycnanthemum beadlei, Thaspium pinnatifidum, Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia and Tsuga caroliniana None of these species have been found in the vegetation management stands, roads or wildlife openings. They are evaluated here for effects of prescribed burning. Six of the plant species evaluated (Aster georgianus, Berberis canadensis, Diervilla rivularis, Gentiana austromontana, Lysimachia fraseri, and Thaspium pinnatifidum) respond favorably to fire in their habitat as documented in current literature. Seven more species (Buckleya distichophylla, Tsuga caroliniana, Delphinium exaltatum, Fothergilla major, Isotria medeoloides, Monotropsis odorata, and Thermopsis mollis var. fraxinifolia) have at least anecdotal information in the literature or observations that would suggest a favorable or neutral response. The remaining species either have vague habitat descriptions and were thus considered in this analysis as a means of being thorough (Botrychium jenmanii, and Pycnanthemum beadlei) or occur in xeric habitats (Penstemon smallii) but no information on the effects of fire on the species could be found.

Proposed fire lines generally tie into existing roads or other natural fire breaks (riparian area), and do not impact habitats for the non-vascular species. The proposed burns would likely be dormant season burns that are designed to consume small fuels, but not affect large down wood or mature trees. These fires generally will not carry through moist habitats or areas without adequate small fuels. Some burns may take place during the growing season, especially in site preparation burns or in areas designated as woodland restoration areas. Habitats for the non- vascular and the vascular species that occupy moist habitats including seeps, streams, moist rock, rotten wood, and humid areas may occur within a large burn block but would not be affected by the burns. Similarly, the timing and intensity of the fires would protect vascular plant species and their habitats from negative effects.

The use of prescribed fire during the growing season is designed to restore these plant communities to a more natural species assemblage, and will likely have a long-term beneficial effect on rare plant species and other organisms that are associated with xeric woodlands. Some individuals could be damaged, but roots should remain intact. Dormant season burning would not affect the plants.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects analysis is based on the activities in Table 3 in addition to the proposed action.

Table 3. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Buck Bald Project Area

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Dalton Branch timber sale Brannon Cove salvage Unicoi Mtn timber sale

Appendix A 15

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts from Hemlock Wooly Impacts from Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Adelgid Impacts from Southern Pine Restoration of areas impacted Restoration of areas impacted Beetle from Southern Pine Beetle from Southern Pine Beetle Recreational Uses: Coker Recreational Uses: Coker Recreational Uses: Coker Creek, Unicoi Turnpike, Creek, Unicoi Turnpike, Creek, Unicoi Turnpike, Benton-McKaye trail; Buck Benton-McKay trail; Buck Benton-McKay trail; Buck Bald; Hiwassee River; Bald; Hiwassee River; Bald; Hiwassee River; Dispersed hunting/fishing Dispersed hunting/fishing Dispersed hunting/fishing Private land Private land Private land changes in land use Utility ROW’s Utility ROW’s Utility ROW’s Construction of the Benton New trail heads (Forest Trails MacKaye Trail Strategy) Prescribed Burns NF’s of North Carolina timber harvest proposal within same watershed. Historic sites Bald Maintenance Bald Maintenance Bald Maintenance Noxious Weeds treatments

Alternative A: No action There would be no cumulative effects by non-action.

Alternative B: Speyaria diana, Bats Snails Given the short term impacts, dispersed locations, and small impacted area of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the Buck Bald project area no cumulative impacts are expected. Any areas impacted by hemlock wooly adelgid are not likely to be in the same areas as the activities of the proposed actions.

Plants Plants included in the BE due to prescribed burning would have no cumulative effect from the proposed action and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. The activities are short term, in widely dispersed locations, and/or have a small impact area. Impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid are unknown at this time, however effects are not imminent. Any areas impacted by hemlock wooly adelgid are not likely to be in the same areas as the activities of the proposed actions. In addition, Eastern hemlock is to be retained according to Forestwide Standard 60, thus retaining the community in this proposal.

DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT Table 4 summarizes the determinations of effect for each species.

Appendix A 16

Table 4. Determinations of Effect

Scientific Name Determination of Effect-Alternative A Determination of Effect- Alternative B No effect. No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals, but not likely to Plethodon aureolus affected. cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. No effect. No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals, but not likely to Plethodon teyahalee affected. cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Negative effects short term. May impact individuals, but not likely to No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be Speyeria diana cause a trend to federal listing or a loss affected. of viability. Negative effects short term. May impact individuals, but not likely to Corynorhinus No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be cause a trend to federal listing or a loss rafinesquii affected. of viability. Negative effects short term. May impact individuals, but not likely to No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be Myotis leibii cause a trend to federal listing or a loss affected. of viability. Negative effects short term. Alternative B is not likely to adversely No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be affect the Myotis sodalis. The proposed Myotis sodalis affected. action is consistent with the Cherokee National Forest RLRMP. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals, but not likely to Fumonelix archeri affected. cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals, but not likely to Paravitrea placentula affected. cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals, but not likely to Vertigo bollesiana affected. cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Vertigo clappi No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals, but not likely to affected. cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Ditrichum ambiguum No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Homaliadelphus No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to sharpii affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Aster georgianus loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Berberis canadensis loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Botrychium jenmanii loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Buckleya loss of viability. Negative impacts are distichophylla short-term. Long-term probably beneficial.

Appendix A 17

No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Delphinium exaltatum affected cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Diervilla rivularis affected cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Fothergilla major affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Gentiana affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or austromontana loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be Not likely to adversely effect (pers. Isotria medeoloides affected. comm. Jim Widlak 4/25/05)

No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Lysimachia fraseri loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial.

No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Monotropsis odorata loss of viability. Benefit from opening understory, negative impacts are short term. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Penstemon smallii loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Pycnanthemum affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or beadlei loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Thaspium affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or pinnatifidum loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term beneficial. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to Thermopsis mollis affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or var. fraxinifolia loss of viability. No effect: No activities would occur; no habitat would be May impact individuals but not likely to affected. cause a trend toward federal listing or Tsuga caroliniana loss of viability. Negative impacts are short-term. Long-term probably beneficial.

Alternatives A and B will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Endangered Myotis grisescens. Alternative A will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the Endangered Isotria medeoloides or Myotis sodalis. Alternative B is not likely to adversely affect the Isotria medeoloides or Myotis sodalis. The USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with these findings (Barclay 2007).

The implementation of the proposed activities may affect individuals of Sensitive species, however, this would not likely lead to a loss in rangewide viability or trend toward federal listing. No other Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species that occur on the Cherokee

Appendix A 18

National Forest will be affected. Formal consultation with the USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.

REFERENCES

Barclay, L. 2007. Letter of concurrence FWS #07-I-0288.

Bartlett, J.G. and D.A. Buehler. 1994. 1993 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of breeding songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 14pp.

Buehler, D.A. and J.G. Bartlett. 1995. 1994 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 15pp.

Buehler, D.A. and N.A. Klaus. 1996. 1995 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 15pp.

Buehler, D.A. and N.A. Klaus. 1997. 1996 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 15pp.

Buehler, D.A. and N.A. Klaus. 1998. 1997 Annual report: population status, habitat associations, and relationship to forest management of songbirds on the Cherokee National Forest. Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville. 6pp.

Butterflies and Moths of North America http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ accessed 2006. Big Sky Institute at Montana State University and the NBII Mountain Prairie Information Node. Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, ad R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (MYOTIS SODALIS) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78:818-825.

Cherokee National Forest Habitat Types for TES Plants. 1996.

Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. 2004. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Cherokee National Forest TES List. 2001. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Cherokee National Forest TES Database Maps.

Cochran, S. M., G. W. Libby, H. D. Bryan, and J. E. Spencer. 1999. A survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest Tennessee.

Appendix A 19

Cochran, S. M., G. W. Libby, H. D. Bryan, Macgregor, J. R., and J. E. Spencer. 2000. A survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky-Unaka and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest Tennessee.

Crum, H.A. and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America, Vols. I & II. Columbia University Press. New York, NY.

Donaldson, J. 2006. Botanical survey of the Cherokee National Forest Buck Bald Project, Monroe and Polk Counties, Tennessee. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Eager, D. C. and R. M. Hatcher. 1980. Tennessee's rare wildlife volume I: the vertebrates. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and Tennessee Department of Conservation, Nashville

Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The East. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Eastern North America.

Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.

Harvey, M.J., C.S. Chaney, and M.D. McGimsey. 1991. Distribution, status, and ecology of small mammals of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee (Southern Districts). Report to the U.S. Forest Service Cherokee National Forest. Tenn. Tech. Univ. 65 pp.

Herrig, J. 2001. Sensitive aquatic TES species descriptions. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Herrig, J. 2006. Buck Bald Aquatic Analysis. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Kiser, J.D. and R.R. Kiser. 1999. A survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Hiwassee, Nolichucky, Tellico, and Watauga Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Eco-Tech, Inc.

Libby, G. W., J. E. Spencer, H. D. Bryan, P. L. Droppelman. 2004. 2003 survey for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and other rare bat species on the Nolichucky/Unaka, Ocoee-Hiwassee, Tellico, and Watauga Ranger Districts Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. Eco-tech, Inc.

Libby, G. W., J. E. Spencer, H. D. Bryan, P. L. Droppelman, W. K. Campbell. 2005. 2004 surveys for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the Nolichucky- Unaka and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest. Eco-tech, Inc.

Mitchell, L.J. 2001. Sensitive species, terrestrial animals, Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Appendix A 20

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6 . Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: August 28, 2002 ).

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2002. Version 1.5. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: October 31, 2002).

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Version 4.3. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (Accessed: March & April, 2005 ).

Pistrang, M. 2001. Sensitive plant descriptions. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Pistrang, M. 2005. An analysis of the effects of prescribed fire during the growing season on threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare plant species within selected habitats on the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Pistrang, M. 2007. Survey of Buck Bald temporary roads.

Pyne, M. and A. Shea. 1994. Guide to rare plants: Tennessee Forestry District 2. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Ecological Services Division.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bull. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 1183 pp.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2004. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare animals list.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2004. Tennessee Natural Heritage program rare plant list.

3-D International, Inc. 1998. Survey for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the Nolichucky, Unaka, and Tellico Ranger Districts of the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

University of Tennessee Herbarium Database of Tennessee Vascular Plants. 2002. http://tenn.bio.utk.edu/vascular/vascular.html

USDA Forest Service, Region 8. 2001. Regional Forester letter, subject: Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List Update. Dated 8/7/2001. Atlanta, GA.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2.

Appendix A 21

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114B. Atlanta GA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114A. Atlanta GA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Appendices for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Cherokee National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114F. Atlanta GA

Weakley, A.S. 1999 Working Draft. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, NC.

Weakley, A.S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of March 17, 2004. University of North Carolina Herbarium, NC Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC.

Widlak, J.C. 1997. Biological opinion on the impacts of forest management and other activities to the Indiana Bat on the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, TN.

Wofford, B.E. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Univ. of Ga. Press, Athens. 384 pp.

/s/ Mary Dodson MARY M. DODSON South Zone Wildlife Biologist

Appendix A 22

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Amphibians Seeps, springs, headwater streams, NC & TN; Doe River Common in Carter, wet rock faces at lower elevations; Desmognathus Carolina Mountain 1a Valley SW to Pigeon River Unicoi, Greene, Cocke, more terrestrial at higher elevations; v. S G4 carolinensis Dusky Salamander Valley Washington Counties common in spruce/fir & northern hardwood forests; 900-6600 ft NC & TN; Unicoi, Great Mid-high elevation seeps, stream Desmognathus Santeetlah dusky Smoky, &Great Balsam 4 records; Monroe Co. & 1a headwaters, rock faces; 640-1805 m, S G3Q santeetlah salamander Mtns. Monroe to Cocke SW Cocke Co. primarily > 3200 ft Co. 8 Monroe Co. records Tellico, Bald & North Large streams with sand-gravel Rivers, Citico & W NC & SW TN; Sevier substrate, large rocks & adjacent 2a Eurycea junaluska Junaluska salamander Slickrock Creeks; S G3Q Co. & Monroe Co., TN riparian forests. Low elevation, 1100- potentially Hiwassee 2000 ft. River drainage; total 17 streams rangewide Unicoi Mtns & adjacent Hardwood and pine-hardwood forest; valleys of TN and NC, 1 Monroe Co. record; 6a Plethodon aureolus Tellico salamander terrestrial breeder in leaf litter S G2G3Q between Little TN & also in Polk Co. humus/rotting logs Hiwassee Rivers TN, NC, SC, GA; W of Southern Appalachian French Broad in Cocke Co. Polk, Monroe, Cocke Deciduous, mesic forest; terrestrial 6a Plethodon teyahalee S G2G3Q salamander to Unicoi Mtns in Polk & Cos. breeders (underground); <5000 ft. Monroe Co. 10 TDEC records; Spruce-fir, birch-hemlock and other SW VA to NE TN & NW Johnson, Carter, Unicoi mesic, rocky forests; boulderfields; 1a Plethodon welleri Weller's salamander NC; Johnson, Carter & S G3 Cos. (3 new records grassy open areas; terrestrial breeder- Unicoi Co. submitted) moss mats & rotting logs; > 2200 ft. Arachnids Moss and liverwort mats on Microhexura 3 TDEC records; Roan 1a Spruce-fir moss spider Mountains of NC, TN rocks/boulders in mature spruce-fir E G1 montivaga Mtn.; Carter Co. forest > 5400 ft. Birds 2 TDEC records; hacking Nests at ledges of vertical rocky cliffs. Big Bald 1987-89. 1a Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon US and CAN Feeds in fields, lakeshores, and river S G4 Carter, Greene, Unicoi mouths. Cos. 1 TDEC record; hacking S. Holston Lake 1991- Nests in large "supercanopy" trees Haliaeetus 94; recent nests Tellico along lake & river shores. Prefers 1a Bald eagle US and CAN T G4 leucocephalus Lake. Carter, Johnson, roosts in conifers & protected areas Unicoi, Sullivan, Monroe along open water in winter. Washington, Cos. ME to MN south, from GA O TDEC records; occurs Low elevation crop & grasslands and Lanius ludovicianus Migrant loggerhead 1a to AR; OK, TX; CAN: PE thruout E. Tennessee; old fields with scattered trees, shrubs, S G5T3Q migrans shrike to MB Greene Co. near Forest posts Fish Cool and cold water rivers and streams to headwater springs. Rare in 4 occ. Laurel Creek, 2 Streams over 15m wide. Utilize 1a Cottus baileyi Black sculpin SH occ. Beaverdam Creek, S G4Q riffles,runs, and pools with gravel, Doe Creek, stone, and boulder substrates. Mod. To high gradient. Large streams, small to medium-sized 2 occ. Conasauga & 1a Cyprinella caerulea C rivers, moderate gradient, low T G2 Blue shiner Jack’s Rivers elevation 0 occ. on CNF; Large streams, moderate gradient, low 1a Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub LT,FB,SH Experimental pop. being T G2 elevation introduced into Tellico R. Large creeks to medium rivers, 1a Etheostoma acuticeps Sharphead darter N 1 occ. Nolichucky R. S G2G3 moderate gradient, cool warm water Etheostoma 2 occ. Conasauga & Large streams to medium rivers, 1a Holiday Darter C S G2 brevirostrum Jack’s Rivers moderate gradient, low elevation

Appendix A 23

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank 1 occ. Citico Creek; Large creeks & small-med rivers 10- 1a Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail darter LT Experimental pop. being E G1 80 m wide; moderate gradient, warm introduced into Tellico R. Etheostoma Small to large rivers, low to moderate 1a Wounded darter LT, FB (extirpated) 1 occ. Citico Creek S G3 vulneratum gradient, low to moderate elevations 3 occ. Hiwassee R . #4 Mountain brook Small streams to small upland rivers, 2a Ichthyomyzon greeleyi H,O, LT, FB, N, W & #5; Spring Cr.; poss in S G3 lamprey moderate to high gradient many other streams 1 occ. Citico Creek; Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Noturus baileyi Smoky madtom LT Experimental pop. being E G1 elevation. introduced into Tellico R. 1 occ. Citico Creek; Large streams to large rivers, low 1a Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom LT Experimental pop. being T G1 gradient, low elevation introduced into Tellico R. Conasauga River < 5 Large streams and small rivers, low 1a Percina antesella Amber darter C E G1 miles from Forest Bdy. gradient, low elevation 2 occ. Spring Cr. & Large streams to small rivers, 2a Percina burtoni Blotchside logperch H, SH (extirpated) S G2 Hiwassee R. moderate gradient, low elevation 1 occ. Conasauga River; Medium river, moderate gradient, low 1a Percina jenkinsi Conasauga logperch C E G1 possibly in Jack’s R. elevation Watauga & South Holton Large streams to medium rivers, 1a Percina macrocephala Longhead darter SH, W R. <5 miles from the moderate gradient, low to moderate S G3 Forest Bdy. elevations. 2 occ. Conasauga & Small to medium rivers, moderate 1a Percina palmaris Bronze darter C S G3 Jack’s Rivers gradient, low elevation. 1 occ. Hiwassee R. #4; Small to medium rivers, moderate to 2a Percina squamata Olive darter H, FB, N, W poss in French Broad, S G2 high gradient, moderate elevations Nolichucky & Watauga 1 occ. Hiwassee R.; Ocoee River < 5 miles Large streams to medium rivers, low 2a Percina tanasi Snail darter O, H, LT from Forest Bdy. LT T G2 to moderate gradient, low elevation. habitat destroyed by Tellico Res. 1 occ. Nolichucky R.; Large streams to medium rivers, Phenacobius poss French Broad, 1a Fatlips minnow P, FB, N, W, SH moderate to high gradient, moderate S G3 crassilabrum Nolichucky, Watauga, & elevation South Holston R. 28 occ. O=8; H=15; 1st order spring-fed streams (1-2 m O, H, LT, N, W, SH; LT=3; SH=1; poss wide) of R&V region & mountain 2a Phoxinus tennesseensis Tennessee dace Ridge & Valley of upper S G2G3 Nolichucky & Watauga fringes; low to moderate gradients, TN system in VA in TN tribs. low to moderate elevation Insects Cheumatopsyche Helma's net-spinning 1 occ. Big Lost Cr Large streams, low gradient, low 2a PA, KY, TN, AL S G1G3 helma caddisfly (Hiwassee) elevation VA, TN, Laurel Fork 1 occ., Holston Mtn near 1a Dixioria fowleri A millipede Leaf litter, deciduous forests S G2 drainage in Virginia Backbone Rock 0 TDEC records; known Small, spring-fed streams, mod to 2a Gomphus consanguis Cherokee clubtail VA to AL from Polk and Sullivan S G2G3 high gradient Counties 1 TWRA record; 2a Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail Ontario to AL Chestoa, Nolichucky R. Small-large rivers, moderate gradient S G3 2001 Small streams to large rivers, rocky 2a Macromia margarita Mountain river cruiser VA to GA 0 records S G2G3 with silt deposits 0 TDEC records; known Megaleuctra William's giant Springs and seeps at high elevations 1a VA, TN, NC, SC from Mt. Rogers & S G2 williamsae stonefly (>4000 feet). GSMNP 0 TDEC records; known Ophiogomphus 2a Allegheny Snaketail WV, VA, TN, AL from Polk Co. & Spring-fed Piedmont streams S G3Q alleghaniensis GSMNP Ophiogomphus Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Edmund's snaketail TN, NC, GA 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G1 edmundo elevation Ophiogomphus Conasauga River < 5 2a Appalachian snaketail PA, TN, NC, GA Small streams, low gradient S G3 incurvatus miles from CNF

Appendix A 24

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank 3 TDEC records (Carter & Monroe Co); also in Mature mesic forests, edges & grassy 4a Speyeria diana Diana fritillary WV to AL Greene, Cocke, Johnson, S G3 openings; caterpillar host is Viola sp. Sullivan, Unicoi Cos. (7 new records submitted) Mammals Caves & mine portals; summer roosts Corynorhinus Rafinesque's big-eared OH to MO, south to FL and in hollow trees, under loose bark, & 4a 1 record; Cocke Co. S G3G4 rafinesquii bat LA; OK, TX abandoned buildings; forages primarily in mature forest Mature spruce fir and adjacent Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern 4 TDEC records; Monroe northern hardwood/hemlock forests 1a Mountains of NC, TN, VA E G5T1 coloratus flying squirrel and Carter Cos. above 4000 feet; abundant snags & woody debris, fungi 0 TDEC records; likely Cool, damp coniferous and mixed Microtus chrotorrhinus Mountains of MD, NC, 1a Southern rock vole Monroe, Carter, Unicoi forest; moist/mossy talus and logs at S G4T3 carolinensis TN, VA, WV Cos. higher elevations Uses caves year round; forages along VA to KS south, from TN 4 TDEC records; Cocke, 2a Myotis grisescens Gray bat riparian areas/shorelines with forest E G3 to OK; SC to FL, AL Greene, Sullivan Cos. cover ME to OH south, from SC 8 TDEC records; Bridges, cliffs, mine portals, Eastern small-footed 4a Myotis leibii to AL; AR, MO, OK; Monroe, Cocke, Greene, buildings; summer roosts buildings, S G3 bat CAN: ON, QC Carter Cos. hollow trees, loose bark Hibernates limestone caves; maternity 1 TDEC record; Monroe VT to MI south, to SC, AL; roosts primarily hollow trees or trees 4a Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Co; addtl. ANABAT E G2 IA to AR, OK with loose bark; forages riparian areas records Monroe Co. and upland water holes Swift rocky streams in northern & Sorex palustris Mountains of MD, NC, PA, 4 TDEC records Monroe cove hardwoods; often hemlock, 2a Southern water shrew S G5T3 punctulatus TN, VA, WV Co. mossy rocks, rhododendron; riparian dependent Mussels Alasmidonta Small to medium rivers, moderate 1a Appalachian elktoe N 1 occ. Nolichucky R. E G1 raveneliana gradient, moderate elevation Epioblasma florentina 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Small to large rivers, low gradient, 2a Tan riffleshell H E G1T1 walkeri #5 low elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Epioblasma metastriata Upland combshell C O occ Critical Habitat E GH to moderate gradient, low elevation Epioblasma Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Southern acornshell C O occ Critical Habitat E GHQ othcaloogensis to moderate gradient, low elevation 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Small to medium rivers, moderate to 2a Fusconaia barnesiana Tennessee pigtoe H, LT, N, FB, W, SH #5; LT habitat is S G2G3 high gradient, low elevation inundated by Tellico Res. 1 occ. Conasauga R. last Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Lampsilis altilis Finelined pocketbook C T G2 obs 1999 to moderate gradient, low elevation Hiwassee and French Small streams to small rivers, low to 2a Lasmigona holstonia Tennessee Heelsplitter H, FB Broad tribs. < 5 miles S G3 moderate gradient, low elevation from the Forest Bdy. Watauga R. <5 miles Large streams to small rivers, low 1a Lasmigona subviridis W from the Forest Bdy S G3 Green floater gradient, low elevation (only location in TN). Small streams to large rivers, Lexingtonia 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & 2a Slabside pearlymussel H moderate to high gradient, low S{C} G2 dolabelloides #5 elevation Medionidus Alabama Large streams, low gradient, low 1a C O occ Critical Habitat T G1 acutissimus moccasinshell elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Medionidus parvulus Coosa moccasinshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1 elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Pleurobema decisum Southern clubshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1G2 to moderate gradient, low elevation Pleurobema Southern pigtoe Medium rivers, moderate gradient, 1a C 1 occ. Conasauga R. E G1 georgianum mussel low elevation

Appendix A 25

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Small streams to large rivers, Pleurobema Conasauga River < 5 1a Georgia pigtoe C moderate to high gradient, low S{C} GHQ hanleyianum miles from Forest Bdy. elevation 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Large streams, low gradient, low 2a Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell H S G3 #5 elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1 elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Ptychobranchus greenii Triangular kidneyshell C O occ Critical Habitat E G1 elevation Strophitus Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Alabama creekmussel C 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G3 connasaugaensis elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Villosa nebulosa Alabama rainbow C 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G3 elevation Cumberland bean 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Large streams and small rivers, low 2a Villosa trabalis H E G1G2 pearly mussel #5 gradient, low elevation Villosa vanuxemensis Small and large streams, low gradient, 1a Coosa combshell C 1 occ. Conasauga R. S G4T2 umbrans low elevation Reptiles South Holston R. tribs Slow, shallow, mucky rivulets of Local: SH; US: MA south 1a Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle with bogs; < 5 miles sphagnum bogs, seeps, wet cow S G3 to GA, TN from Forest, Johnson Co. pastures, & shrub swamps Snails

4a Fumonelix archeri Ocoee covert Polk County, TN Polk County Leaf litter under rock ledges in ravines S G1

0 TDEC records; Field Spruce fir and mesic forests with 1a Pallifera hemphilli Black mantleslug MI, NC, TN, VA Museum records Polk moist litter, downed wood and rock S G3 (2), Carter (4) Cos. cover; high elevation 0 TDEC records; Field VA, TN, NC, KY Leaf litter of deciduous forests and Museum & CNF records 4a Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil Off-forest Cocke Co.; unk streamside forests with moist litter, S G3 Polk(2), Monroe(2), location Sullivan Co. downed wood & rock cover. Carter(2), Unicoi(1) Cos. NC, TN, KY, VA Field Museum & Forest Off-CNF & unk locations Mesic deciduous forest, mid-high 1a Ventridens coelaxis Bidentate dome records; Carter (5) and S G3 Carter, Johnson, Sullivan elevation Johnson (3) Cos. Cos. 2 records Monroe Co.; 1 Rich coves, acidic coves, other 4a Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo ME south to TN, NC Field Museum record S G3 deciduous forests with downed wood Johnson County leaf litter and debris on steep wooded 4a Vertigo clappi Cupped vertigo KY, TN, VA, WV 5 records Monroe Co. slopes with boulders and rotting S G1G2 timber Non-vascular Plants On rock in moist ravines, spray cliffs, Mountains of NC, TN, SC, cascading streams, and spruce/fir 1a Acrobolbus ciliatus A liverwort GA. AK, Japan, Taiwan, 1 Record S G3? forests; Riparian dependent except and India. Monroe Co. when in the spruce/fir forest zone. Humus or gravelly soil at base of wet Aneura maxima (=A. Mountains of VT, south to 2a A liverwort 0 Records outcrops, along streams, and S G1G2 sharpii) NC and TN waterfalls. Mostly riparian dependent Aspiromitus Undocumented records On rock in streams. Riparian 2a A hornwort TN, NC, SC S G1 appalachianus have been reported. dependent. Wet, acidic rock in the mtns, Macon & Jackson O Records. Known from especially road cuts. Also on spray 2a Bartramidula wilsonii Dwarf apple moss Counties, NC and Monroe Monroe County however S G3? cliffs and in humid gorges. Mostly County, TN site is undocumented. riparian dependent. On rock and bark of Abies fraseri, Mountains of VA, TN, and 2 locations; Roan Picea rubens, Betula lutea, Prunus 2a Bazzania nudicaulis A liverwort S G2G3 NC Mountain pennsylvanica, and Sorbus americana in spruce/fir forests. Moist, shady, acidic rock, especially Brachydontium Europe, Mount Rainier, Unknown # on Roan 2a Peak moss sandstone; rocky seepage along S G2 trichodes NH, NC, and TN Mountain mountain trails.

Appendix A 26

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Swampy areas; habitats occupied by Nova Scotia, MA, NY, MI, Nowellia, Lophocolea, and Tetraphis; 1a Buxbaumia minakatae Hump-backed Elves 0 Records S G2G3 VT, VA, NC and Japan rotten logs or stumps; found on elm, ash and yellow birch logs. Cephalozia On soil in rock crevices along 2a macrostachya ssp A liverwort NC to MS 0 Records S G4T1 streams. Riparian dependent. australis Cephaloziella Rock crevices and soil above 5,500'. 1a A liverwort Europe, VT, TN, and NC 0 Records S G2G3 massalongi Often with copper or sulphur deposits. On tree bark in humid gorges. Variety of mesic to dry-mesic hardwoods including Quercus spp., Liriodendron NC, SC, AL, and TN. tulipifera, Nyssa sylvatica, Carya 1a Cheilolejeunea evansii A liverwort 1 Record S G1 Monroe Co. spp., Liqyuidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus spp., and Ilex opaca. The moss Fissidens subbasilaris is nearly a constant associate. Chiloscyphus KY, NC, SC, and TN. On wet rock, usually near cascades or 1a A liverwort 1 Record S G1G2 appalachianus Monroe Co. waterfalls. Riparian dependent. On moist soil or rocks at moderate to NC, TN high elevations. Diplophyllum Diplophyllum The variety taxifolioides is collected below 3,000 feet is likely to 1a apiculatum var A liverwort known from several 0 Records. be D. apiculatum (Hicks 1992). The S G5T1Q taxifoliodes locations in NC and from variety is thought to be a hybrid of D. Mt. Leconte in TN. apiculatum and D. taxifolioides (Shuster 1974). In crevices of rock outcrops in spruce/fir forests; >5,500 ft. Always Diplophyllum Newfoundland, MN, associated with damp, shaded rocks. 1a A liverwort 0 Records. S G2? obtusatum mountains of NC & TN It is also known to occur within mixed mesophytic forest in NC (Shuster 1974). On bare soil of moist banks of roads CA, MT, NC, NH, NY, 4a Ditrichum ambiguum A moss 0 Records. or streams in wooded, upland, or S G3? OR, VT, WA; BC, QC, SK montane habitats. Also acidic coves. On rock and the bark of trees and shrubs along streams, mixed mesophytic forest, and in humid Drepanolejeunea Mountains of VA, TN, NC, 4 Records. gorges. Most often found on Kalmia 1a A liverwort S G2? appalachiana SC, and GA; PR Rhododendron, Clethra, and Ilex. Substrates for the CNF pops include rock, Quercus alba, and Betula allegheniensis. 2a Entodon concinnus Lime entodon NC, TN; AB, BC, NS 0 Records. On moist calcareous rock. S G4G5 In rock crevices submerged in swift Fissidens Appalachian pocket 2a NC and TN. Monroe Co. 1 Record. running, shallow water. Riparian S G2G3 appalachensis moss dependent. Usually on the bark of hardwoods (Acer spicatum, Betula allegheniensis, Sorbus americana) above 3,500 ft. in Mountains of TN, NC, GA, 1a Frullania appalachiana A liverwort 0 Records. spruce/fir zone. Also known from S G1? and SC mesic forests and escarpment gorges on the bark of Castanea dentata and Liriodendron tulipifera. Northern Europe, Japan, 1a Frullania oakesiana A liverwort and Mountains of VT to 0 Records. Tree bark in spruce/fir forests. S G3? NC and TN 1 Record, Roan High elevation rocky summits and 1a Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen TN, NC, SC, GA E G2 Mountain rock outcrops. Vertical surfaces and ledges of Homaliadelphus Sharp's Japan, Vietnam, Mex; MO, 1a 0 Records. calcareous cliffs and boulders. Dry S G3 sharpii homaliadelphus VA, NC, and TN mafic or calcareous rocks in gorges. CA to MT and Canada; On rock substrates in clear, cold 2a Hydrothyria venosa An aquatic lichen Appalachians from Canada 1 Record mountain streams. Riparian S G3 to TN & NC. Monroe Co. dependent.

Appendix A 27

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Rock and bark in humid gorges, and Mountains of NC, TN, and 2a Lejeunea blomquistii A liverwort 2 Records. dead trees or vertical rock faces of S G1G2 GA. Monroe Co. spray cliffs. 1 possible Record, Monroe County. This Lejeunea The Caribbean; coastal On bark of trees in the outer coastal 2a A liverwort has proven to be S G2G3 dimorphophylla plain of FL and NC plain. Riparian dependent. Lejeunea ulicina ssp. bullata. Leptodontium Grandfather Mountain Unkown # on Roan Bark of trees in high elevation, 1a VA, TN, NC, and GA S G2 excelsum leptodontium Mountain spruce/fir forests. On shaded, moist or wet rock (often Leptohymenium cliffs and waterfalls) and within 1a Mount Leconte moss TN, NC, and SC 0 Records. S G1 sharpii hemlock/hardwood cove forests. Elevation ranged from 1900- 5400’. Lophocolea see Chiloscyphus 1a A liverwort See Chiloscyphus appalachianus S G1G2? appalachiana appalachianus Moist rocks in humid gorges, waterfall spray zones, wet rock & Marsupella emarginata 1a A liverwort Range unknown 0 Records. seeps along streams, or humid S G5T1T2 var. latiloba microclimates at high elevation. Riparian dependent. 25+ Records (often Shaded rocks in small streams and Megaceros NC, TN, and GA. Monroe 2a A hornwort abundant in areas where springs, or spray cliffs. Riparian S G2G3 aenigmaticus and Cocke Co’s. found). dependent. Rock and bark of trees from spruce/fir Metzgeria fruticulosa Asia, Europe; PNW US; 1 Record, Roan 1a A Liverwort zone to hemlock/hardwood forests S G2Q (= M. temperata) VA, NC, and TN Mountain above 3000’. Metzgeria furcata var. In humid gorges or on damp, shaded 1a A liverwort NC and SC, possibly TN 0 Records. S G4T1 setigera rocks in spruce/fir forests. PR; SE coast to mountains 1a Metzgeria uncigera A liverwort 0 Records. On Rhododendron bark in mountains. S G3 of NC Low elevations in mountains, on peaty VA, WV, KY, TN, NC, 2a Nardia lescurii A liverwort 3 Records soil over rock near shaded streams. S G3? SC, and GA. Monroe Co. Riparian dependent. Permanently damp or wet sites and MN, NC, SC, TN, and GA. 2a Pellia appalachiana A liverwort 3 Records. moist outcrops, usually near S G1? Monroe and Polk Co’s. waterfalls. Mostly riparian dependent On shaded, moist rock outcrops in the 2a Plagiochila austinii A liverwort NH and VT to NC and TN 0 Records. S G3 mountains Mountains of TN, NC, SC, Damp, shaded rock faces, usually and GA. Monroe Co. along streams in mountain gorges and 2a Plagiochila caduciloba A liverwort 2 Records. S G2 (Historic record from on spray cliffs; 1000-4900 ft. Greene County) Riparian dependent. Damp, shaded rock faces and crevices Mountains of TN, NC, and in mountain gorges, above cascades 1a Plagiochila echinata A liverwort SC. Monroe and Polk 4 Records. S G2 and near waterfalls. Riparian Co’s. dependent. Shaded, moist rocks in humid gorges. 1a Plagiochila sharpii Sharp's leafy liverwort TN, NC, SC, and GA 0 Records. S G2G3 Riparian dependent. Moist, shaded rock outcrops, under Mountains of VA, WV, Plagiochila sullivantii cliff ledges, and in rock crevices; 1a A liverwort NC, SC, and TN. Monroe 1 Record. S G2T1 var spinigera spray cliffs and spruce/fir forests; > Co. 2500 ft. Mountains of VA, WV, Moist, shaded rock outcrops, cliff Plagiochila sullivantii Sullivant's leafy 1a KY, TN, NC, SC, and GA. 1 Record. ledges and rock crevices; spray cliffs S G2T2 var sullivantii liverwort Monroe Co. and spruce/fir forests; > 2500 ft. On moist rock near waterfalls; humid Plagiochila virginica 2 Records, no varietal gorges, and rocky banks of shaded 2a A liverwort VA, NC, SC, and TN S G3T2 var caroliniana info. streams. Riparian dependent. Generally at lower elevations. On shaded rock along streams and Plagiochila virginica WV, to NC, SC, TN, GA, 2 Records, no varietal moist rock faces, especially limestone. 2a A liverwort S G3T3 var virginica and MS info. Riparian dependent. Generally at lower elevations.

Appendix A 28

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Moist, granitic or humus covered rock, especially on cliff ledges near Plagiomnium 2a Carolina plagiomnium TN, NC, SC, and GA 0 Records. streams or waterfalls; rocks or S G3 carolinianum streambanks in humid gorges. Riparian dependent. Attached to acidic rock in running Platyhypnidium Mexico, AZ; NC, SC, and water, permanent seeps, or spray cliffs 2a A moss 0 Records. S G2 pringlei suspected in TN of waterfalls in hemlock/hardwood forests. Riparian dependent. Polytrichum Appalachian haircap High elevation rocky summits, rock 1a TN and NC 0 Records. S G3 appalachianum moss outcrops, and shrub balds. Rock faces in humid gorges & wet KY, TN, NC, and SC. 2a Porella wataugensis Watauga porella 2 Records rock near small streams above S G2 Monroe Co. inundation. Riparian dependent. Shaded rock outcrops near streams Mountains of NC, SC, TN, 2a Radula sullivantii A liverwort 0 Records. and waterfalls in mountain gorges. S G2 and GA Riparian dependent. Europe, South America; Shady rock faces in spray areas 1a Radula voluta A liverwort mountains of NC and TN. 1 Record around waterfalls. Riparian S G3 Monroe Co. dependent. Mountains of NC and TN. On moist wood and humus in mesic 1a Riccardia jugata A liverwort 3 Records. S G1G2 Monroe and Polk Co’s. areas and humid gorges. Europe, Africa, Asia, On rock and bark of Abies fraseri, Sphenolobopsis Atlantic and Pacific Roan Mountain Picea rubens, Prunus pennsylvanica, 1a A liverwort S G2 pearsonii Islands, Pacific NW; NC (Undocumented) and Sorbus americana in spruce/fir and TN forests. Canada to CA; mountains Bark of hardwoods in high elevation 1a Sticta limbata A foliose lichen 0 Records. S G3G4 of NC and TN northern hardwood forests Soil, humus, or bark in wet, swampy Asia; MD to FL, NC, and 1a Taxiphyllum alternans Japanese yew-moss 0 Records. areas; on limestone in the spray area S G3? LA of waterfalls. Riparian dependent. . Cliff overhangs and crevices with 1a Tortula ammonsiana Ammons' tortula Africa; WV, NC, and TN 0 Records. seepage in rich hardwood forests. S G2? Riparian dependent. Vascular Plants Rich forest habitats on seepage slopes, South and central Trailing white boulderfields, streambanks, and coves 1a Aconitum reclinatum mountains of NC, PA, TN, 1 Record. S G3 monkshood at high elevations, associated with VA, WV. Carter Co. mafic rock. Dry, rocky, open woods and roadsides AL, FL, GA, NC. in areas with a history of frequent fire; 4a Aster georgianus Georgia aster 0 Records S G2G3 Suspected in SE TN Likely associated with historic post or blackjack oak woodlands. PA to IL, south to AL, GA; Open rocky woods, openings, and IL, MO. Monroe, Johnson, streambanks, usually over mafic or 4a Berberis canadensis American barberry Sullivan, Washington, 0 Records S G3 calcareous rock; occurring in thin soil. Carter, and several ridge Historic habitats were fire maintained. and valley counties. MD to FL; TN, AL, MS, Dry to moist forests; open, grassy 4a Botrychium jenmanii Dixie grapefern LA. Monroe, Hamblen, 0 Records S G3G4 areas; and disturbed areas. Putnum Co’s. Mountains of NC, TN, VA. Open, dry, rocky woods and bluffs, Buckleya Carter, Cocke, Greene, typically calcareous-shaley soils; 4a Piratebush 14 Records. S G2 distichophylla Sullivan, Unicoi, Known sites occur between 1900- Washington Co’s. 3300 ft. Mountains of NC, TN. High elevation rocky summits and 1a Calamagrostis cainii Cain's reed grass 0 Records S G1 Sevier Co. disturbed areas 4000-6000 ft. Mountains of AL, NC, SC, Wet, rocky areas; springs, seeps, and Small mountain TN, VA. Carter, Johnson, 1a Cardamine clematitis 13 Records streambanks; moss or moist soil; > S G2G3 bittercress Unicoi, Washington, 3,500’; Mostly riparian dependent. Monroe, Sevier Cos. Mountains of GA, NC, TN. Medium to high elevation cliffs, balds 1a Carex misera Wretched sedge Blount, Sevier, Carter, 4 Records S G3 and rocky areas Unicoi

Appendix A 29

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank GA, KY, NC, TN, VA. Mesic forests; often associated with 1a Carex roanensis Roan sedge Carter, Johnson, Unicoi, 25 Records S G1 birch and beech at high elevations. Cocke, Sullivan AL, IL, IN, KY, TN. River bluffs, ravines, and rich cove Monroe, Sullivan, & forests over talus and rocky 1a Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane several Ridge and Valley 0 Records S G3 calcareous soils; typically north facing cos.; Primary Cumberland slopes; 800-1500 ft. Plateau in TN. MD to GA; OH, KY, TN. Monroe, McMinn, Blount, Rich forests in moist coves to dry oak 1a Collinsonia verticillata Stoneroot 0 Records S G3 Sevier, Johnson, and forests over mafic or calcareous rock. several counties to west. Rich, moist cove and slope forests Mountains of GA, NC, SC, 1a Coreopsis latifolia Broadleaf tickseed 6 Records 1,500 to 4,500 ft. Flowering triggered S G3 TN. Polk, Carter, Greene by canopy gaps. GA, NC, NJ, SC, TN. Seeps around rock outcrops in the 2a Danthonia epilis Bog oat-grass 0 Records S G3? Cocke mountains. Riparian dependent. OH, PA south to TN, NC; Dry to moist habitats over mafic rock, AL, MO, ME. Mostly usually in full or partial sun (grassy Ridge and Valley Co’s, but balds or forest edges). Also rich 4a Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur 0 Records; S G3 reported from Cocke Co.; woods (and edges of woods), rocky Known from the Blue slopes, semi-open woodlands, glades Ridge in NC. and prairie openings. Mountains of AL, GA, NC, Riverbank bush- TN. Unicoi, Washington, 4a Diervilla rivularis 12 Records Bluffs, rock outcrops, and riverbanks S G3 honeysuckle Polk, and some Ridge and Valley Co’s. AL, AR, GA, NC, SC, TN. Dry ridge top and bluff forests of 4a Fothergilla major Large witchalder Polk, Sevier, Greene, and 3 Records S G3 moderate elevations. some west of Blue Ridge Mountains of NC, TN, VA, Gentiana WV. Carter, Greene, High elevations in open forests, grassy 4a Appalachian gentian 70 Records S G3 austromontana Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi, balds, and along roads and trails. Washington Cos. High elevation peaks, seeps, wet Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Geum geniculatum Bent avens 5 Records boulderfield forests, grassy balds, cliff S G2 Carter Co. bases, and stream banks. Thin soil on rocky summits, cliffs, & Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Geum radiatum Spreading avens 3 Records ledges; open, grassy balds near E G1 Sevier, Blount, Carter. Rhododendron catawbiense; >4200’. Moist to soggy ground at higher Great Smoky Mountains of NC, TN. elevations, especially seepage areas 1a Glyceria nubigena 0 Records S G2 Mountain mannagrass Sevier. on heath balds and high ridges and miry places in spruce-fir forests Habitat includes crevices in rock Hedyotis purpurea var. Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Roan Mountain bluet 1 Record outcrops and gravelly soils at the E G5T2Q montana Carter edges of grassy balds. AL, NC, SC, TN. Carter, Mesic forests and woodlands at Helianthus 1a Whiteleaf sunflower Greene, Johnson, Unicoi 12 Records medium elevations. Flowering S G3 glaucophyllus Cos. associated with increased light. Range for H. longiflora is AL, KY, NC, OH, TN, VA, Moist ravines and rich cove forests, Heuchera longiflora 1a Maple-leaf alumroot WV. No published range 9 Records especially over mafic or calcareous S G4T2Q var. aceroides info for variety. Cocke, rock. Greene Cos. Humid gorges, moist ceilings of rock Hymenophyllum NC, SC, TN, GA. Sevier, 2a Taylor's filmy fern 0 Records grottoes and spray cliffs. Riparian S G1G2 tayloriae Fentress, Overton. dependent. Mountains of NC, TN. Mountain St. High elevation grassy balds and forest 1a Hypericum graveolens Sevier, Unicoi, Carter, 3 Records S G3 Johnswort openings. Johnson. Mountains of NC, TN, VA, Hypericum Blue Ridge St. WV. Unicoi, Carter, Grassy balds, seeps, and forest 1a 12 Records S G3 mitchellianum Johnswort Cocke, Greene, Johnson, openings. Sevier, Blount, Monroe.

Appendix A 30

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Wetlands, seeps, or streambanks >2,000 ft often in association with Tsuga canadensis, Betula lenta, Ilex NC, VA, WV. Suspected 1a Ilex collina Longstalked holly 0 Records montana, Picea rubens, and S G3 in TN Rhododendron maximum. Also moist, rocky slopes in northern hardwood or mixed spruce/hardwood forests. ME to GA; Midwestern US Open deciduous, or mixed pine- Small whorled 4a Isotria medeoloides and CAN. Washington, 0 Records deciduous forests, often on dry to T G2G3 pogonia Hamilton. moist leaf litter. Central and eastern US and southeastern CAN. All Moist, rich forests especially along 2a Juglans cinerea Butternut 11 Records S G3G4 Blue Ridge counties and rivers in bottomlands and floodplains. scattered throughout TN. Bogs, seeps, grassy balds, moist forest Mountains of NC, TN, VA. 2a Lilium grayi Gray's lily 8 Records edges, and wet meadows at medium to S G3 Carter and Johnson Co’s. high elevations. Forest edges, road banks, Along Regional endemic of AL, streams and rivers, and thin soil near GA, NC, SC, TN; KY, IL. Fraser's yellow rock outcrops. Locally abundant in the 4a Lysimachia fraseri Polk, Sevier, Cocke, 10 Records S G2 loosestrife Ocoee River Gorge. Dependent upon Hamilton, and a few cyclical natural disturbances to counties in west TN. maintain open conditions. Regional endemic Wet ditches, meadows, seeps, streams 2a Minuartia godfreyi Godfrey's stitchwort AL, AR, FL, NC, SC, TN. 3 Records banks, and springs; associated with S G1 Carter, Johnson. calcareous soils. Riparian dependent. DE to FL, AL, KY, TN, WV; Centered in Appalachians. Polk, Dry to mesic pine and mixed 4a Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap 8 Records S G3 Monroe, Blount, Sevier, pine/hardwood forests. Cocke, Greene, and a few counties west. Mountains of AL, GA, NC, SC, TN. Polk, Cocke, Woodlands, cliffs, glades, and 4a Penstemon smallii Small's beardtongue Greene, Washington, 0 Records S G3 roadsides. Unicoi, Carter, and several counties west. Crevices in phyllite & graywacke 1a Pityopsis ruthii Ruth's golden aster Southeast TN 12 Records; Polk Co. boulders in historical flood zone E G1 Ocoee & Hiwassee Rivers. Forested wetlands with open or semi- open canopy. Wet, flat, boggy areas at the head of streams or seepage VA to GA, KY to AL, MS. slopes. Often found in association White fringeless Polk, Monroe and several 2a Platanthera integrilabia 2 Records with Sphagnum and Osmunda S G2G3 orchid Cumberland Plateau cinnamonea, Woodwardia areolata, counties and Thelyptris novaboracensis, in acidic muck or sand, and in partially, but not fully shaded areas. OH, PA, TN, VA, WV. Potamogeton Slow moving streams and rivers. 2a Tennessee pondweed Polk, Monroe, Blount and 1 Record S G2 tennesseensis Riparian dependent. counties west Mountains of NC, TN, VA. Roan Mountain High elevation rich woods, grassy 1a Prenanthes roanensis Polk, Sevier, Greene, 48 Records S G3 rattlesnake root balds, and forest openings. Unicoi, Carter, Johnson Beadle's mountain Mountains of southwest 4a Pycnanthemum beadlei 0 Records Forests and woodland borders. S G2G4 mint VA to GA, TN. Carter 0 Records; not tracked by Listed by TN Natural Heritage (1999) TDEC; NY Botanical as a rare endemic, known from Garden Database lists wooded slopes and riverbanks. Taken Appalachian Valley TN endemic. Only known one record (1897) in off after Rare Plant Advisory 1a Rosa obtusiuscula S G1G3Q rose collection from Cocke Co. Cocke County near Committee meeting (1999) until French Broad River taxonomic issues are resolved. It between Paint Rock and could be Rosa palustris. At this point Del Rio. it is considered to be “State Historic”.

Appendix A 31

Attachment A CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2001 List Revised 6/30/2006 by md

PRC* Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Rugel's Indian Mountains of NC, TN. Spruce/fir and northern hardwood 1a Rugelia nudicaulis 0 Records S G3 plantain Cocke, Sevier, Blount forest openings Moist rock outcrops and cliffs; wet soil at the base of rocks; cool, shaded, Mountains of GA, NC, TN, rocky woods. Almost always in steep 2a Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage VA, WV. Carter, Cocke, 4 Records terrain and often in areas misted by S G2 Johnson Cos. spray from nearby waterfalls or in areas where water trickles down the rocky slopes. GA, KY, NC, TN, VA. High to mid elevation forests and 2a Scutellaria arguta Hairy skullcap 0 Records S G2?Q Unicoi moist talus slopes CT to IN, south to AL, GA, SC, AR. Polk, Blount, Rocky, dry to mesic forests and open 7a Scutellaria saxatilis Rock skullcap 43 Records S G3 Unicoi, Carter, Johnson, areas Cocke, Greene 9 Records all restricted to 1a Sedum nevii Nevius' stonecrop AL, GA, TN. Polk Shaded, rocky bluffs and cliffs S G3 the Ocoee River Gorge. KY, MD, OH, PA, TN, VA, IN, MI, Ontario. 1a Sida hermaphrodita Virginia fanpetals 0 Records Sandy or rocky riverbanks S G2 Cocke, Washington, Claiborne AL, AR, GA, IL, IN, KY, Mid elevations over mafic or MS, NC, SC, TN, VA. 1a Silene ovata Blue Ridge catchfly 4 Records calcareous soils. Rich cove and S G2G3 Polk, Sevier, Cocke, oak/hickory forests. Greene, Unicoi and west. Mountains of NC, TN. Rocky places (outcrops, ledges, cliffs, 1a Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod 1 Record T G1 Carter Co, Roan Mtn. balds) above 4500 ft. 1 Record, no longer Riverbanks and riverside shrub AL, GA, KY, LA, NC, OH, 1a Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea extant; Unicoi Co., thickets; rocky areas susceptible to T G2 PA, TN, VA, WV Nolichucky River flood scour. Riparian dependent. AL, IN, MD, NC, SC, TN, Rich boulderfields, cove, northern Clingman's hedge- 1a Stachys clingmanii WV. Monroe, Sevier, 7 Records hardwood, and spruce/fir forests, and S G2Q nettle Blount, Cocke, Unicoi clearings at high elevations. AL, GA, KY, NC, OH, TN, Cutleaved meadow Forests and woodlands over 4a Thaspium pinnatifidum VA. Greene, Cocke, 1 Record S G3? parsnip calcareous rock Hamilton Mountains of GA, NC, SC, Thermopsis mollis var. Openings and ridges in dry 4a Ashleaf goldenbanner TN; AL. Polk, Monroe, 28 Records S G4? T3? fraxinifolia woodlands. Often on road banks. Blount, Greene Mtns & Piedmont of AL, GA, NC, SC, TN. Carter, Southern nodding Rich forests and coves often over 2a Trillium rugelii Cocke, Unicoi, 6 Records S G3 trillium mafic or calcareous substrates. Washington, Polk, Blount, Sevier Mountains of GA, NC, SC, Several Records, not in Rich soils of slopes or coves over 7a Trillium simile Sweet white trillium TN. Polk, Monroe, Sevier, S G3 database. mafic or calcareous rock. Blount, Cocke Mountains of GA, NC, SC, TN, VA. Carter, Johnson, Ridge tops, rocky bluffs and open 4a Tsuga caroliniana Carolina hemlock 51 Records S G3 Sullivan, Unicoi, forests. Generally dry conditions. Washington

*PRC = Project Review Code; to get the appropriate code for each species use the Project Review Code Key. *Range abbreviations refer to the major watersheds on the Cherokee NF: Conasauga, Ocoee, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, Pigeon, French Broad, Nolichucky, Watauga, and South Holton. *Forest Occurrence Data is based upon currently known records. It is NOT necessarily reflective of potential occurrence, especially for plants. *Habitat Information is only a summary. For a more thorough discussion on species, refer to the individual species write-ups that have been provided. For streams the following definitions apply: Orders Gradients Elevations small 3, 4 low <=2% low<=1200' medium 5, 6, 7 moderate>2% - <=4% high>1200' large 8, 9 high>4%

Appendix A 32

Attachment B Process for complying with FSM 2600 Supplement R8-2600-2002-2 Key for determining the Project Review Code (PRC) for each TES Species Last changed 10/29/04 msc

T&E Species Sensitive Species

1. Does the species have potential to occur in the area affected by the project, based on range and habitat information? a. No, project is located out of species known range or suitable habitat does not exist in the project area…No affect No impact b. Yes, project is within species known range and suitable habitat may exist within the project area……………………………………...…………..……2

2. Is the project expected to have no effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project? a. Yes, all requisite habitat has been identified and excluded from disturbance associated with the project………………………………………………. No affect No Impact b. No or unsure of effects...... …...... 3

3. Is the project expected to have totally beneficial effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project? a. Yes, the project is being implemented for the for the benefit of this species………………....……...May affect, not likely Beneficial to adversely affect affect b. No or unsure of effects...... …...... 4

4. Would information on number and location of individuals improve design and/or application of mitigation to reduce adverse effects, or allow better assessment of effects to viability of the population? a. No, assume species is present .…………………. Make the appropriate Determination of Effect and document the reasoning b. Yes, or unsure………….…...... 5

5. Is the species already covered by a current site specific inventory for the project area? a. No, or unsure…………………………………………………………………………………………….6 b. Yes, additional site specific inventory is not necessary; use existing inventory information…………………………………………………………..7

6. Are inventory methods feasible and effective for providing substantial information on number and location of individuals? a. No (i.e. requires DNA analysis for identification to species level)……………………………...... May affect, not likely May impact individuals, to adversely affect but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability b. Yes, site-specific inventory is needed; conduct inventory....………………………………………………………………………………….…………...7

7. An adequate inventory was conducted. a. Species was not found; document……..………...... No affect No impact b. Species found; analyze affects………..…………….. Make the appropriate Determination of Effect and document the reasoning

Appendix A 33

Appendix B

Buck Bald Botanical Report The following topics are addressed in this report: Rare Communities Demand Species Invasive plants and animals TES and species with viability concerns

Existing Condition Rare Communities Rare communities are assemblages of plants and animals and unique substrates that typically occupy a small portion of the landscape, but contribute significantly to biodiversity. They generally are limited in number of occurrences, small in size, and have relatively discrete boundaries. Forest Wide Standard 47 of the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) states that rare communities, wherever they occur on the forest, will be managed under the rare community prescription (USDA 2004a). This is done to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. No rare communities were encountered within the project area, however some evidence of karst topography was found within stand 137/5. Additionally, a small mine shaft was encountered outside the project area along National Forest System Road (NFSR) 311. There would be no effects to rare communities as a result of this project. Existing Condition Demand Species Panax quinquefolius (ginseng) Panax quinquefolius is endemic to almost half of the United States and over a quarter of North America. It has been reported and documented in 33 states, the District of Columbia, and 2 Canadian provinces. Its range is from southwestern Quebec, southern Ontario, south to Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Kauffman 2006). Habitat varies somewhat across its range, but is generally described as nutrient rich, mesic hardwood forests (Weakley 2004). Panax quinquefolius is previously known from seventy-four sites on the Cherokee National Forest (CNF), though there are numerous sites that have not yet been added to the Forest database, bringing the current total to well over 100 known sites. Despite high numbers of sites for the species, few populations support more than 50 individuals and most contain only a few scattered plants. This is consistent with range wide trends reported by Kauffman (2006). Panax quinquefolius was found within the following Buck Bald stands: 114/21 (single plant), 133/4 (large colony of over 70 plants), 134/22 (several plants at scattered locations), and 134/36 (several plants at scattered locations). Previously known locations of this species fall under the following Management Prescriptions:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A - Designated Wilderness 5 4A - Appalachian Trail Corridor 8 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 2 7B - Scenic Corridors/Sensitive Viewsheds 3 7D - Concentrated Recreation Zone 1

Appendix B

7E2 - Dispersed Recreation Areas 5 8A1 - Mixed Successional Habitats 12 8B - Early Successional Habitat Emphasis 2 8C - Black Bear Habitat Management 29 9F - Rare Communities 5 9H - Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of 2 Plant Associations to Their Ecological Potential

Figure 1. Statewide Ginseng Harvest Totals (lbs.) 1978-2004

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000 Pounds Harvested

5000

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982

Year of Harvest

In 1998 and 2004, the state data were broken down into county level increments in order to see how counties contributed to the statewide total (Table 1). The following table shows the contribution from the counties that make up the CNF:

Appendix B 2

Table 1. Ginseng Harvest Data Summary (number of dry pounds*) for Counties that Comprise the Cherokee National Forest YR Carter Cocke Greene Johnson McMinn Monroe Polk Sullivan Unicoi Washington ‘98 167 105 34 21 12 9 3 76 30 51 ‘04 120 211 183 12 25 245 5 214 39 111 * Estimated # of pounds harvested per county

In addition to the state permitting process that is geared at regulating commercial trade in ginseng roots, the CNF further tracks the removal of ginseng from Forest lands through a fee permit system (Table 2). Permits are sold to individuals at a rate of $20 per pound (green weight) for ginseng collection. Ginseng harvest on National Forest System lands has steadily increased since 1999.

Table 2. Ginseng Harvest Data Summary for Cherokee National Forest Lands, TN, 1999-2005. (Pounds are wet weight)

Fiscal Year # Permits Pounds Price 1999 41 44 $880 2000 79 79 $1,580 2001 41 67.5 $1,350

2002 78 96 $1,920

2003 69 69 $1,380 2004 102 102 $2,040 2005 32 32 $640

Beginning in fiscal year 2001, new monitoring protocols were developed to evaluate the effects of this increasing harvest on ginseng. Four monitoring plots, one on each Ranger District, were established in areas where ginseng is present and likely collected. These sites have been sampled since 2001 and the data is summarized annually in the forest monitoring and evaluation report. Direct and Indirect Effects Demand Species Panax quinquefolius (ginseng) Commercial collection of ginseng roots is listed as the primary factor in the species’ decline although impacts from timber harvest activities can also negatively impact the species (Kaufmann 2006). Twenty-three of the previously known seventy-four sites occur within mapped prescription allocations (1A, 4A, 7A, 7B, 9F) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Many of the sites also fall into the unmapped riparian prescription that would also provide protection. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the CNF will be protected. The US Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority recently published a “non- detriment” finding for the harvest and export of wild and wild-simulated ginseng roots “provided that exported roots are from plants that were at least 5 years of age or older at the time of harvest.” Timber harvest activities affect plants irregardless of age and thus could be detrimental

Appendix B 3

to the species survival. Kauffman (2006) states that anecdotal information suggests that mature individuals are more resistant to canopy removal than young plants and seedlings, however very little published information exists on the impacts of canopy manipulation on ginseng. The site in unit 114/21 only supports a single individual but would be protected in conjunction with another rare species, Melanthium latifolium (see section below on Viability Concern Species). The population within stand 133/4 is unique in that it supports a large number of plants (>70), most of which occur within an exposed drain at the northeast end of the stand. The site is described as “Twenty-four 1-prong, thirty-seven 2-prong, thirteen 3-prong, and three 4-prong in a narrow deciduous cove community. The northeast exposed drain has a small eastern exposed drain to its west. Panax continues up this small drain >30m, as well as up the main drain to within 30m of WP181, to the end of the area with the moderately lush herb cover. It occurs 20+m up from the main cove on the slope between the main cove and its smaller drain.” (Donaldson 2006) Based upon Donaldson’s description, many of these plants would be protected by adherence to riparian standards and standard exclusions for hemlock forests. Plants in stands 134/22 and 134/36 include several individuals and colonies scattered along drains within the units and would likewise be protected by riparian exclusions. No further mitigations are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Within the four stands where Panax quinquefolius was found, protection to most of the populations would occur through adherence to riparian standards or other resource exclusions. Proposed dormant season fuel reduction burns and growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian or rich cove habitats and thus would have no effect on Panax quinquefolius. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of non- native invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides may also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Panax quinquefolius. The intent of treating non-native invasive plant species is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Panax quinquefolius in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of alternative B may affect individuals but would not lead toward a loss of viability for Panax quinquefolius. Cumulative Effects Demand Species Panax quinquefolius (ginseng)

All Alternatives Panax quinquefolius is a widespread species that is under intense pressure from commercial collection. The species has well over 100 populations documented on the forest, though most are small with only scattered individuals. Many new locations found for this species within the

Appendix B 4

Buck Bald analysis area occur within riparian areas and would be protected from timber harvest impacts. The biggest threat to this species survival comes from commercial harvest. The CNF issues permits for harvest in accordance with findings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority. Based upon this, Panax quinquefolius would continue to have viable populations on the CNF. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Non-Native Invasive Plants and Animals A multitude of invasive, non-native plants threaten the integrity of native ecosystems in the southern Appalachian area. These include, but are not limited to, species such as kudzu, privet, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and Nepal grass. The Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAMAB 1996) provides a summary of the major threats from invasive plant species. Although not mentioned in the Southern Appalachian Assessment, the wild boar (Sus scrofa) is another example of non-native species that is negatively affecting certain habitats (beech forests and wetlands) in the southern Appalachians (USDA 2004b). Wild boars were introduced into the southern Appalachian Mountains in the early 1900’s. Originally imported for hunting, they eventually escaped from their enclosed hunting reserves in North Carolina and over time have become a naturalized component of the area’s fauna (USDA 2004b). Management of this species is somewhat controversial in that some hunters desire it as a major game species, yet its impacts to the natural environment must be considered. No major impacts from wild boars were seen within the analysis area and this species will not be analyzed further in this document. On the CNF, the following non-native invasive plant species are tracked through project level inventories: Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), small carpetgrass (Arthraxon hispidus), autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), English ivy (Hedera helix), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). While other invasive plant species may occur with scattered distributions on the Forest, these species are recognized as having significant occurrences with a high potential for impacts to native communities on the Forest. In 1999 the Southern Region released a Noxious Weed Management Strategy that outlined five emphasis areas, 1) Prevention and Education, 2) Control, 3) Inventory, Mapping, and Monitoring, 4) Research, and 5) Administration and Planning. This was followed in 2001 with the development of the Regional Forester’s Invasive Exotic Plant Species list. The RLRMP includes numerous goals, objectives, and standards to address the potential impacts of non-native invasive species. These include control efforts and maintenance and restoration of native species. Within the Buck Bald analysis area invasive plant species are abundant, yet mostly restricted to roads and trails and other disturbed sites. Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are a particular problem along linear wildlife openings and roads. Nepal grass out-competes other desired vegetation and is often dominant where it occurs. Wildlife do not use Nepal grass, thus the plant is having an adverse effect on wildlife habitat within the analysis area. A four acre kudzu (Pueria lobata) patch has been identified within stand 133/14.

Appendix B 5

Direct and Indirect Effects Non-Native Invasive Plants and Animals

Alternative A (No Action) No action would be taken to eliminate or control non-native invasive plant species. Nepal grass, sericea lespedeza, Japanese honeysuckle, and other non-native invasive plant species would continue to spread though normal vectors, further affecting wildlife forage and native and desired non-native plants in the analysis area. The kudzu patch in stand 133/14 would continue to spread, eventually covering all adjacent vegetative communities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Alternative B would treat non-native invasive plant species within 100 feet of roads, trails, or wildlife openings with herbicides targeted to each species. This would reduce the impacts from these plants and reduce the likelihood of them spreading. This would benefit the impacted area by allowing native and desired non-native vegetation to reoccupy the site. Wildlife habitat would improve by the increase in forage and bugging areas. The kudzu patch in stand 133/14 would be treated chemically. These treatments would be repeated until kudzu is replaced by native vegetation at the site. Cumulative Effects Non-native Invasive Plants and Animals

Alternative B (Proposed Action) This alternative would use herbicide to control non-native invasive plant species in the Buck Bald affected area. The action is intended to slow the spread of these species on the landscape. Existing Condition TES and Viability Concern Species The Buck Bald project proposes three types of activities that may have effects on vegetation. Timber harvest, prescribed burning, and the use of herbicides to control invasive plants and as a tool for timber stand improvement. With the exception of any dozer lines needed for control, prescribed burning has no ground disturbing activities, nor does the use of herbicides. Botanical surveys were conducted between May 29th and July 18th, 2006 within all areas proposed for ground-disturbing activities. In accordance with FSM supplement R8-2600-2002-2 no surveys were conducted within dormant season, fuel reduction burn areas not subject to ground disturbance. Since these activities are carried out during a time when above ground portions of most plants are not present, the knowledge of locations of these species would not “improve design and/or application of mitigation to reduce adverse effects” (FSM supplement R8-2600- 2002-2 Exhibit 1). Growing season burns may be used on a limited basis to promote woodland habitat conditions within selected xeric to dry habitat types within compartment 134, stands 22 and 36. Effects from the implementation of growing season burns to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Viability Concern species are summarized in Pistrang (2005). No threatened,

Appendix B 6

endangered, or candidate for federal listing species were found during the botanical surveys for this project. The following sections describe the existing condition and effects by alternative for each Regional Forester’s Sensitive species and viability concern species (see USDA 2004c) that was found in the area. Site specific information is drawn directly from the botanical survey report (Donaldson 2006). Note that the following descriptions only provide a summary of important information for each species. Please refer to the botanical reports for comprehensive data, maps, and locations for each species and surveyed area. Existing Condition Regional Forester Sensitive Species No Regional Forester sensitive plant species were found during the botanical surveys. There would be no effect to this species group as a result of this project. Existing Condition Viability Concern Species In addition to Regional Forester Sensitive Species, forest managers have responsibility to maintain occurrences of all native and desired non-native species that are necessary to maintain viable populations of these species on the Forest (Forest Wide Standard 28). Appendix E to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cherokee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan lists species of viability concern known to occur on the Forest (USDA 2004b). The following sections describe the affected environment and effects by alternative for each species of viability concern that was found in the area. Site specific information is drawn directly from the botanical survey report (Donaldson 2006). The following descriptions provide a summary of important information for each species. The botanical report (Project File) contains comprehensive data, maps, and locations for each species and surveyed area. Existing Condition Acer leucoderme (chalk maple) Acer leucoderme is known primarily from the southeast Piedmont (North Carolina to Alabama) but has documented occurrences from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It typically occurs on rocky slopes and bluffs, particularly over mafic or calcareous substrates (Weakley 2004), and in moist woods along rivers and ravines (Wofford 1989). Acer leucoderme is locally common within the Ocoee and Hiwassee River drainages and is previously known from 27 locations on the Forest (F3). One marginal specimen of this species was found along the roadside during the botanical surveys of stand 132/31. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at low to moderate risk. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 1 7A – Scenic Byway Corridors 10 7D – Concentrated Recreation Zone 1 7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas 1 8C – Black Bear Habitat Management 13 9H – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of 1 Plant Associations to Their Ecological Potential

Appendix B 7

Direct and Indirect Effects of Acer leucoderme (chalk maple) Eleven of the twenty seven known sites occur within prescription allocations (1A, 7A) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Acer leucoderme is locally common within the Ocoee and Hiwassee River drainages and is previously known from 27 locations on the Forest, almost half of which are located within prescriptions that minimize potential impacts. Like most maple species, chalk maple sprouts readily after mechanical disturbance (Tirmenstein 1991). The individual found in stand 132/31 is described as “one putative Acer leucoderme re-sprouting from fire damage” (Donaldson 2006) and thus is not considered to be important to the overall viability of the species.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The newly discovered individual of Acer leucoderme occurs within a stand that is prescribed for a shelterwood harvest with reserves and natural regeneration. This species would not be a target species for harvest and would not likely be impacted by the harvest activities. There is little information in the literature on the effects of fire on Acer leucoderme; however it is closely related to Acer saccharum which is known to be rather intolerant of fire (Tirmenstein 1991). Prescribed fire may be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions. No woodland treatments are proposed for unit 132/31 where this species was found. This species is most closely allied with mesic habitats that would not likely be affected by growing season burns, however, based upon the known response to fire of related species, individuals subjected to growing season fire would likely be killed (Tirmenstein 1991) Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known individual of Acer leucoderme. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Acer leucoderme in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Acer leucoderme (chalk maple)

All Alternatives Acer leucoderme is known to be locally common in the Ocoee and Hiwassee watersheds of the Forest. One new location was found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area which suggests its presence elsewhere in the vicinity. Timber harvest activities could impact this

Appendix B 8

individual; however this species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Asplenium resiliens (blackstem spleenwort) Asplenium resiliens is a widespread species known from almost all the southern states from Nevada and Arizona east through Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Florida and north to Pennsylvania. In Tennessee it is known from virtually every county in the eastern two thirds of the state. It typically occurs on moist to dry outcrops of calcareous origin (Weakley 2004). The species was included as a viability concern species for the Cherokee National Forest primarily due to a very limited distribution of available habitat. This species is not tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 (F3). One location for this species was found associated with a small shale and quartzite rock outcrop within stand 134/13. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at moderate risk. Direct and Indirect Effects Asplenium resiliens (blackstem spleenwort) Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Asplenium resiliens is a widespread species that is naturally limited on the Cherokee National Forest based upon the distribution of suitable habitat. The species occurs directly on the rock-faces of outcrops and cliffs in areas unlikely to be impacted by management activities.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The newly discovered population of Asplenium resiliens occurs on a rock outcrop and should not be directly impacted from timber harvest activities. Indirect impacts such as changes in solar incidence and associated moisture regimes could alter habitat conditions for the species, but as it is known to occur in both moist to dry conditions, are not likely to cause its extirpation. Growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions are not prescribed for unit 134/13 where this species occurs. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Asplenium resiliens. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for the species.

Appendix B 9

Cumulative Effects Asplenium resiliens (blackstem spleenwort)

All Alternatives Asplenium resiliens is a widespread species known from almost all the southern states and virtually every county in the eastern two thirds of Tennessee. It is naturally limited on the Cherokee National Forest due to the limited distribution of habitat. One new location was found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area. This species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Existing Condition Carex purpurifera (Limestone purple sedge) Carex purpurifera is known from West Virginia and Kentucky, south to northern Georgia and Alabama. Habitat includes moist, rich cove forests over calcareous or mafic rock (Weakley 2004). In Tennessee it is known from roughly half of the state’s counties primarily in the eastern half of the state. The species was included as a viability concern species for the Cherokee National Forest primarily due to the limited distribution of base-rich forest habitat. This species is not tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations on the Cherokee National Forest have been estimated to number between 1 and 5 (F1). This species was found within stand 114/21 (several dozen plants) along a road bank and associated slope to the northeast boundary of the unit. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high very high risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Carex purpurifera (Limestone purple sedge) Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Carex purpurifera is a widespread species that is naturally limited on the Cherokee National Forest based upon the distribution of suitable habitat. Within stand 114/21 this species occurs in a scattered distribution along the upper road bank of NFSR 2114.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The newly discovered population of Carex purpurifera occurs within stand 114/21 at scattered locations along NFSR 2114 and the associated slope above the road. The proposed treatment in this stand is a group selection and thus would only impact portions of the stand. Data on the location of individuals would be used during sale layout to ensure that impacts to this species are minimized. Prescribed fire used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions is not prescribed for the unit where this species occurs, thus would have no effect on the species. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant

Appendix B 10

species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Carex purpurifera. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Carex purpurifera in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Carex purpurifera (Limestone purple sedge)

All Alternatives Carex purpurifera is known from a modest portion of the southern states and is represented in most eastern counties of Tennessee. It is naturally limited on the Cherokee National Forest due to the limited distribution of habitat. One new location was found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area. This species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (large yellow lady slipper) Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens is widespread in North America, though, like many related species, is at risk throughout its range due to habitat loss and pressure from collectors (NatureServe 2006). Typical habitat for this species includes rich cove and slope forests over mafic or calcareous substrates. The species “parviflorum” has been variously treated in the literature, sometimes broken into three varieties. Variety pubescens is the most commonly encountered form, but can be confused with variety parviflorum which is considered to have viability concerns on the Cherokee National Forest. Both varieties are found very infrequently on the Forest and should probably be considered similarly with respect to conservation. Neither variety is currently tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, thus no current records on populations have been kept. Numbers of populations for variety parviflorum have been estimated to be between 6 and 20 (F2) for the Forest. This species was found within stand 114/21 (one plant). The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to high risk levels for variety parviflorum. No rating is given for variety pubescens. Direct and Indirect Effects Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (large yellow lady slipper) Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens was found within stand 114/21 which is proposed for a group selection harvest treatment. The site only supports one individual and thus is not an important site in the overall conservation of this species.

Appendix B 11

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The newly discovered site of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens in stand 114/21 only supports one individual and thus is not an important site in the overall conservation of this species. Group selection harvest only impacts small portions of the stand. Data on the location of this individual would be used during sale layout in an attempt to protect this site; however, protection is not required and would only be implemented if it is feasible within the silvicultural objectives of the unit. Proposed growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect rich cove and riparian habitats where this species typically occurs and thus would have no effect on Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens. Cumulative Effects Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (large yellow lady slipper)

All Alternatives Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens is widespread in North America, though, like many related species, is at risk throughout its range due to habitat loss and pressure from collectors. One individual was found within the Buck Bald analysis area and this site would be protected during sale layout if possible. Even if this individual is lost, this species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Juncus gymnocarpus (naked fruited rush) Juncus gymnocarpus is primarily known to occur in bogs, seeps, and along streambanks. Its known range includes the mountains of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia, and the coastal plain of Alabama, Mississippi, and the Florida panhandle (Weakley 2004). Juncus gymnocarpus is previously known from forty eight locations on the Forest (F3). This species was found at three locations within the analysis area, within units 131/20, 133/20 and 134/22 (Donaldson 2006). All locations are associated with small stream drainages and are within protected riparian zones. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 10 4A – Appalachian Trail Corridor 5 4F – Scenic Areas 1 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 3

Appendix B 12

7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas 3 8C – Black Bear Habitat Management 19 9F – Rare Communities 2 9H – Management, Maintenance, and Restoration of Plant 3 Associations to Their Ecological Potential 12A – Remote Backcountry Recreation, Few Open Roads 1 12B – Remote Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Juncus gymnocarpus (naked fruited rush) Twenty two of the previously known forty eight sites occur within mapped prescription allocations (1A, 4A, 7A, 9F, 12A, 12B) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. It is likely, however, that based upon known habitat requirements, all sites fall into the unmapped riparian prescription that would also provide protection to sites. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the Cherokee National Forest will be protected. Based upon habitat requirements this species should be completely protected by riparian reserves, thus no additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The three newly discovered sites of Juncus gymnocarpus are within riparian reserves and thus would not be impacted by harvest activities. Proposed growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not affect riparian habitats and thus would have no effect on Juncus gymnocarpus. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Juncus gymnocarpus. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Juncus gymnocarpus in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B would have no effect on the viability of Juncus gymnocarpus. Cumulative Effects Juncus gymnocarpus (naked fruited rush)

All Alternatives Juncus gymnocarpus is previously known from forty-eight locations on the Cherokee National Forest. The new locations found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area would not be affected and this species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Appendix B 13

Existing Condition Liparis liliifolia (large twayblade orchid) Liparis liliifolia is widespread in eastern North America ranging from Canada south to Georgia and Mississippi, and east to Oklahoma and Wisconsin (NatureServe 2007). Habitat is poorly described, listed simply as “moist forests and floodplains” (Weakley 2004). This species is not tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations have been estimated to number between 21 and 100 locations (F3). This species was found within stand 134/22 during the botanical surveys. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at low to moderately high risk. Direct and Indirect Effects Liparis liliifolia (large twayblade orchid) Liparis liliifolia was found on the road bank of NFSR 311 within unit 134/22. The site was marked in the field and recorded with a GPS waypoint and can be easily avoided during implementation. This site would be marked as a “no-skid zone” on the unit implementation card.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) The newly discovered site of Liparis liliifolia is along an existing roadway within stand 134/22 and would not likely be affected by harvest activities. The site would be avoided if possible by the designation of a no-skid zone during harvest activities. Proposed growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions should not affect the moist habitats where this species occurs and thus should have no effect on this site. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Liparis liliifolia. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Liparis liliifolia in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for Liparis liliifolia. Cumulative Effects Liparis liliifolia (large twayblade orchid)

All Alternatives Liparis liliifolia is widespread in eastern North America and the species is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage. One new location was found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area and this site should not be impacted by project implementation. It is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

Appendix B 14

Existing Condition Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern) Lygodium palmatum is widespread in the eastern US, from Maine and Michigan south to Florida and east to Mississippi, but is considered to be rare throughout its range. Habitats are described as bogs, moist thickets, and swamp forests in strongly acid soils (Weakley 2004), yet this species is often found in xeric openings on the Cherokee National Forest. This species was included as a viability concern species for the Cherokee National Forest primarily due to a possible association with wetland habitats. This species is not tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, thus records have not been kept on known occurrences. Populations have been estimated to number between 6 and 20 locations (F2). This species was found in two locations during the botanical surveys, within stands 131/09 and 137/05. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates that this species’ viability is at moderate to high risk Direct and Indirect Effects Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern) Lygodium palmatum is widespread in the eastern US, but is considered rare throughout its range. The species is not currently tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, due to a fairly widespread distribution in the eastern third of the state. Two new populations of this species were found during the botanical surveys, both on the cut-slope of existing roads. Both sites can be easily avoided and would be marked on the implementation cards as a “no-skid zone”. No additional mitigation is proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Both of the newly discovered sites of Lygodium palmatum are along existing roadways within stands 131/09 and 137/05 and would not likely be affected by harvest activities. The sites would be avoided if possible by the designation of a no-skid zone during harvest activities. Incidental damage could occur at this site, but it is expected that the population would remain viable at the site. No information on the effects of fire on Lygodium palmatum was found in the literature, however two related species (Lygodium japonicum and Lygodium microphyllum) were found to be quite resistant to fire (Munger 2005). Prescribed fire used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions is not prescribed for the units where these plants occur. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Lygodium palmatum. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Lygodium palmatum in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for Lygodium palmatum.

Appendix B 15

Cumulative Effects Lygodium palmatum (American climbing fern)

All Alternatives Lygodium palmatum is widespread in the eastern US and the species is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage. Two new locations were found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area and it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower) Melanthium latifolium is an Appalachian endemic ranging from Connecticut to South Carolina, and considered rare in the southern Appalachians. Habitat is poorly defined and simply described as moist forests (Weakley 2004). Melanthium latifolium is previously known from two locations on the Forest (F1). Additional locations for this species have been reported, however these sites have not yet been added to the Forest database. One plant of Melanthium latifolium was found within stand 114/21. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to high risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 1A – Designated Wilderness 1 5A – Administrative Sites 1

Direct and Indirect Effects Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower) One of the previously known two sites occurs within a mapped prescription allocation (1A) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the Cherokee National Forest will be protected. With only a few previously reported sites on the Forest, additional populations represent valuable new sites for conservation. The site has been marked in the field with corresponding GPS waypoints recorded (Donaldson 2006). A small clump of trees has been marked delineating the site and timber should be directionally felled away from this zones. No skidding should take place within the marked area.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Mitigation has been proposed to protect the newly discovered site of Melanthium latifolium. The site is composed of a single plant and is easily protected with a small retention clump. Based upon the implementation of this mitigation, this site would not be affected by harvest activities. Prescribed fire used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat

Appendix B 16

conditions is not prescribed in the stand where this species occurs. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Melanthium latifolium. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Melanthium latifolium in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B would have no effect on the viability of Melanthium latifolium. Cumulative Effects Melanthium latifolium (broadleaf bunchflower)

All Alternatives Melanthium latifolium is previously known from two locations on the Cherokee National Forest. The new location found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area would be protected from negative impacts and this species would continue to have viable populations on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Prosartes maculata (spotted mandarin) Prosartes maculata is known from most of the eastern states ranging from Michigan, south to Alabama. Despite being fairly widespread in distribution it is considered rare or uncommon throughout its range (Weakley 2004) though it is not currently tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage as a rare species for the state. Habitat is described as nutrient-rich deciduous forests, especially coves (Weakley 2004). Prosartes maculata has not been tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the Cherokee National Forest have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations (F3). This species was found in several locations associated with rich cove habitat and drains within unit 114/21 during the botanical surveys. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderate risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Prosartes maculata (spotted mandarin) Prosartes maculata is widespread in the eastern US, but is considered to be rare or uncommon throughout its range. The species is not currently tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage as a rare species for the state. This species was found within one unit, associated with rich cove habitat and drains. It is expected that some of these plants would be protected by riparian reserves. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Prosartes maculata is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, and under the Forest Plan, is only considered to be at moderate risk with an estimated 20-100

Appendix B 17

population on the Forest. While timber harvest may affect some individuals within unit 114/21, portions of the population would be protected by riparian reserves along cove streams. Proposed growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not be implemented within rich cove forest habitats and thus would have no effect on Prosartes maculata. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Prosartes maculata. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Prosartes maculata in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for Prosartes maculata. Cumulative Effects Prosartes maculata (spotted mandarin)

All Alternatives Prosartes maculata is widespread in the eastern US and the species is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage. One new location was found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area. Timber harvest activities could affect individuals of this species however it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Scutellaria pseudoserrata (skullcap) Scutellaria pseudoserrata is a poorly studied species whose taxonomy has changed over recent years. It is currently known only from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama (NatureServe 2007). Habitat is poorly described as “rocky forests” (Wofford 1989). Scutellaria pseudoserrata has not been tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the Cherokee National Forest have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations (F3). This species was encountered within unit 131/9; however no location data was recorded by the botanical surveyor. “Scutellaria pseudoserrata was noted during the survey but no waypoints were taken…. It is presumably found within one or more of the mesic drains within the Typic Montane Cove Forest” (Donaldson 2006). The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates low risk levels for this species. Direct and Indirect Effects Scutellaria pseudoserrata (skullcap) Scutellaria pseudoserrata is currently known only from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama, however, the species is not currently tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage as a rare species for the state. This species was encountered within one unit, associated with rich cove habitat and drains. It is expected that some of these plants would be protected by riparian reserves. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Appendix B 18

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Scutellaria pseudoserrata is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage, and under the Forest Plan, is only considered to be at low risk with an estimated 20- 100 populations on the Forest. While timber harvest may affect some individuals within unit 131/9, portions of the population would likely be protected by riparian reserves along cove streams. Proposed growing season burns designed to promote woodland conditions would not be implemented within rich cove forest habitats and thus would have no effect on Scutellaria pseudoserrata. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Scutellaria pseudoserrata. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Scutellaria pseudoserrata in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for Scutellaria pseudoserrata. Cumulative Effects Scutellaria pseudoserrata (skullcap)

All Alternatives Scutellaria pseudoserrata has a limited distribution in the southeastern United States; however, the species is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage and was rated as “low risk” in the Cherokee National Forest viability analysis. One new location was found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area. Timber harvest activities could affect individuals of this species however it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Stewartia ovata (mountain camelia) Stewartia ovata is known from all the southeastern states from Virginia and Kentucky south through Mississippi to Florida (NatureServe 2006). It typically occurs within openings in mesic forests, especially acidic bluffs or Rhododendron thickets (Weakley 2004). Stewartia ovata is not tracked by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage as a rare species, thus records on known locations have not been documented. Populations on the Cherokee National Forest have been estimated to number between 20 and 100 locations (F3). This species was found within two units (133/13 and 133/20) during the botanical surveys. Plants were associated with small cove streams in both units. The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderately high to low risk levels for this species.

Appendix B 19

Direct and Indirect Effects Stewartia ovata (mountain camelia) Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the Cherokee National Forest will be protected. New sites for Stewartia ovata within units 133/13 and 133/20 are located within riparian areas that would be protected through the adherence to riparian standards. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Potential effects to Stewartia ovata from harvest activities would be eliminated with the adherence to riparian standards. It is expected that all populations would persist after harvest activities. Proposed growing season burns to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions are designed to avoid riparian areas and would have no effect on this species. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of non-native invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known populations of Stewartia ovata. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B would have no effect on the species. Cumulative Effects Stewartia ovata (mountain camelia)

All Alternatives Stewartia ovata occurs throughout the southeastern states and is not considered to be rare by the Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage. Two new locations were found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area and both would be protected by riparian standards. It is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the Buck Bald analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Symplocos tinctoria (horse sugar) Symplocos tinctoria has a widespread, but discontinuous distribution in the eastern and southeastern United States, known from New Jersey and Delaware south through Florida to Texas (Weakley 2004). Habitat is extremely variable, including coastal pocosins, mesic forests, and mountain ridge-top forests. Symplocos tinctoria is previously known from eighteen locations on the Forest (F2). This species is locally abundant within the Ocoee and Hiwassee River drainages and was found at nine locations within the analysis area, within units 132/11, 132/31, 133/4, 133/9, 133/15, 133/20, 134/14, 134/22, and 134/36 (Donaldson 2006). The forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c) indicates moderate risk levels for this species. Previously known locations of this species fall under the following mapped prescription allocations:

Appendix B 20

Prescription Allocation Number of Occurrences 5A – Administrative Sites 1 7A - Scenic Byway Corridors 7 7B – Scenic Corridors/Sensitive Viewsheds 4 8A1 – Mixed Successional Habitats 6 Direct and Indirect Effects Symplocos tinctoria (horse sugar) Eleven of the eighteen known sites occur within prescription allocations (7A, 7B) that would at least minimize potential negative effects from management at a programmatic level. Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Symplocos tinctoria is locally common within the Ocoee and Hiwassee River drainages and is previously known from 18 locations on the Forest, over half of which are located within prescriptions that minimize potential impacts. Several large colonies representing thousands of stems were encountered within the units during the botanical surveys. Based on this, it is likely that many more populations occur outside the boundaries of the proposed harvest units as well. No additional mitigations are proposed.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Symplocos tinctoria was found within nine stands proposed for treatments. While it can attain the height of a small tree, this species typically occurs in the shrub layer and would not likely be directly impacted by the harvest activities. There is little information in the literature on the effects of fire on Symplocos tinctoria; however there is anecdotal information that suggests topkill and re-sprouting after fire (Weakley 2004, Donaldson 2006). Prescribed fire may be used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions within units 134/22 and 134/36 where this species was found. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known individual of Symplocos tinctoria. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Symplocos tinctoria in the future. Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Symplocos tinctoria (horse sugar)

All Alternatives Symplocos tinctoria is widespread in the eastern and southeastern US and is locally abundant in the Ocoee and Hiwassee river drainages. Several new locations were found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area. Timber harvest activities could affect individuals of this

Appendix B 21

species however it is expected that this species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected. Existing Condition Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banner) Thermopsis mollis is known from Virginia south through the Carolinas and east Tennessee to Georgia and Alabama (Weakley 2004). Habitat includes dry woodlands especially along ridges. This species was found within four stands in the Buck Bald analysis area (134/07, 134/13, 134/14, and 133/13). Thermopsis mollis was not known from the Cherokee National Forest at the time of plan revision and thus was not evaluated in the forest wide viability analysis (USDA 2004c). Several large populations were recently identified within the Lost Creek planning area and were afforded protection from management impacts. Direct and Indirect Effects Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banner) Forest Wide Standard 28 states that individuals needed to maintain viability of a species within the planning area will be protected. Until recently (see Lost Creek Environmental Assessment, CNF 2006) there were no previously reported sites of this species on the Forest. Based on this, these new populations could represent valuable new sites for conservation. Stands 134/07 and 134/14 are proposed as “group selection” stands meaning that selected groups of trees would be harvested while other potions of the stand remain unaffected. All sites have been marked in the field with corresponding GPS waypoints recorded (Donaldson 2006). Clumps of trees have been marked at all locations delineating the sites and timber should be directionally felled away from these zones whenever possible. No skidding should take place within the marked areas whenever possible.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) Potential effects to Thermopsis mollis from harvest activities would be minimized with the implementation of the mitigation described above. It is possible that some individuals may be damaged during harvest activities, but expected that the populations would persist after project completion. Thermopsis mollis typically occurs in forest openings and dry woodlands along ridges where natural fire historically played a role in shaping plant communities. Openings created by group selections and other harvest techniques may be beneficial to this species. Thermopsis mollis is known to be top-killed by fire, but re-sprout from rhizomes and seed after fire (Carey 1994). Prescribed fire used during the growing season to promote creation of woodland habitat conditions is not prescribed for any of the stands containing this species. Herbicides would be used to control specific populations of invasive plant species within this alternative. Herbicides would also be used for timber stand improvement in the form of individual tree release and may be used in the creation of woodland conditions. No herbicides would be used in the vicinity of the known population of Thermopsis mollis. The intent of treating invasive plant populations is to increase the probability that native species would occupy those habitats. Areas treated may provide potential habitat for Thermopsis mollis in the future.

Appendix B 22

Based upon the above information, the implementation of Alternative B may affect individuals but will not lead toward a loss of viability for the species. Cumulative Effects Thermopsis mollis (Appalachian golden banner)

All Alternatives Thermopsis mollis was recently found within the Buck Bald and Lost Creek analysis areas, but had not been previously known from the Cherokee National Forest. Sites in Lost Creek were protected and effects to new locations found for this species within the Buck Bald analysis area would be mitigated. This species would continue to have viable populations within the analysis area and on the Cherokee National Forest. No negative cumulative effects are expected.

REFERENCES Carey, Jennifer H. 1994. Thermopsis mollis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 11]. Cherokee National Forest. 2004a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114A. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. 463 pp. Cherokee National Forest. 2004b. Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Management Bulletin R8-MB 114B. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. 533 pp. Cherokee National Forest. 2004c. Appendixes for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Management Bulletin R8-MB 114F. Cherokee National Forest. 2006. Lost Creek Environmental Assessment. 132 pp. Donaldson, J.T. 2006. Botanical Survey of the Cherokee National Forest Buck Bald Project. Polk County, TN. Contract AG-4756-C-05-0021. FSM supplement R8-2600-2002-2. Supplement to Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. March 2002. Kauffman, G. 2006. Conservation Assessment for American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) L. Forest Service Eastern Region, National Forests in North Carolina. Asheville, NC. Munger, Gregory T. 2005. Lygodium spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 16]. NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: August, 2006).

Appendix B 23

NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February, 2007). Pistrang, M.J. 2005. An Analysis of the Effects of Prescribed Fire During the Growing Season on Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Locally Rare Plant Species Within Selected Habitats on the Cherokee National Forest. Unpublished report. SAMAB. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. Tirmenstein, D. A. 1991. Acer saccharum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2006, August 14]. Weakley, A.S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Working Draft of March 17, 2004. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Wofford, B.E. 1989. Guide to the Vascular Plants of the Blue Ridge. University of Georgia Press. Athens.

Appendix B 24 Appendix C Aquatic Habitats Existing Condition All streams in the Buck Bald analysis area drain to the Hiwassee River (5th level Hydrologic Unit Code – 06020002030). The analysis area (National Forest System lands only) contains approximately 23 miles of perennial streams; 5 miles of these perennial streams are capable of supporting fish (Table 1).

Table 1. Aquatic habitats in the Buck Bald analysis area include all Forest Service managed streams Aquatic Habitats Project Ephemeral Streams 84 miles Intermittent Streams 28 miles Perennial Streams (no fish) 18 miles Coldwater Fish Streams 3 miles Coolwater Fish Streams 2 miles Warmwater Fish Ponds 0 acres

These streams support both cold (3 miles) and cool (2 miles) water fisheries (Table 2). All of the stream reaches are small having stream orders of 4 or less. Stream order is positively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Gradient varies from a low of 0.1% to a high of 4.7%. Gradient is negatively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Elevation (at the lower end of the stream reaches) ranges from 1,100 to 1,600 feet and is negatively correlated with fish species (Herrig 2004). Generally cold water habitats (capable of supporting trout) occur above 1,200 feet on the Cherokee National Forest.

Table 2. Streams capable of supporting fish in the Buck Bald analysis area on the Ocoee/Hiwassee and Tellico Ranger Districts Fishery % Low Stream Name Reach Miles Classification Order Grad Elev Brushy Creek 1 0.2 Cool 4 0.1% 1140 Brushy Creek 2 0.4 Cool 3 3.0% 1160 Brushy Creek, West Fork 1 1.5 Cool 3 2.5% 1180 Coker Creek 2 0.2 Cool 4 2.5% 1100 Dalton Branch 1 0.6 Cold 3 0.7% 1540 Dalton Branch 2 1.1 Cold 2 4.7% 1600 Dalton Branch, Unnamed Tributary 1 0.4 Cold 2 1.0% 1520 Mill Branch 1 0.9 Cold 4 4.4% 1440

Appendix C

Based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004b) the Hiwassee watershed (5th level HUC 06020002030) has an average condition rating for sediment, point source pollution, temperature and altered stream flow. An average rating is acceptable for point source pollution, temperature and altered stream flow but is not acceptable for sediment.

Forest Service, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Auburn crews conducted ten stream surveys (USDA Forest Service 2006) between 1997 and 2005 on streams in the Buck Bald analysis area. All streams capable of supporting fish have been surveyed (USDA Forest Service 2006). Aquatic habitat conditions were evaluated. All habitat surveys indicated that sediment ratings were acceptable. None of the substrate surveys by the Forest Service indicated that sediment conditions were below average. It is likely that the unacceptable sediment rating for the larger Hiwassee watershed is predicted based on conditions that occur on privately owned lands.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No Action Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or use of herbicides. No new adverse effects would occur to the aquatic environment.

Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B would employ filter strips between ground disturbance and streams (Forest Wide Standards-FW-3, FW-6, FW-7, FW-9, and FW-10; USDA Forest Service 2004a). Vegetation management within defined riparian corridors would emphasize maintenance of large trees for woody debris recruitment as the desired condition (Riparian Prescription Standards-RX11-1, RX11-8, RX11-29, RX11-30, RX11-31, and RX11-32; USDA Forest Service 2004a). These standards are adequate to protect all aquatic habitats.

Herbicides would be used during timber stand improvement, site preparation activities, along road right of ways, and to treat a kudzu patch. Forest Wide standards (FW-14, FW-15, and FW- 16; USDA Forest Service 2004a) would be followed during implementation.

Cumulative Effects Table 3 lists the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that are considered within this analysis:

Table 3. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the Buck Bald analysis area Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Dalton Branch timber sale; Brannon Cove salvage;

Appendix C 2

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Unicoi Mtn timber sale Impacts from Hemlock Impacts from Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Wooly Adelgid Impacts from Southern Pine Restoration of areas Restoration of areas Beetle impacted from Southern impacted from Southern Pine Beetle Pine Beetle Recreational Uses: Coker Recreational Uses: Coker Recreational Uses: Coker Creek, Unicoi Turnpike, Creek, Unicoi Turnpike, Creek, Unicoi Turnpike, Benton-McKaye trail; Buck Benton-McKay trail; Buck Benton-McKay trail; Buck Bald; Hiwassee River; Bald; Hiwassee River; Bald; Hiwassee River; Dispersed hunting/fishing Dispersed hunting/fishing Dispersed hunting/fishing Private land Private land Private land changes in land use Utility ROW’s Utility ROW’s Utility ROW’s Construction of the Benton New trail heads (Forest MacKaye Trail Trails Strategy)

Alternative A No Action Alternative A does not propose any new ground disturbance. Other activities in the area (Table 3) may be contributing sediment to streams. However, sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on National Forest System lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B includes seed tree, shelterwood, group selection and thinning vegetation treatments; non-native plant control; rehabilitation of Buck Bald; ephemeral pool construction; maintenance of wildlife openings; temporary road construction; maintenance and reconstruction of system roads; planting of pine and red oak; and woodland creation. Each of these activities must follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Following these standards would result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re-vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams.

Other activities in the area (see Table 3) may be contributing sediment to streams. However, sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities implemented in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative

Appendix C 3

effect on the aquatic habitats. Activities, on National Forest System lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative B, they would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Aquatic Species Viability Existing Condition The streams in the analysis area are relatively unproductive (conductivity/alkalinity levels below 50 ppm) resulting in low aquatic diversity and density. Forest Service, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Auburn crews conducted ten stream surveys (USDA Forest Service 2006) between 1997 and 2005 on streams in the Buck Bald analysis area. All streams capable of supporting fish have been surveyed (USDA Forest Service 2006). Fish species were evaluated. Table 4 shows the stream reach survey dates. Mussels are known to occur immediately down stream of the analysis area in the Hiwassee River.

Table 4. The most recent survey dates for streams reaches in the Buck Bald analysis area Latest Date Stream Name Stream Reach of Fish Sampling Brushy Creek 1 8/11/1976 Brushy Creek 2 8/25/1990 Brushy Creek, West Fork 1 8/25/1990 Coker Creek 2 9/16/2005 Dalton Branch 1 7/8/1991 Dalton Branch 2 7/8/1991 Dalton Branch, Unnamed Tributary 1 7/8/1991 Mill Branch 1 9/7/2005

Table 5 displays the fish and mussel species found in or near the analysis area, their relative abundance in the analysis area and across the Cherokee National Forest, and their assigned Viability Goal (USDA Forest Service 2006). No additional species of fish or mussel species are expected to occur in the analysis area.

Species with a viability goal of Protect/Restore are rare species that are listed as Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Locally Rare (native species with fewer than 5 populations on the Forest). These species have a viability concern (USDA Forest Service 2005) and Forest activities may have significant impacts on their viability. Forest Service Manual 2670.22 directs the agency to maintain viable populations of all native species. Opportunities to improve habitat conditions and increase populations through re-introduction on the Forest are pursued. Aquatic surveys documented two Endangered and five Sensitive species in this watershed. See the

Appendix C 4

Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species section for further discussion on these species.

Table 5. Eighteen fish species have been documented as occurring within the analysis area; thirteen mussel species are present immediately down stream of the analysis area. Their abundance in the analysis area is compared to their abundance across the Cherokee National Forest. Each species has been assigned a Viability Goal. Populations Forest Forest Viability Species Analysis Area Wide Status Goal elktoe 2 2 Locally Rare Protect/Restore longsolid 2 2 Locally Rare Protect/Restore mountain creekshell 1 2 Locally Rare Protect/Restore pink heelsplitter 1 1 Locally Rare Protect/Restore rainbow 2 2 Locally Rare Protect/Restore spike 2 1 Locally Rare Protect/Restore wavy-rayed lamp mussel 1 3 Locally Rare Protect/Restore bluegill 2 46 Game Enhance brown trout 1 90 Game Enhance Green sunfish 1 23 Game Enhance redbreast sunfish 1 27 Game Enhance Rock bass 7 65 Game Enhance Smallmouth bass 1 45 Game Enhance largemouth bass 1 19 Game Enhance banded sculpin 2 70 Native Maintain River chub 1 59 Native Maintain blacknose dace 3 262 Native Maintain central stoneroller 3 124 Native Maintain Creek chub 6 198 Native Maintain greenside darter 1 35 Native Maintain northern hogsucker 4 104 Native Maintain redline darter 1 43 Native Maintain Tennessee shiner 1 54 Native Maintain warpaint shiner 2 70 Native Maintain whitetail shiner 1 35 Native Maintain

Appendix C 5

Species with a viability goal of Enhance are game species; opportunities to improve habitat conditions for them on the Forest are pursued. Improvements usually involve building instream structures, stabilizing sediment sources and trimming thick rhododendron stands. These species do not have a viability concern on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005).

Species with a viability goal of Maintain are native species not included in either of the previous two categories. These species do not have a viability concern on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No Action Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or use of herbicides. No new adverse effects would alter the viability of aquatic species.

Implementation of Alternative B with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect effects to aquatic species from these management activities (pgs. 198-199; USDA Forest Service 2004b).

Cumulative Effects See Table 3 for a list of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that are considered within this analysis.

Alternative A No Action Alternative A does not propose any new ground disturbance. Other activities in the area may be contributing sediment to streams. Sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Activities, on National Forest System lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic species regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Appendix C 6

Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B includes seed tree, shelterwood, group selection and thinning vegetation treatments; non-native plant control; rehabilitation of Buck Bald; ephemeral pool construction; maintenance of wildlife openings; temporary road construction; maintenance and reconstruction of system roads; planting of pine and red oak; and woodland creation. Each of these activities will follow the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Following these standards would result in stabilized road beds and cut banks; replacement of deteriorated culverts; and rapid re-vegetation of exposed soils. Overall these activities may reduce the amount of sediment going into streams.

Other activities in the area (see Table 3) may be contributing sediment to streams. Sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Activities, on National Forest System lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic species. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Existing Condition There are 51 (Table 6) aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species on or near the Cherokee National Forest (CNF 2001). The Biological Evaluation contains the complete list and the explanation for deciding which of these species potentially occur in the Buck Bald analysis area. Numerous fish and mussel surveys (USDA Forest Service 2006) have been conducted on streams in the Buck Bald analysis area. Thirteen (Table 7) aquatic TES species could occur in the analysis area.

Table 6. Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species that are on the Cherokee National Forest list and potentially in or near the Buck Bald analysis area Number Group CNF List Assessment Area Amphibians 3 0 Fish 19 1 Insects 8 6 Mussels 21 6 (near) Totals 51 13

Appendix C 7

Table 7. Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species that may occur within the Buck Bald analysis area Group Common Name Status Documented Occurrences Present in Dalton Branch #1 and an unnamed tributary to Dalton Branch; but Fish Tennessee dace Sensitive could occur in any other stream in this area Helma’s net-spinning Insects caddisfly Sensitive Large streams – not likely to occur here Insects Cherokee clubtail Sensitive Could occur in any stream in this area Insects mountain river cruiser Sensitive Could occur in any stream in this area Insects green-faced clubtail Sensitive Could occur in any stream in this area Insects Allegheny snaketail Sensitive Could occur in any stream in this area Insects Appalachian snaketail Sensitive Could occur in any stream in this area Mussels Cumberland bean Endangered Present in the Hiwassee River Mussels tan riffleshell Endangered Present in the Hiwassee River Mussels Tennessee pigtoe Sensitive Present in the Hiwassee River Mussels Tennessee heelsplitter Sensitive Present in the Hiwassee River Mussels Tennessee clubshell Sensitive Present in the Hiwassee River Mussels slabside pearlymussel Sensitive Present in the Hiwassee River

Tennessee dace This species is found in small streams (3 to 6 stream order) with low to moderate gradients (<=4%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet). Woodland streams associated with undercut banks and debris are typical habitats. The Tennessee dace is known in Dalton Branch #1 and an unnamed tributary to Dalton Branch but has never been found in any other stream within the analysis area. Suitable habitat exists for this species in almost all of the other stream reaches in the analysis area. Its absence from other reaches may be due to waterfall barriers.

Helma's net-spinning caddisfly This species is found in large streams (5 order) with low gradient (<=2%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet). It builds nets to capture floating organic matter. Turbid water decreases feeding efficiency. Helma’s net-spinning caddisfly occurs in Big Lost Creek. Suitable habitat for this species may not exist in this analysis area.

Cherokee clubtail This species is found in large streams (5 order) at low gradient (<=2%) with low elevation (<=1200 feet). The Cherokee clubtail is known from Polk County, TN but has never been documented in the analysis area. Suitable habitat may exist for this species in any of the stream reaches in this area.

mountain river cruiser This species is found in large streams (5-7 order) with low gradient (<=2%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet). Degradation of water quality due to logging, agriculture and development is the primary threat. Suitable habitat may exist for this species in any of the stream reaches in this area.

Appendix C 8

green-faced clubtail This species is found in small (<5 order), spring-fed streams with moderate gradients (1% to 4%) over sand, gravel, and detritus in open to partially shaded areas. Adults and larvae are often concentrated in mud-bottoms. The larvae over-winter. These dragonflies are apparently tolerant to some organic pollution, but require good water quality. Suitable habitat may exist for this species in the analysis area but it has never been documented here.

Allegheny snaketail This species is found in small streams (3 or 4 order) with low gradient (<=2%). Suitable habitat may exist for this species in the analysis area.

Appalachian snaketail This species is found in small streams (3 or 4 order) with low gradient (<=2%). Suitable habitat may exist for this species in the analysis area.

Cumberland bean This species is found in large streams (7+ order) with low gradient (<2%) and at low elevation (<1200 feet); known from two sites in the Hiwassee River. Alstead (2005) found 20 live individuals in two days of surveying. Fish host is unknown. No habitat exists within the analysis area but sediment from the analysis could reach the occupied habitat.

tan riffleshell This species is found in large streams (7+ order) with low gradient (<2%) and at low elevation (<1200 feet); historically found in the Hiwassee River but not seen here since 1998 (Ahlstedt 2002). Virginia Tech has stocked almost 8,000 juveniles (600 in 1999 and 7,312 in 2000) in the Hiwassee River (USDA 2006). Fish hosts include sculpins, greenside darter, fantail darter, and redline darter. No habitat exists within the analysis area but sediment from the analysis area could reach the occupied habitat.

Tennessee pigtoe This species is found in large streams (5+ stream order) with low gradient (<=2%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet) and with moderate current in less than 2 feet of water with a coarse sand, silt and gravel substrate. Fish host is unknown. No habitat exists within the analysis area but sediment from the analysis area could reach the occupied habitat.

Tennessee heelsplitter This species is found in small to large streams (stream order 4-6) with low gradient (<=2%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet) with sand and mud substrate and some current. Fish host is unknown. Some very marginal habitat exists within the analysis area but no native mussels have ever been found in the streams in the analysis area. Sediment from the analysis area could reach the occupied habitat.

Tennessee clubshell This species is found in large streams (5+ stream order) with low gradient (<=2%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet) with moderate current in coarse gravel and sand substrate. Fish hosts

Appendix C 9

include: whitetail and common shiners; river chub; central stoneroller; and fantail darter. No habitat exists within the analysis area but sediment from the analysis area could reach the occupied habitat.

slabside pearlymussel This species is found in large streams (5+ stream order) with low gradient (<=2%) at low elevation (<=1200 feet) with moderately strong current in sand, fine gravel, and cobble substrate. Fish hosts include: popeye, rosyface, saffron, silver, telescope, and Tennessee shiners. No habitat exists within the analysis area but sediment from the analysis area could reach the occupied habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A No Action Alternative A would not involve any ground disturbance or use of herbicides. No new adverse affects would occur to the aquatic TES species.

Implementation of Alternative B with full consideration of these standards would result in no direct or indirect effects to aquatic TES species from these management activities (pgs. 198-199; USDA Forest Service 2004b).

Cumulative Effects See Table 3 for a list of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that are considered within this analysis.

Alternative A No Action Alternative A does not propose any new ground disturbance. Other activities in the area may be contributing sediment to streams. Sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic TES species. Activities, on National Forest System lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative A would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic TES species. Reasonably foreseeable activities

Appendix C 10

that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic TES species regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

Other activities in the area (see Table 3) may be contributing sediment to streams. Sediment accumulation was not a problem in this watershed. Consequently, past and present activities in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic TES species. Activities, on National Forest System lands, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting streams listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Cherokee National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Implemented in conjunction with Alternative B would not have an adverse cumulative effect on the aquatic TES species. Reasonably foreseeable activities that occur on private lands could have a negative effect on the aquatic systems regardless of which alternative is selected; the Forest Service cannot control those actions.

REFERENCES

Ahlstedt, Steve. 2002. Preliminary survey for federally listed and non-listed mussels species in the upper Nolichucky river and Hiwassee River (Appalachia cut-off) bordering the Cherokee National Forest. USGS contract. Original available at Cherokee National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. Cleveland, TN.

Ahlstedt, Steve. 2005. Mussel survey for the Cherokee National Forest. USGS contract. Original available at Cherokee National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. Cleveland, TN.

Cherokee National Forest TES List. 2001. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Revised land and resource management plan for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 463 pp.

Appendix C 11

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land and resource management plan for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 535 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Cherokee National Forest Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2004. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN.

USDA Forest Service 2006. Aquatic database for the Cherokee National Forest. Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, Tn.

Appendix C 12 Appendix D

Soil Mapping Units in Proposed Stands with Timber Harvest - Buck Bald Analysis Area Compartment/Stand Soil Mapping Unit 114/21 13E, 16D, 51FN 131/9 13D, 43FN 131/20 43D, 52FN 132/11 13E, 43D, 43FS 132/13 22C, 43D, 47D 132/19 19D, 43FS 132/22 13E, 43FS, 52FN 132/31 19D, 43FS, 52FS, 55F 133/4 19D, 52FN, 52FS 133/9 13E, 19D, 52FN 133/13 19D, 43FS, 55F 133/15 13D, 22D, 43D, 52FS 133/20 13D, 43D, 52FN, 52FS 134/7 13D, 52FS 134/13 13D, 52FS 134/14 13D, 52FS 173/5 13D, 20C 173/20 13D, 20C, 52FN 173/21 13D, 52FN

Appendix D 1 Appendix D

Characteristics of Soil Mapping Units

Soil Unit Characteristics 13D/E 16D 19D 20C 22C 22D 43D 43FS/FN 47D 51FN 52FN 52FS 55F Soil Depth (inches) 50 40 60 50 44 44 26 26 76 33 26 26 60 Sandy Channery Channery Channery Channery Channery Surface Texture Silt loam Loam Loam Silt loam Silt loam Silt loam Loam loam silt loam silt loam silt loam silt loam silt loam Sandy Channery Channery Channery Channery Channery Subsurface Texture Silt loam Loam clay Loam Silt loam Silt loam Silt loam Loam silt loam silt loam silt loam silt loam silt loam loam Ridges Ridge Lower Narrow Narrow Steep Lower Ridges Broad Ridge Steep Ridges and Convex and steep hillsides ridges ridges benches, Landform mountain and Ridges & and ridge and and side convex slopes side & and side and side toe slopes sideslope Sideslope Sideslope sideslope slopes slopes slopes benches slopes slopes slopes Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Drainage Class drained drained drained drained drained drained drained drained drained drained drained drained drained Soil Permeability Moderate Rapid Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Flood Hazard None None None None None None None None None None None None None Moderate/ Slight to Moderate Moderate Moderate Erosion Hazard Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Severe Moderate to severe to severe to severe Slope Range 15-60% 12-25% 15-30% 5-15% 5-12% 12-35% 12-25% 25-60% 12-25% 20-75% 20-60% 20-60% 20-70%

Appendix D 2